Support NeoGAF

[Black Mamba]

I don't want to sound like a dick, but once again you're explaining to me what VAT is, instead of explaining to me why a system that includes VAT and income tax is a better than a system that includes only income tax.
Come on, how hard of an answer can that be?

I did explain it. It reduces waste, compliance costs, and allows the money and time go to more productive things (more investment, consumption of goods/services, saving, etc).

How?
Seriously, explain it to me in small words because I don't get it.
The way I see it we currently have a system that require you to pay income taxes, you suggest a system that on top of income taxes will make you pay VAT, how is your system simpler?

I said we could explore replacing the income taxes for the bottom 60% or so with a VAT. All those people wouldn't have to file any sort of income tax. It's clearly an easier system for them. Weren't you the one recently complaining about filing your own taxes?

The complication in the income tax is the same, and mine don't have VAT, what am I missing here?
How does introducing VAT simplify our income tax code?

A VAT doesn't simplify our tax code. We have to simplify it separately.

I'm saying a small VAT + a simplified income tax code would be beneficial to the current tax code.

That said, a sales tax is theoretically always less costly that the most simple income tax. I say theoretically because I have my doubts at high sales tax levels (ie 60%) due to behavior issues, but at low levels the evidence is on its side.

Why?
Seriously, why do you think that's the best system?
I can show you the drawbacks of VAT, fuck, you pointed them out yourself, what's the benefits?

It's not the best system. The best system wouldn't tax income or consumption.

I explained the benefits. Compliance with a sales tax is much simpler, more straightforward. It also requires less enforcement costs and less manpower to figure out to comply with. When you add this up, this means more resources are freed up to going to productive parts of the economy, whether it means more time to relax or money to reinvest, or whatever. Also, behavior is different depending on the tax.

Don't forget, you also lose out with gov't withholding. Present value of money > future value. Because you have less money, you have less money to save. Imagine you make $30k and saved $5k each year and the gov't took 10% (all withheld). Now you get that money in full and can save up to $5k (or increase it) quicker. And in a good economy where you get say 4% APR, this adds up. Withholding is the gov't's way of taking away some of your purchasing power. This is a real benefit of a sales tax system versus income tax.


I'll try to explain it again.

An income tax allows an easy way to achieve progressiveness in the system. A sales tax reduces loss of economic efficiency in the system. Those are the benefits to each. You ask how the efficiency loss is less, I explained it: lower compliance costs, lower enforcement costs, behavior, etc.

Very simply, sales taxes generally reduce economic output less than income taxes, but they are regressive. A balance is a smart approach.


here is a study explaining the marginal efficiency costs of certain taxes in canada: http://www.fraserinstitute.org/publicationdisplay.aspx?id=13495

 

[Black Mamba]

Would you support a wealth tax, then?

no, not technically.

 

[Black Mamba]

Hmm, that was the only alternative that came immediately to mind. What would you consider the best system of taxation?

Taxing economic rents. I'd start by instituting a land value tax.

 

[Jooney]

Can some wiley cartoonist draw Kim Jong Un and Harry Reid as babies, both crying about threatening to use the nuclear option?

 

[NYCmetsfan]

http://www.redstate.com/2013/04/09/breaking-sources-confirm-senate-republicans-set-to-cave-on-guns/

looks like reid wont have to do anything.

Sources inside the Senate tell me that the Republican Conference is scared to death of the tactics of Senators Lee, Cruz and Paul – that it is supposedly putting them in a tough spot.

Several of the Republicans are using the Manchin-Toomey compromise plan as an excuse to cave on the gun filibuster. They claim that Senators Lee, Cruz, and Paul are running ahead of the conference in their insistence on a filibuster.

What they fail to see is that the cloture vote is the vote to stop the gun legislation from passage.

Several Republican Senators intend to vote against the filibuster, but then vote against the overall bill. This is too clever by half. The GOP does not control the Senate as the GOP is want to say every time they don’t want to fight.

Their only power to block a gun control bill is to unite and filibuster.

Voting for cloture is voting for the gun control bill because, again, as the GOP reminds us, they are not in the majority. The only way to stop it is to filibuster.

That last line infuriates me

 

[B-Dubs]

According to Beutler's twitter, Reid's going to file cloture on the gun bill tonight, and Obama's going to nominate three more judges to the DC circuit. Open question whether Reid thinks he can break the filibuster, or whether the plan is to run into the wall specifically to demonstrate the "unreasonableness" of the GOP so that he can justify some kind of nuclear option -- and whether anything will actually happen at that point. Reid certainly seems to think that he could've passed the filibuster reform if he'd backed it, given that he thinks he can pass it NOW in the middle of a session. We'll have to see.

