Shop Mobile More Submit  Join Login

Details

Closed to new replies
November 15, 2012
Link

Statistics

Replies: 29

Want Bipartisan Tax Reform? Ask the Libertarian!

:icontbschemer:
TBSchemer Featured By Owner Nov 15, 2012
So long as each party continues to demand that the other give up its principles, there can be no compromise. Not on taxes, not on anything else. Demands for tax hikes are not compromise. Demands for tax breaks without covering them with new revenue are not compromise. It doesn't matter how many treats for the other side you put into your proposal- if you're asking them to accept a plan that violates their most fundamental principles, you're not compromising.

To give you all some perspective, I want to show you what a real bipartisan compromise plan might look like.

In these debates over the tax code, what do the Democrats care the most about? Finding new revenue, and ensuring most of it comes from the rich.
And what do the Republicans care the most about? Cutting tax rates, and ensuring that nobody's tax rate increases.

So here's how we solve this. We give the Democrats full control over the source of revenue, with the one condition that the revenue must come from eliminating tax credits and deductions, not from hiking tax rates or imposing new forms of taxes. Then, we link cuts in the tax rates to the raising of revenue. We also must ensure that we're taking the wind out of the class-warriors by giving a better deal to the lower tax brackets than to the higher tax brackets.

So the Democrats can eliminate any deductions they want for revenue, but it will be accompanied with cuts in the tax rate of a proportional nature, with the factor depending on the tax bracket it hits:

Tax brackets
10%: Every $1 of new revenue comes with $1 of cuts in the tax rates.
15%: Every $1 of new revenue comes with $0.90 of cuts in the tax rates.
25%: Every $1 of new revenue comes with $0.80 of cuts in the tax rates.
28%: Every $1 of new revenue comes with $0.70 of cuts in the tax rates.
33%: Every $1 of new revenue comes with $0.60 of cuts in the tax rates.
35%: Every $1 of new revenue comes with $0.50 of cuts in the tax rates.

In this way, the plan is revenue positive even as the tax rates are reduced. Even better is the fact that the Democrats get to choose both the size and the distribution of the cuts. This plan should give both sides something they want while raising a significant chunk of revenue to help reduce the deficit. Additionally, this plan is progressive, egalitarian, conservative, and libertarian all at the same time. This is what real compromise looks like.

Do you like this plan? Do you think the Republicans would accept this plan? Do you think the Democrats would accept it? Do you think Obama would accept it?
Reply

You can no longer comment on this thread as it was closed due to no activity for a month.

Devious Comments

:iconkitsumekat:
kitsumekat Featured By Owner Nov 16, 2012
Add increasing the import tax and making the tax cuts 45% for everyone and I'll agree with you.
Reply
:icontbschemer:
TBSchemer Featured By Owner Nov 17, 2012
Increasing the import tax? Are you seriously suggesting the same protectionist policies that Herbert Hoover implemented?
Reply
:iconkitsumekat:
kitsumekat Featured By Owner Nov 17, 2012
Yes.
Reply
:icontbschemer:
TBSchemer Featured By Owner Nov 17, 2012
So your goal is to speed up the onset of the Obama recession? I have to hand it to you, that would certainly be a good strategy for making Obama's reelection look like the disaster it was.
Reply
:iconkitsumekat:
kitsumekat Featured By Owner Nov 17, 2012
No. There is barely an import tax for third world countries and even if there are, the tax is under a dollar. If we raise the import tax, that should offset some tax revenue.
Reply
:iconferricplushy:
FerricPlushy Featured By Owner Nov 16, 2012  Hobbyist Artist
You do realize Obama offered Boehner $10 in spending cuts for every $1 of tax increases and the speaker of the house refused. If you can't compromise with a 10 to 1 favor then you obviously have no intention of doing any work.
Reply
:icontbschemer:
TBSchemer Featured By Owner Nov 16, 2012
Hikes in the actual tax rates are non-negotiable. It would completely violate the basic principles of every Republican, conservative, and libertarian. It's not compromise if you're deliberately violating the principles of the people you're trying to bargain with.

Obama doesn't want compromise. He just wants to make a show of it, but ensure that the deal is too poisonous for the Republicans to touch. If he actually wanted to compromise, he would offer Boehner the same plan with additional revenue through elimination of tax credits and deductions, rather than through hikes in the marginal tax rates. Obama is one of the shittiest leaders this country has ever had.
Reply
:iconferricplushy:
FerricPlushy Featured By Owner Nov 16, 2012  Hobbyist Artist
Dude you are the biggest bullshitter, the only reason republicans refuse to raise taxes is to appease their campaign contributors. They have been given overwhelming favor in negotiations and absolutely refuse to negotiate. Obama gives them ten to one favor and they still refuse to cooperate, there's nothing they can do about that.
And I'm fully aware of what Americans for Prosperity is and why it's destroying this country.
Reply
:icontbschemer:
TBSchemer Featured By Owner Nov 17, 2012
As long as you refuse to acknowledge that people are allowed to have principles other than your own, you will never be capable of compromise.
Reply
:iconsahidenethare:
SahidenEthare Featured By Owner Nov 16, 2012   Writer
It's the kind of plan we often see in Belgium.
Personally, I think the USA has become too divided because of the two party system. It's become an Us vs Them thing rather than electing the most capable government. Because of that, the people are quick to demonize the other party instead of trying to understand where they're coming from. That makes compromises very hard to pull off for today's politicians.
It's quite a distressing social evolution.
Reply
:iconthelightswentoutin99:
TheLightsWentOutIn99 Featured By Owner Nov 16, 2012  Student Writer
Wait, how's Belgium in terms of parties working together?
Reply
:iconsahidenethare:
SahidenEthare Featured By Owner Nov 16, 2012   Writer
Belgium is strictly ruled by coalitions. We don't have parties capable of ruling alone due to the multi-party system. It's actually more complicated than that, since we're also a country in different parts with separate governments and one federate government as well. The federate government consists of both the elected French and Dutch parties from the Walloons and the Flemish, which sometimes leads to rather interesting combinations of ideologies. [link]
[link]

