“Fiscal Indulgences”

5 thoughts on ““Fiscal Indulgences””

1. So what I read is that Democrats like high taxes so they can sell tax write-offs to major contributors and Republicans sell low taxes instead? Which is worse? The high taxes method makes a kind of inverse net where only the little fish get caught and the big fish get away.Report

   1. Yeah, that’s not quite what it’s saying. They’re saying that you have thousands of these little gimmes to different groups that have accumulated over the years for the usual reason- politicians love to buy off their constituents. Getting rid of the tax expenditures would be an easy way to boost revenue since they amount to “Here’s your get out of a tax free card- thanks for supporting my campaign!” But that probably won’t happen. Why? Well, what you said about Democrats liking to sell them. Also that Obama would rather leave them and raise taxes. Plus, Republicans see closing those loopholes to get rid of the tax credits as a tax increase, which of course is just crap. It’s not that they “like low taxes” because this isn’t low taxes. It’s manipulating the code for whoever can afford enough lobbyists or donate enough to their campaign. Both of them are “selling low taxes to the big fish”, and neither of them are much inclined to do anything to change that.Report

      1. Incidentally, this explains why the various “Fair Tax” and “Flat Tax” proposals won’t work. The present tax code isn’t complicated because of some dark motives at the IRS, it’s complicated because everything in there is the result of a special case. If you have one source of income, don’t own property, and have a tax-deferred IRA, then “doing your taxes” is quite simple.Report

         1. Yes.Report

         2. This too.Report

Comments are closed.