Well, if I were Reid I'd use the eventual filibuster the GOP is sure to use in this situation as a reason to change the filibuster rules. If he can show that a bill 60% (or whatever majority support gun regulations and it is a majority) of the county supports can't pass after a tragedy like Newtown, then the Senate rules need reform. It would act as justification so news organisations can't just say he's a sore loser (which FOX will do anyway). Of course this would be my plan, Reid's plan will consist of doing nothing at all because this is probably just a token gesture.

 

[Chichikov]

I did explain it. It reduces waste, compliance costs, and allows the money and time go to more productive things (more investment, consumption of goods/services, saving, etc).

If you explained it then I didn't understand it.
Why does a system with vat and income tax has less waste than an income only tax system?
And I'm not sure I understand the whole "money will go to more productive things" angle.
We're not talking about the overall tax rate here, but on how we're going to collect our revenue, "my" and "yours" system take the same overall tax revenue, they just get through different means (and probably from different people).

I said we could explore replacing the income taxes for the bottom 60% or so with a VAT. All those people wouldn't have to file any sort of income tax. It's clearly an easier system for them. Weren't you the one recently complaining about filing your own taxes?

You know that you need to file your taxes even if your'e liability is zero, right?
They'll have to prove to the government that they're in that 60%.
Also, I'm not sure what would that achieve.
What benefits do you think people or the economy will gain from such move?

A VAT doesn't simplify our tax code. We have to simplify it separately.

I'm saying a small VAT + a simplified income tax code would be beneficial to the current tax code.

Okay, so we agree it doesn't simplify our tax code, so why should we do it again?

That said, a sales tax is theoretically always less costly that the most simple income tax. I say theoretically because I have my doubts at high sales tax levels (ie 60%) due to behavior issues, but at low levels the evidence is on its side.

For real man, you're not advocating replacing the income tax with VAT, you're advocating adding VAT to income tax.
Let formalize that -
Define Income Tax filing complexity as C1 and VAT filing complexity as C2.
You keep arguing that C1 > C2, and you might even be right (I don't think so, but that's a different unimportant story) but the real equation is -
C1+C2 > C1

Unless you can show that adding VAT somehow reduces the cost of filing your income taxes (and you seem to agree it doesn't in this very post), I honestly don't see how you can argue against that point.

I explained the benefits. Compliance with a sales tax is much simpler, more straightforward. It also requires less enforcement costs and less manpower to figure out to comply with. When you add this up, this means more resources are freed up to going to productive parts of the economy, whether it means more time to relax or money to reinvest, or whatever. Also, behavior is different depending on the tax.

Don't forget, you also lose out with gov't withholding. Present value of money > future value. Because you have less money, you have less money to save. Imagine you make $30k and saved $5k each year and the gov't took 10% (all withheld). Now you get that money in full and can save up to $5k (or increase it) quicker. And in a good economy where you get say 4% APR, this adds up. Withholding is the gov't's way of taking away some of your purchasing power. This is a real benefit of a sales tax system versus income tax.


I'll try to explain it again.

An income tax allows an easy way to achieve progressiveness in the system. A sales tax reduces loss of economic efficiency in the system. Those are the benefits to each. You ask how the efficiency loss is less, I explained it: lower compliance costs, lower enforcement costs, behavior, etc.

Very simply, sales taxes generally reduce economic output less than income taxes, but they are regressive. A balance is a smart approach.


here is a study explaining the marginal efficiency costs of certain taxes in canada: http://www.fraserinstitute.org/publicationdisplay.aspx?id=13495

I still don't understand how adding a new tax reduce the effort required to compliance, sorry, I just don't get it.
Filing income and VAT takes more effort than filing just income right?
You yourself just admitted that adding VAT does nothing to simplify our tax code?
What am I missing here?

Also, "economic efficiency" is pretty damn nebulous term, but I am not aware of a wildly accepted definition wherein the time to file taxes by private citizens play significantly into it, care to explain?

 

[Fenderputty]

Well, if I were Reid I'd use the eventual filibuster the GOP is sure to use in this situation as a reason to change the filibuster rules. If he can show that a bill 60% (or whatever majority support gun regulations and it is a majority) of the county supports can't pass after a tragedy like Newtown, then the Senate rules need reform. It would act as justification so news organisations can't just say he's a sore loser (which FOX will do anyway). Of course this would be my plan, Reid's plan will consist of doing nothing at all because this is probably just a token gesture.

I think this might be giving Reid too much 11th dimensioal chess credit here.

EDIT: Then I focused on your last line. HAH.

 

[TacticalFox88]

Something I found amusing to ease the tension in here.

 

[Tamanon]

Won't the gun bill just die in the house anyways?

 

[NYCmetsfan]

Won't the gun bill just die in the house anyways?

It will probably be another haster rule violation vote

 

[B-Dubs]

I think this might be giving Reid too much 11th dimensioal chess credit here.

EDIT: Then I focused on your last line. HAH.

Yea, I would do the 11th dimensional chess stuff. Reid is just shitting the bed.

Something I found amusing to ease the tension in here.

My brother brought up a stabbing incident in texas saying it's not the weapon but the person as a reason that 'liberals are stupid and gun grabbers'.

Am I wrong for assuming that a very important distinction between the two (as it is a very large leap in logic) is how many people died from the knife attack vs how many would've died if he had a gun?

Like someone who wasn't a police officer brought him down apparently, which likely wouldn't have happened if the suspect had a gun...

As far as I know no one died in that stabbing thing. Had it been a gun everyone would have died and then some.

 

[smokeandmirrors]

My brother brought up a stabbing incident in texas saying it's not the weapon but the person as a reason that 'liberals are stupid and gun grabbers'.

Am I wrong for assuming that a very important distinction between the two (as it is a very large leap in logic) is how many people died from the knife attack vs how many would've died if he had a gun?

Like someone who wasn't a police officer brought him down apparently, which likely wouldn't have happened if the suspect had a gun...

 

[rocketknight]

Libertarian humour!

 

[FyreWulff]

Libertarians: Constantly missing why fiat currency works

You know, you gotta have that REAL MONEY that only holds value as long as someone else recognizes that gold is worth something

 

[Jooney]

Won't the gun bill just die in the house anyways?

Yes, but you would have every republican on record voting against legislation to protect children that has the support of 90% of the American people. This is why they want to filibuster - to avoid it coming up as a vote.

 

[RustyNails]

Why are libertarians so allergic to economics?

 

[TacticalFox88]

Why are libertarians so allergic to economics?

Libertarians are allergic to how the real world works, so that's no surprise.

 

[B-Dubs]

Why are libertarians so allergic to economics?

Because it would invalidate almost all of their beliefs. Can't exist in fairy land if that damn pesky real world gets in the way. Every economics teacher I ever had absolutely hated libertarian students, especially the outspoken ones. Which is like all of them.

 

[pigeon]

It will probably be another haster rule violation vote

If it passes with a supermajority, this is what I'd expect to see in the House. If Reid really does use the nuclear option, then it's a little trickier to predict how Boehner will respond -- it really depends on how they think things are going to play politically.

 

[Black Mamba]

If you explained it then I didn't understand it.
Why does a system with vat and income tax has less waste than an income only tax system?

Because there's less resources going to compliance, enforcement, and the behavior changes (as I gave an example). Other behavior changes exist. Income taxes cause people to invest and save less compared to sales taxes because they see less money.

And I'm not sure I understand the whole "money will go to more productive things" angle.
We're not talking about the overall tax rate here, but on how we're going to collect our revenue, "my" and "yours" system take the same overall tax revenue, they just get through different means (and probably from different people).

More money goes to more productive things because less is spent on compliance and enforcement and there's generally more investment. If I don't have to pay someone to do my taxes, I can use that money to buy a video game.

You know that you need to file your taxes even if your'e liability is zero, right?
They'll have to prove to the government that they're in that 60%.
Also, I'm not sure what would that achieve.
What benefits do you think people or the economy will gain from such move?

What? You don't have to file taxes now if you have no liability. You're wrong on this one. If you are under 65 and earn under I think $10k/$20k, you don't need to file.

Okay, so we agree it doesn't simplify our tax code, so why should we do it again?

It simplifies it if it replaces it for other people. But that requires removing the income tax for thosepeople, first.

If we still keep the same income tax system (only lower the tax rates), then of course nothing changes there.

For real man, you're not advocating replacing the income tax with VAT, you're advocating adding VAT to income tax.
Let formalize that -
Define Income Tax filing complexity as C1 and VAT filing complexity as C2.
You keep arguing that C1 > C2, and you might even be right (I don't think so, but that's a different unimportant story) but the real equation is -
C1+C2 > C1

Unless you can show that adding VAT somehow reduces the cost of filing your income taxes (and you seem to agree it doesn't in this very post), I honestly don't see how you can argue against that point.

I said replacing the income tax for the bottom 60% so their C1 disappears completely. And yes, C2 > C1. Ask any business owner which is harder, their state sales taxes or income taxes. Come on, sales tax is just revenues multiplied by a percentage. Only places that sell exempted things (ie a supermarket) have to do added calculations which their computers automatically do for them at the time of checkout. It should be fairly obvious which one is harder to comply with. And as I said, the enforcement of income taxes is much harder than sales taxes.

I still don't understand how adding a new tax reduce the effort required to compliance, sorry, I just don't get it.
Filing income and VAT takes more effort than filing just income right?
You yourself just admitted that adding VAT does nothing to simplify our tax code?
What am I missing here?

I'm saying to replace the income tax for many with a VAT. For high income earners, they're compliance costs will change if we simplify the income tax code. Businesses would only have compliance costs go up a bit, which I'm fine with since it will be much less than what we gain by not making everyone else do their own taxes.

Also, "economic efficiency" is pretty damn nebulous term, but I am not aware of a wildly accepted definition wherein the time to file taxes by private citizens play significantly into it, care to explain?

It's not nebulous here. Our economy would grow faster if we brought a portion of our money in from sales taxes.

Income taxes have more compliance and enforcement costs, reduces savings and investments compared to all other taxes, including sales taxes. Sales taxes make people want to save money more.

We accept those negatives because of the progressiveness of income taxes. A balance would be a better approach.

 

[B-Dubs]

If it passes with a supermajority, this is what I'd expect to see in the House. If Reid really does use the nuclear option, then it's a little trickier to predict how Boehner will respond -- it really depends on how they think things are going to play politically.

The House isn't exactly popular and increased gun regulation is. If Reid manages to pass it, even with the nuclear option, it'll give Obama a big boost in his current pitch. It would all depend on how Reid and Senate Dems play the nuclear option, but this is all giving Reid way too much credit.

 

[Jooney]

No. I'm kind of shocked someone would bring that case up as an argument against gun control, as it takes less than five seconds of thought to see that there would have been multiple deaths as opposed to multiple injuries (with two critical) if the guy had been armed with a gun.

... Then you mustn't have heard the people who made the same argument, after the stabbing massacre of children in China on the same day as Newtown.

 

[zero shift]

Were people as vile toward Reagan when he died as many of the English are toward Thatcher?

 

[Clevinger]

Libertarian humour!

There's this Youtube ad for Libertarian comedy videos I keep seeing and it's honestly worse than that terrible Fox News Daily Show rip off from a while ago.

 

[TacticalFox88]

Were people as vile toward Reagan when he died as many of the English are toward Thatcher?

lol, nope. The thing about Reagan is, for the most part, you don't see just how damaging his policies were until 30 years later on down the road. It's going to take years, if not decades to truly undo the assfucking he gave the entire country as a whole. The healing process begins when the current Republican party dies and from the ashes a new party is born.

 

[Rocket Scientist]

Blog post that is by turns fascinating and horrifying, by someone who works in education consulting.

I recommend reading the whole thing.

Is this legit? Because this needs to blow up.

 

[Black Mamba]

Taxable income is labor earnings plus current capital income. Current capital income is the average rate of return on capital multiplied by existing capital at the start of the period. An income tax is levied on taxable income, but a consumption tax is levied on taxable income minus saving. The key difference between an income tax and a consumption tax, therefore, lies in the treatment of saving. A consumption tax excludes current saving from the tax base.

As a result, consumption and income taxes provide differing incentives to save and invest. Under a consumption tax, households are likely to save more in the present because a consumption tax does not penalize savers. The present value of the consumption tax—the value of current and future tax payments discounted to the present—is the same, whether the household consumes now or later.3 In contrast, an income tax places a higher tax burden on savers because households pay their tax on taxable income with no deduction for new saving. The capital income received from the new saving will also be taxed as a part of current capital income in some future period. Under the income based system, households face a higher overall tax burden on capital income and have less incentive for new saving.

But savers do not escape taxation under a consumption tax. If households save in the present, they do not pay tax on the amount of their saving, but the savers or their heirs will eventually pay a consumption tax at some point in the future when they use their accumulated wealth for consumption. Because the saver’s assets earn a return over time, there will be more wealth to spend in the future and more taxes on this consumption. In present value terms, this growth over time will offset the possibility that the consumption taxes may be deferred for a long time into the future.

Maybe this helps with the savings aspect of it?

 

[zero shift]

lol, nope. The thing about Reagan is, for the most part, you don't see just how damaging his policies were until 30 years later on down the road. It's going to take years, if not decades to truly undo the assfucking he gave the entire country as a whole. The healing process begins when the current Republican party dies and from the ashes a new party is born.

I believe that the people that should hate Reagan the most don't understand that he was involved in so much of their modern hardship.

 

[RustyNails]

Were people as vile toward Reagan when he died as many of the English are toward Thatcher?

IIRC we were very respectful of him.

 

[Lambtron]

IIRC we were very respectful of him.

Didn't he win that History Channel "Greatest Presidents of All Time" poll thing shortly after he died?

 

[Chichikov]

Trying to focus the discussion a bit, I think it's getting out of hand, if there's an important point I'm ignoring, let me know.

What? You don't have to file taxes now if you have no liability. You're wrong on this one. If you are under 65 and earn under I think $10k/$20k, you don't need to file.

You still need to figure it out (and in some cases defend that decision to the IRS), but I see what you're saying.
You're actually suggesting a flat zero tax bracket under 70k (or how much the 60th percentile make) and replace the lost revenue with VAT, right?
And you think you can do while not making the tax code more regressive?
I find it very hard to believe.

Also, you're only saving time in tax preparation for individuals, you really think that's going to help the economy?
Especially when you consider that you actually increasing the compliance burden for businesses.

But maybe most importantly, if we simplify our tax code (which we both agree we should do) that argument stop being valid, right?
So why won't we just simplify the tax code?
If that's the only argument, that's seemed like a really bad way to go about it (and it won't help everyone too).

Were people as vile toward Reagan when he died as many of the English are toward Thatcher?

No.
But you need to remember, Reagan was "the great communicator", you can laugh, you can say he didn't communicate well with you, but he resonated very well with large parts of this country.
Thatcher comes across as a vile human being.

 

[RustyNails]

Didn't he win that History Channel "Greatest Presidents of All Time" poll thing shortly after he died?

From a channel that prides itself in making shows about aliens building the pyramids, why am I not surprised?

 

[Black Mamba]

Trying to focus the discussion a bit, I think it's getting out of hand, if there's an important point I'm ignoring, let me know.

You still need to figure it out (and in some cases defend that decision to the IRS), but I see what you're saying.

Ain't hard to figure it out if you're unemployed, though.

You're actually suggesting a flat zero tax bracket under 70k (or how much the 60th percentile make) and replace the lost revenue with VAT, right?
And you think you can do while not making the tax code more regressive?
I find it very hard to believe.

I would suggest a zero tax bracket up until something like that. I would then increase the taxes on those above, specifically the top 10% and especially the top 1%. I would then institute a small VAT that would take less money from the lower income earners than what we currently take through income and payroll taxes (which is an income tax).

Also, you're only saving time in tax preparation for individuals, you really think that's going to help the economy?
Especially when you consider that you actually increasing the compliance burden for businesses.

You're overstating the compliance burden on businesses. Sales taxes impose very little burden on businesses. Furthermore, most businesses deal with a state or local sales tax to begin with, so you're not really doing much to them they don't already have to do. Don't compare a corporate tax compliance to a sales tax compliance. Sales taxes are super duper easy.

But maybe most importantly, if we simplify our tax code (which we both agree we should do) that argument stop being valid, right?
So why won't we just simplify the tax code?
If that's the only argument, that's seemed like a really bad way to go about it (and it won't help everyone too).

No. Sales taxes encourages savings which a lot of Americans don't do enough of. PoliGAF just had this discussion! And no matter how much you simplify it, income taxes reduces economic output more than sales taxes. The question is how much we should be willing to reduce that to maintain progressiveness in how much we tax.


Do you like the gasoline tax? If so, would you support removing the gas tax by increasing income taxes in a way to extract the same dollars? If not, why not?


Taxes should be about 3 things in no specific order:

A. Efficiency
B. Progressiveness (or inequality)
C. Incentives

It's all about balancing those 3 things to how we want our society to look. As I said, the best approach would be taxing economic rents first but our society won't go that route, so the next best solution is to approach what bests balances those 3. Now, some people may sacrifice more efficiency for more equality than others, but that's what it should be about.

I think we could institute a VAT and keep an income tax and reduce the tax burden on most Americans who need it. Of course, I don't endorse any system that may increase their burden. But it is possible to do that and come up with a better solution than just an income tax.

edit: Again, I'm just arguing we can do this. You wanted to know why consumption taxes can be preferable in situations to an income tax and I'm giving them.

My goal right now is simply to increase the progressiveness of the current income tax structure because it's fucking awful.

 

[Gotchaye]

I'm not sure this is directly relevant, but I feel like it's worth noting -- compared to the rest of the world, taxes on the rich are actually surprisingly high in America.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...-the-world-its-government-is-among-the-least/

This might explain some of the issues in this discussion. One reason that it's politically tough at this point to keep raising taxes on the rich is that they're actually paying a lot of taxes! The problem we have isn't a tax problem, it's a social program problem, because social programs can be a lot more efficient at reducing inequality than taxation. I don't think you can usefully consider the question of tax progressivity without coupling it with transfers.

Is this inclusive of state and local taxes? How are payroll taxes counted? The first link in the article goes to an article on why the US tax system looks more progressive than it is, and has this graph:

 

[CoffeeJanitor]

Jesus christ, listening to the conservative politicians rip Obama's plan on NPR is painful, but thank god there are morons who won't accept SS cuts...

 

[TacticalFox88]

As the Senate prepares to take up a comprehensive gun safety bill on Thursday, Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK) told reporters that the coming debate will have nothing to do with the families of the victims from Newtown, Connecticut.

“See, I think it’s so unfair of the administration to hurt these families, to make them think this has something to do with them when, in fact, it doesn’t,” Inhofe said and suggested that Obama is manipulating and misinforming the families for political purposes.

Obama called on Congress to support gun safety legislation during a speech in Hartford, Connecticut on Monday. He then traveled with 12 families whose loved ones were killed at Sandy Hook Elementary School back to D.C. on Air Force One to help him lobby lawmakers in favor of a Senate proposal that expands background checks to all purchases, cracks down on gun trafficking and invests in school safety.

Inhofe is part of a group of 14 senators who have pledged to block consideration of the bill, though their effort to filibuster reform appear to have fallen short. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) announced on Tuesday that he would file cloture on the measure.

The Oklahoma senator has an A+ rating from the NRA and Gun Owners of America. He has taken at least $19,800 from the former since 1998.

I'm at a loss for fucking words.

Holy fucking shit.

 

[Averon]

Jesus christ, listening to the conservative politicians rip Obama's plan on NPR is painful, but thank god there are morons who won't accept SS cuts...

Obama gives the GOP the rope to hang him and the Dems with and they still refuse it. Surprising how the GOP's intransigence has been helpful from time to time.

 

[ClassyPenguin]

Why are libertarians so allergic to economics?

rejection of empiricism

 

[speculawyer]

I'm at a loss for fucking words.

Holy fucking shit.

You see their kids are already dead, so this bill won't help them at all!

 

[Aaron Strife]

Sounds like the big thing behind McConnell's secret meetings is he may have been violating Senate ethics rules. Partisan activity is forbidden while senators are on government time.

http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/201...loyees-research-political-attacks-ashley-judd

 

[ClassyPenguin]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/09/arkansas-planned-parenthood-sex-ed_n_3047024.html

The Arkansas Senate on Tuesday passed a bill that defunds Planned Parenthood and effectively kills a comprehensive sex education program in the state's public high schools.

Arkansas Senate Bill 818, introduced by state Rep. Gary Stubblefield (R-Branch), would block all state funds from going to any entity that provides abortions or refers patients to other abortion providers. The bill would also prohibit any organization that contracts with an abortion provider or referrer, including power companies, water companies, health insurers or medical suppliers, from receiving any state money. Supporters of the bill argue that it prevents taxpayer money from indirectly paying for abortion and abortion referrals.

Planned Parenthood does not receive any family planning money from the state, but the bill will end a state-funded HIV and STI prevention program that Planned Parenthood administers in Arkansas public high schools. Darrell Seward, the assistant football coach and health education teacher at Little Rock Central High School, said the program is invaluable to his students.

fucking disgusting.

 

[gcubed]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/09/arkansas-planned-parenthood-sex-ed_n_3047024.html


fucking disgusting.

Meh. As the state has more unwanted children, their poverty rate continues to rise (only has a few states to jump over to be the worst!) And the state continues to fall into nothingness.

 

[CoffeeJanitor]

Meh. As the state has more unwanted children, their poverty rate continues to rise (only has a few states to jump over to be the worst!) And the state continues to fall into nothingness.

Seems fine until you consider that kids will be affected by this...

 

[Chichikov]

Ain't hard to figure it out if you're unemployed, though.

Come on man, they don't pay taxes today, we're not unburdening them with your proposal.
Are you arguing for the sake of arguing?

You're overstating the compliance burden on businesses. Sales taxes impose very little burden on businesses. Furthermore, most businesses deal with a state or local sales tax to begin with, so you're not really doing much to them they don't already have to do. Don't compare a corporate tax compliance to a sales tax compliance. Sales taxes are super duper easy.

I don't think I do, I used to run a business in a country that had VAT, and I also know what's it's like to be in an industry when the only way you can keep your prices competitive is to avoid paying VAT (which is pretty much what everyone did on every cash transaction, if you want to talk about "market distortions").
But more importantly, regardless of the amount of the increase, can we agree that your plan will increase the compliance burden for businesses?
So please, let put the "VAT will reduce the compliance burden" argument to bed, okay?

No. Sales taxes encourages savings which a lot of Americans don't do enough of. PoliGAF just had this discussion! And no matter how much you simplify it, income taxes reduces economic output more than sales taxes. The question is how much we should be willing to reduce that to maintain progressiveness in how much we tax.

First of all, I think we should encourage spending, not savings.
Do you support deflation too?
That encourages savings more than anything.
A less nice way of saying the exact same thing is that it discourage consumption, and consumption is an economically positive activity.

I also don't accept your assertion that income tax reduces economic output more than VAT.
On a macro level, they're the same, either people have less money to spend or things cost more, what's the difference?

 

[speculawyer]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/09/arkansas-planned-parenthood-sex-ed_n_3047024.html

fucking disgusting.

This pisses me off so much.

The GOP has this nasty contradictory nature where their policies just become a factory for manufacturing human misery. They've got the anti-welfare, anti-unemployment, anti-subsidized housing, etc. aspect. And they've got the anti-birth control, anti-abortion, anti-sex education, etc. aspect. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see the outcome doing both these policies simultaneously. It is basically a means of creating third-world poverty.

For fuck sake, at least pick one of those two policies to go with it.

 

[speculawyer]

Meh. As the state has more unwanted children, their poverty rate continues to rise (only has a few states to jump over to be the worst!) And the state continues to fall into nothingness.

I'm working on a new sarcastic talking-point for these policies.

The GOP wants to stop sex-education, birth control, and abortion since that will create more babbies. And with more babbies, their red states can collect more welfare, more food-stamps, more medicaid, more disability, etc. Alabama, Mississippi, and other such states are addicted to welfare and are doing what ever they can to collect more of it. Their economies are based on it.


Yes, that is sarcastic but . . . it is not a totally irrational thing to deduce from their behavior.

 

[Trurl]

Republicans in the Ohio House are rejecting the Medicaid expansion even after Kasich supported it. Goddamn am I angry. Apart from being heartless, how does this make any sense for Ohio?

http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/local/2013/04/08/Ohio-Medicaid-expansion.html

This party needs to disappear.

 

[zargle]

Republicans in the Ohio House are rejecting the Medicaid expansion even after Kasich supported it. Goddamn am I angry. Apart from being heartless, how does this make any sense for Ohio?

http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/local/2013/04/08/Ohio-Medicaid-expansion.html

This party needs to disappear.

This pisses me off a bunch. I work in a legal aid office and our Healthcare/Medicaid related lawyers have been pushing hard for it with Kasich. This just doesnt make sense.

 

[PhoenixDark]

Republicans in the Ohio House are rejecting the Medicaid expansion even after Kasich supported it. Goddamn am I angry. Apart from being heartless, how does this make any sense for Ohio?

http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/local/2013/04/08/Ohio-Medicaid-expansion.html

This party needs to disappear.

It's really baffling considering how much money it saves states. If you truly care about your state budget you'll support the expansion; hell, a state could use the money it saves from the expansion to give out tax cuts to the rich. This is what happens when ideology trumps common sense.