Due to this though, there's less polarisation, and parties are often capable of reaching compromises, though it limits certain decisions. Taxes are a very touchy subject, for example.
The only party excluded from this trend is the Vlaams Belang, an extreme right party. No one wants to work together with them for historic reasons. (They were openly racist and we wanted to push Belgium as a multicultural country) [link]

Basically, Belgium is like a small version of Europe. It may be functional, but it is slow.
Reply
:iconthelightswentoutin99:
TheLightsWentOutIn99 Featured By Owner Nov 16, 2012  Student Writer
Thanks for the info. I was wondering, because I remember Belgium being at an absolute deadlock a few years ago, due to the ethnic divisions.
Reply
:iconsahidenethare:
SahidenEthare Featured By Owner Nov 16, 2012   Writer
Ah yes, the deadlock was actually over an issue that mattered to no one but politicians. There were a number of Flemish cities nearby Brussels where the French speaking people could vote for the Walloon parties, but the same did not count for Dutch speakers in similar Walloon cities. The info on that is shortlisted here: [link]

The funny part is that while we spent years without a functional federal government, the country simply continued to run as if nothing happened. Then again, we had the other governments to count on. Redundancy works. ;)
Reply
:iconthelightswentoutin99:
TheLightsWentOutIn99 Featured By Owner Nov 20, 2012  Student Writer
Ah, okay. Thank you for the info.
Reply
:iconsahidenethare:
SahidenEthare Featured By Owner Nov 20, 2012   Writer
No problem. :D
Reply
:iconthelightswentoutin99:
TheLightsWentOutIn99 Featured By Owner Nov 15, 2012  Student Writer
See, this is a good thread. Couple this with entitlement reform, and there might be something to it.
Reply
:iconebolabearvomit:
EbolaBearVomit Featured By Owner Nov 16, 2012
Define 'entitlement' because there are different opinions as to what that means.
Reply
:iconthelightswentoutin99:
TheLightsWentOutIn99 Featured By Owner Nov 16, 2012  Student Writer
Medicare, Medicaid, "Income Security," and whiny little kids who want iPads for Christmas
Reply
:icontbschemer:
TBSchemer Featured By Owner Nov 17, 2012
And uneducated assholes like this: [link]
Reply
:iconthelightswentoutin99:
TheLightsWentOutIn99 Featured By Owner Nov 17, 2012  Student Writer
Did I not mention "income security?" Even people like that need a back-up plan after it runs out.
Reply
:icontbschemer:
TBSchemer Featured By Owner Nov 18, 2012
They can find their own back-up plan, without stealing from the rest of us.
Reply
:iconthelightswentoutin99:
TheLightsWentOutIn99 Featured By Owner Nov 18, 2012  Student Writer
Theft is legally defined.
Reply
:iconebolabearvomit:
EbolaBearVomit Featured By Owner Nov 15, 2012
I think giving Dems and Repubs more money to fuck with is a bad idea. They both blow through the shit like it grows on trees.
Reply
:icontbschemer:
TBSchemer Featured By Owner Nov 15, 2012
On the one hand, yeah, you're right. On the other hand, the tax deduction powers put a lot of money indirectly under the government's control. So the net result of this plan would be to take all the money they're indirectly controlling, and give them direct control over some of it while completely removing their control over most of it.
Reply
:iconsnuffles11:
snuffles11 Featured By Owner Nov 15, 2012  Hobbyist General Artist
As you asked, here I am.

I have no great surety that anybody would do this. Or that if they did, they'd do it to be "first" and grab political points to show that the other side wouldn't compromise. It's pretty polarized right now.
Reply
:icontbschemer:
TBSchemer Featured By Owner Nov 15, 2012
Also, this is very similar to Mitt Romney's proposal, except instead of proposing a massive tax cut and hoping the revenue adds up, we're letting the amount of revenue we can raise define how big the cuts are. Plus, Romney's plan was supposed to be revenue-neutral, whereas this plan would be revenue-positive.
Reply
:icontbschemer:
TBSchemer Featured By Owner Nov 15, 2012
To give an example of how this would work, suppose the Democrats choose to eliminate a certain donation tax credit that mainly affects people in the top two tax brackets. This is calculated by the CBO to bring in $100 billion in additional revenue over the next 10 years, 40% of which is from the 33% bracket, and 60% of which is from the 35% bracket. This plan would then require that the 33% rate be cut down enough to return $20 billion to that bracket over the next 10 years, and the 35% rate would be cut down enough to return $30 billion to them.

If a higher rate is cut down enough to pass a lower rate, then the two brackets are simply merged.

This would eliminate quite a few special interests and make the way we support the government far more egalitarian, while giving people more control over their own money.
Reply
:icontbschemer:
TBSchemer Featured By Owner Nov 15, 2012
Sorry, make that $24 billion in tax cuts for the 33% bracket. They get 60 cents of cuts for every dollar of new revenue.
Reply
Add a Comment: