I know your “Aw, that’s so cute though.” broadside was aimed at the spineless legislators, but to me it also sideswiped the advocates who, against significant odds, are trying to make the world a little better. In Illinois, I was part of a coalition that got an insurance mandate, in the land of State Farm and AllState, through the General Assembly. We too faced daunting odds, but we had a steadfast legislator champion and a lot of volunteer energy. Our motto? “Everything’s impossible...and then it’s done.”
Good point about baseball: even terrible teams win at least one-quarter of the time. This suggests that baseball games are too short for the better team to always win. If games were longer--more innings, not more advertisements--I suspect good teams would win more often and and bad teams would lose more often.
Fans in the stands use commercial breaks to return the beer they rented earlier in the game, so eliminating those breaks entirely wouldn't fly. Maybe a decent break after the 3rd, the 6th, and so if the game runs to extra innings. On the other hand, why promote the lopsided annual results that longer games might well bring? I don't see anything broken here, now that pitchers and batters can't engage in all that needless, irritating posturing between pitches.
To clarify, I don't advocate longer games. One appeal of baseball is that winners/losers are harder to predict than in other major sports. Just suggesting an explanation.
Planet money had an interesting report on this issue in the context of California state tax. The opposing force to IRS or state tax filing simplification/automation is not just companies who offer such services; although they are part of it.
Having simplified filing on top of a complex tax code instead of simplifying the tax code risks unintended consequences. In the 80's we did not think the tax code was simple, but the 1040-EZ form now seems like the good old days for a large number of filers.
You may think I am a paranoic, but I think it is at least worth considering some risks. Although holding out for simpler tax code may be an example of the perfect being the enemy of the good.
Only one even mildly funny tweet this week, and I don't get a few of them.
RE: lower speed limits - good luck enforcing that if it happens. Ever driven on Lake Shore Drive, Chicago's very own, year-round NASCAR track? We could close the budget gap if drivers going more than 10 miles over the limit were ticketed. But it's very rare that I even see a squad there.
Regarding John Greenfield's comments on lowering the speed limits for cars. I will gladly lower my speed as long as bicyclists start obeying traffic laws. He certainly has a lot of very expensive suggestions for slowing down cars and retro-fitting streets made for cars to bike lanes. But I wonder how many traffic laws John violates each time he rides? I would think the best way to pay for all these improvements, would be for the police to actually enforce the traffic laws bike riders, by law, are supposed to obey. The revenue generated by this new batch of well-deserved fines would surely pay for all the concrete traffic converters, raised crosswalks, and "road diets" John desires. Let's play fair. If you want or demand to share the road, you need to follow the rules of the road.
Laws and sausages. It is good to call out shenanigans on things like August polls. What is striking is how recently OH Republicans called them "anti-democratic". But OH Republicans are not the first to take positions which go against previously stated positions. Also there is a big gray area of what is shenanigans vs just how the game is played. I urge bloggers to evenly call out such manipulations regardless of the issue.
It would be nice to have the horrible Republican "60% to pass an amendment" in Illinois. In our state it is nearly impossible to get an amendment on the ballot and the Democratic legislature derails anything desired by citizens, like independent redistricting or changing the pension clause, but push through their faves, like graduated tax rates.
I cycle a pretty good amount, and I have had MANY bad experienced with drivers. That said, I think lowering the residential limit to 10 borders on absurd. It's probably a negotiating tactic — "ok, we'll move up from 10 to 20." And I'm fine with that, along with the infrastructure improvements Greenfield mentions. But 10mph? Let's be realistic.
To the noble bicycle enthusiasts who cheer every effort to reduce our reliance on the automobile, I ask that you consider the impact on the disabled, and then consider how many people you know who are incapable of jumping on a bike to navigate their neighborhoods. As the father of a recently disabled son, I now thank god for our car-centric cities and suburbs — they allow him the opportunity to access and enjoy most of the places that draw us to large metro areas in the first place.
What legislation is favored by 86% of republicans, 83% of independents and 80% of democrats, but will never see a 2/3 state or federal legislature vote as a constitutional amendment?
Another way in the Republican (now MAGA) war against trust in instutions is paying off. One of the powerful arguments in favour of the vampire tax preparers is that a large % of taxpayers do not trust the IRS, no matter how good their free system is
The US tax code is an incredibly lengthy, complex and even cryptic set of rules and regulations. There are amendments to our tax code every legislative session to benefit favored constituencies all across the political spectrum. And of course, the tax code is of huge benefit to the accounting industry with many professionals specializing in tax preparation.
Decades ago Steve Forbes came forth with a proposal for a universal flat tax that would have very minimal deductions, say for mortgage interest and charitable giving. Another alternative to our current system would be a value-added tax such as currently used in some European countries where people pay their taxes in the process of their purchasing. Polls have consistently shown that either of these approaches are viewed positively by a majority of US citizens, yet the bipartisan powers that be and their vested interests are never going to let them see the light of day.
The "Flat tax" proposal comes up once i a while. The first time in my memory was Jerry Brown's campaign for the democratic nomination for president. A few years later it surfaced with some Republicans. I agree that flat tax and VAT have no chance of becoming policy.
Flat tax and term limits are two poster children for the difference between a direct democracy in which we would quickly vote them in, and our representative democracy where the vested interests keep them blocked.
The "we" who would quickly vote in the flat tax doesn't include the poor. Without a deduction for the necessities of food, clothing, shelter, and medicine, the flat tax idea should skulk back to its cave and stay there. Live a year in their shoes before indulging in this "make life simpler for those of means" nonsense, please.
Well, it is "flat". But "fair" is in the eye of the beholder. The top 10% of Illinoisans pay 74% of the state's income tax revenue. Some think that's too little, some think that's too much.
Currently Illinoisans in the bottom 20 percent of income—less than $21,800 in income—pay 14.4 percent of their incomes in combined state and local taxes, while the top 1 percent—$537,400 and higher in income—pay only 7.4 percent.
Both the federal government and state and in some cases local government provide subsidies to disadvantaged people for housing, food, medicine etc, and there is no reason why these would not continue with a flat tax.
And thank you for once again responding with a personal attack without knowing anything about me. I did indeed "walk in the shoes" of not having much the first part of my life. I worked 25 hours per week and managed the 12 unit apartment building I lived in to finance myself through college. My first job on which I supported my wife and at that time first child paid the princely salary of $10,500 per year. I do indeed know how to live without having much. Through hard work and perseverance I was able over time to better myself and my family.
I sincerely suggest that you refrain from personal attacks on people you disagree with and instead debate the ideas and issues on their respective merits are lack thereof.
That was "Joanie" that got personal yesterday. Joan today. Don't feel bad. I was called a racist a couple months ago for quoting FBI crime statistics and for "lieing" a couple days ago. Better than lying I guess... :)
Thanks David O. Resorting to personal attacks always suggests to me that the person doing so is unable to articulate a cogent defense of their position, and intemperate persona, or both. Let's just respectfully debate ideas and issues people!
Fair points all! I realize that I generalized from a few long-ago defenses of flat tax that expressly called for an end to all such subsidies. Generalizing from such a small sample was bad enough, but the ire I followed it with was uncalled-for, and I'm glad you called me on it. Definitely time for me to chill out, with my apologies. I'm still not in love with flat tax, but that's a matter for a cooler day.
Thanks Joan, I appreciate your kind words. I love nothing more than a robust debate back and forth as that is the only way we can learn from people holding different views and hopefully try to find common ground.
@Joan Pederson, I had to re-read your comment over a few times to see what the issue was; it did not strike me as mean or angry when I first read it. Characterizing the flat tax idea as nonsense is pretty mild, IMO. This is especially true given that you stated your reason for not liking the idea first, and that reason comes from a place of good intent.
We are lucky to have EZ writing this blog for us and having a respectful forum to discuss our thoughts that his writings inspire in us. My hope is that it can continue as an unmoderated forum.
I like when people post information I did not know or share perspectives I have not thought through. Whether or not I am in agreement with the conclusions of the one who is posting is beside the point.
Progressiveness doesn't make our tax code complicated. It's arriving at your taxable income amount that's complicated -- credits, deductions, capital gains, etc. After you have that amount, determining your tax liability is as simple as entering it into the simplest computer in the world or looking it up on the table, free and available to the public online (or even just doing the not-so-hard math yourself). https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/i1040tt.pdf Tax software does it automatically, and a pre-filled out 1040 the IRS could do it too.
I'm strongly opposed to a federal flat tax (whether on income or consumption or however you do it), because I think it's fair that higher income should be taxed at higher rates. It's based on need. The more dollars you accumulate, the less necessary those dollars become to sustaining a comfortable lifestyle.
Think of it this way: switching to a flat tax would increase taxes for most Americans least able to afford it while decreasing taxes on the wealthy far more able to afford it. That strikes me as perverse, and it certainly wouldn't get voter approval. (And, if one day we decided to actually tax the ultra-wealthy -- outlawing such schemes as buy-borrow-die that allow them to live on untaxed loan proceeds backed by spectacular wealth at low interest -- a progressive tax would finally result in taxing the greatest income at the highest rates.)
I'm left cold by the argument that the very wealthy have an equal moral claim on all their dollars, from the first to the one gazillionth. I don't think anybody has a strong moral claim on vast riches, no matter how obtained. Even if the presence of vast riches in a democratic republic is not necessarily a sign of latent criminality somewhere down the line, or, at least that something has gone wrong, I'm with Shelley on this one: "No man has a right to monopolize more than he can enjoy; what the rich give to the poor, whilst millions are starving, is not a perfect favour, but an imperfect right." https://www.grace.umd.edu/~djb/shelley/declaration1880.html
I certainly favor rewarding hard work and rare talent and great genius and useful accomplishments, along with all the Ben Franklin-ish thrifty virtues, and I don't even say, as some do, "outlaw billionaires" or, worse, "eat the rich." But a progressive tax maintains good incentives. Indeed, the genius of it is that, because only income beyond the given thresholds is taxed at the higher rate, it's always in one's interest, no matter how high the next bracket (so long as it's not 100%), to earn more.
As a moral matter, a flat tax can only be sustained on a radical principle, at odds with reality and common sense, that the wealthy always and everywhere deserve all their wealth equally merely for having acquired it legally, whether through wholesome means, gift, or grift, and never mind the social consequences. The first progressive tax was Lincoln's and we can thank Wilson (now on the outs in progressive circles, ironically) for instituting our now hundred-year-old progressive tax. In that time, America's has become the richest, most dynamic economy in the world, so I think we can afford a little Robin-Hooding in the name of a slightly more just distribution of our rich society's riches.
Your quotation from Shelley, “No man has a right to monopolise more than he can enjoy,” reminds me of one of my favorite scenes in the movies. It’s in the movie Chinatown, and Jake Gittes, played by Jack Nicholson, is asking Noah Cross, played by John Huston, why he cheated the farmers and murdered his partner.
“Jake Gittes : How much are you worth?
Noah Cross : I have no idea. How much do you want?
Jake Gittes : I just wanna know what you're worth. More than 10 million?
Noah Cross : Oh my, yes!
Jake Gittes : Why are you doing it? How much better can you eat? What could you buy that you can't already afford?”
I really don’t understand why people want more money than they could possibly spend leading normal lives. Give me enough for a roof over my head, enough to eat, and enough to a vacation every year.
Agreed. Also, one of my favorite movies. It's sort of a sick alchemy by which market fundamentalists turn Adam Smith, the brilliant Scottish Enlightenment author of both the Wealth of Nations and the lovely Theory of Moral Sentiments and one of my favorite people, into the sanctification of Cross-ish naked greed and lust for power, as though, to sustain our economy, we must, on principle mind you, rigorously assure vindication of the supposedly natural human desire to be a vulgar asshole. I don't buy it.
Yeah, the government is so good at pre-filling-in things like, say, assessed property values that a major, pretty successful industry has grown up to dispute them.
Having been through a tax audit in which the amount the IRS claimed they were owed was off (they finally agreed) by a factor of 10 in their favor, I remain unenthusiastic about having them do my taxes.
It is definitely good to have the option to have one's own opinion on taxable income and tax liability, I do not see any harm in allowing the option for use software authorized by the IRS. If they made it mandatory, then it gets more complicated. TurboTax or TaxCut could have errors (to be clear, I do not know of any), but you have the option to not use them.
The property tax assessment is done by PEOPLE who work at the government. And they use their own understanding of the value of stuff to make the assessment, not to mention the value of keeping rich people rich and happy. Nothing about the property assessment process is likely to result in a fair outcome.
The IRS already has all the facts it needs to prepopulate the tax filing form for regular salary folks. The IRS has our W-2s, 1099s, and the like. No human will be involved in setting those values.
It likely would NOT appeal to those people who have investment income and the like. Nor would the IRS offer its 'Free File' to those people.
IRS offering free filing program. That's ridiculous. What about all those people who save all their receipts in a shoe box? The dad's that carves out "that Saturday" to sit uninterrupted until files are finished. Think of librarians who have the responsibility to point out where the paper forms are located in the lobby. Are we just going to follow the lead of every other country? Germany offers mandatory vacations and free healthcare. Are we suddenly going to offer that? Anarchy I say!
Speed Limits. You have to admit the article is biased - because the change doesn't (directly) affect bicyclists. We support limits on drivers. Drivers already have obstacles to avoid pedestrians, bicyclists, squirrels, potholes - but let's add more obstacles to lower speeds. Policing this change... don't get me started. That system has bigger fish to fry. (Times being what they are - can I say that phrase?) I'm sure I'm not the only one who would be suspicious that speed cameras would be the next revenue driving factor behind this. Drive 26 MPH - $200 fine.
I know your “Aw, that’s so cute though.” broadside was aimed at the spineless legislators, but to me it also sideswiped the advocates who, against significant odds, are trying to make the world a little better. In Illinois, I was part of a coalition that got an insurance mandate, in the land of State Farm and AllState, through the General Assembly. We too faced daunting odds, but we had a steadfast legislator champion and a lot of volunteer energy. Our motto? “Everything’s impossible...and then it’s done.”
Good point about baseball: even terrible teams win at least one-quarter of the time. This suggests that baseball games are too short for the better team to always win. If games were longer--more innings, not more advertisements--I suspect good teams would win more often and and bad teams would lose more often.
Fans in the stands use commercial breaks to return the beer they rented earlier in the game, so eliminating those breaks entirely wouldn't fly. Maybe a decent break after the 3rd, the 6th, and so if the game runs to extra innings. On the other hand, why promote the lopsided annual results that longer games might well bring? I don't see anything broken here, now that pitchers and batters can't engage in all that needless, irritating posturing between pitches.
To clarify, I don't advocate longer games. One appeal of baseball is that winners/losers are harder to predict than in other major sports. Just suggesting an explanation.
RE: tax
Planet money had an interesting report on this issue in the context of California state tax. The opposing force to IRS or state tax filing simplification/automation is not just companies who offer such services; although they are part of it.
Having simplified filing on top of a complex tax code instead of simplifying the tax code risks unintended consequences. In the 80's we did not think the tax code was simple, but the 1040-EZ form now seems like the good old days for a large number of filers.
You may think I am a paranoic, but I think it is at least worth considering some risks. Although holding out for simpler tax code may be an example of the perfect being the enemy of the good.
https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2019/04/03/709656642/episode-760-tax-hero
Only one even mildly funny tweet this week, and I don't get a few of them.
RE: lower speed limits - good luck enforcing that if it happens. Ever driven on Lake Shore Drive, Chicago's very own, year-round NASCAR track? We could close the budget gap if drivers going more than 10 miles over the limit were ticketed. But it's very rare that I even see a squad there.
Regarding John Greenfield's comments on lowering the speed limits for cars. I will gladly lower my speed as long as bicyclists start obeying traffic laws. He certainly has a lot of very expensive suggestions for slowing down cars and retro-fitting streets made for cars to bike lanes. But I wonder how many traffic laws John violates each time he rides? I would think the best way to pay for all these improvements, would be for the police to actually enforce the traffic laws bike riders, by law, are supposed to obey. The revenue generated by this new batch of well-deserved fines would surely pay for all the concrete traffic converters, raised crosswalks, and "road diets" John desires. Let's play fair. If you want or demand to share the road, you need to follow the rules of the road.
Good place for speeding ticket cameras.
Laws and sausages. It is good to call out shenanigans on things like August polls. What is striking is how recently OH Republicans called them "anti-democratic". But OH Republicans are not the first to take positions which go against previously stated positions. Also there is a big gray area of what is shenanigans vs just how the game is played. I urge bloggers to evenly call out such manipulations regardless of the issue.
It would be nice to have the horrible Republican "60% to pass an amendment" in Illinois. In our state it is nearly impossible to get an amendment on the ballot and the Democratic legislature derails anything desired by citizens, like independent redistricting or changing the pension clause, but push through their faves, like graduated tax rates.
I cycle a pretty good amount, and I have had MANY bad experienced with drivers. That said, I think lowering the residential limit to 10 borders on absurd. It's probably a negotiating tactic — "ok, we'll move up from 10 to 20." And I'm fine with that, along with the infrastructure improvements Greenfield mentions. But 10mph? Let's be realistic.
To the noble bicycle enthusiasts who cheer every effort to reduce our reliance on the automobile, I ask that you consider the impact on the disabled, and then consider how many people you know who are incapable of jumping on a bike to navigate their neighborhoods. As the father of a recently disabled son, I now thank god for our car-centric cities and suburbs — they allow him the opportunity to access and enjoy most of the places that draw us to large metro areas in the first place.
What legislation is favored by 86% of republicans, 83% of independents and 80% of democrats, but will never see a 2/3 state or federal legislature vote as a constitutional amendment?
Term limits... What a shocker.
Another way in the Republican (now MAGA) war against trust in instutions is paying off. One of the powerful arguments in favour of the vampire tax preparers is that a large % of taxpayers do not trust the IRS, no matter how good their free system is
Liked 5 of this week's Tweets - The Twitter/X Tweets and ugly duckling were my favorites.
Before implementing one of the many ways to skin a cat, please consider whether what you really want is a skinned cat.
Read closely. The cat turning the tables is the kicker in that tweet.
However, the next time you catch yourself saying, “There’s more than one way…”, do consider.
Also it’s not clear why a cat would want a skinned human. Certainly fewer chances for treats.”
The US tax code is an incredibly lengthy, complex and even cryptic set of rules and regulations. There are amendments to our tax code every legislative session to benefit favored constituencies all across the political spectrum. And of course, the tax code is of huge benefit to the accounting industry with many professionals specializing in tax preparation.
Decades ago Steve Forbes came forth with a proposal for a universal flat tax that would have very minimal deductions, say for mortgage interest and charitable giving. Another alternative to our current system would be a value-added tax such as currently used in some European countries where people pay their taxes in the process of their purchasing. Polls have consistently shown that either of these approaches are viewed positively by a majority of US citizens, yet the bipartisan powers that be and their vested interests are never going to let them see the light of day.
The "Flat tax" proposal comes up once i a while. The first time in my memory was Jerry Brown's campaign for the democratic nomination for president. A few years later it surfaced with some Republicans. I agree that flat tax and VAT have no chance of becoming policy.
Flat tax and term limits are two poster children for the difference between a direct democracy in which we would quickly vote them in, and our representative democracy where the vested interests keep them blocked.
The "we" who would quickly vote in the flat tax doesn't include the poor. Without a deduction for the necessities of food, clothing, shelter, and medicine, the flat tax idea should skulk back to its cave and stay there. Live a year in their shoes before indulging in this "make life simpler for those of means" nonsense, please.
Yup!! -- The Illinois "Flat Tax" is ANYTHING but flat or fair. - It hits those who have the least the hardest.
Well, it is "flat". But "fair" is in the eye of the beholder. The top 10% of Illinoisans pay 74% of the state's income tax revenue. Some think that's too little, some think that's too much.
Currently Illinoisans in the bottom 20 percent of income—less than $21,800 in income—pay 14.4 percent of their incomes in combined state and local taxes, while the top 1 percent—$537,400 and higher in income—pay only 7.4 percent.
https://itep.org/illinois-flat-income-tax-amounts-to-a-tax-subsidy-for-the-wealthiest-illinoisans-that-compounds-income-and-wealth-inequalities/#:~:text=Currently%20Illinoisans%20in%20the%20bottom,income%E2%80%94pay%20only%207.4%20percent.
Both the federal government and state and in some cases local government provide subsidies to disadvantaged people for housing, food, medicine etc, and there is no reason why these would not continue with a flat tax.
And thank you for once again responding with a personal attack without knowing anything about me. I did indeed "walk in the shoes" of not having much the first part of my life. I worked 25 hours per week and managed the 12 unit apartment building I lived in to finance myself through college. My first job on which I supported my wife and at that time first child paid the princely salary of $10,500 per year. I do indeed know how to live without having much. Through hard work and perseverance I was able over time to better myself and my family.
I sincerely suggest that you refrain from personal attacks on people you disagree with and instead debate the ideas and issues on their respective merits are lack thereof.
That was "Joanie" that got personal yesterday. Joan today. Don't feel bad. I was called a racist a couple months ago for quoting FBI crime statistics and for "lieing" a couple days ago. Better than lying I guess... :)
Thanks David O. Resorting to personal attacks always suggests to me that the person doing so is unable to articulate a cogent defense of their position, and intemperate persona, or both. Let's just respectfully debate ideas and issues people!
You had it coming.
Fair points all! I realize that I generalized from a few long-ago defenses of flat tax that expressly called for an end to all such subsidies. Generalizing from such a small sample was bad enough, but the ire I followed it with was uncalled-for, and I'm glad you called me on it. Definitely time for me to chill out, with my apologies. I'm still not in love with flat tax, but that's a matter for a cooler day.
Thanks Joan, I appreciate your kind words. I love nothing more than a robust debate back and forth as that is the only way we can learn from people holding different views and hopefully try to find common ground.
@Joan Pederson, I had to re-read your comment over a few times to see what the issue was; it did not strike me as mean or angry when I first read it. Characterizing the flat tax idea as nonsense is pretty mild, IMO. This is especially true given that you stated your reason for not liking the idea first, and that reason comes from a place of good intent.
We are lucky to have EZ writing this blog for us and having a respectful forum to discuss our thoughts that his writings inspire in us. My hope is that it can continue as an unmoderated forum.
I like when people post information I did not know or share perspectives I have not thought through. Whether or not I am in agreement with the conclusions of the one who is posting is beside the point.
Progressiveness doesn't make our tax code complicated. It's arriving at your taxable income amount that's complicated -- credits, deductions, capital gains, etc. After you have that amount, determining your tax liability is as simple as entering it into the simplest computer in the world or looking it up on the table, free and available to the public online (or even just doing the not-so-hard math yourself). https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/i1040tt.pdf Tax software does it automatically, and a pre-filled out 1040 the IRS could do it too.
I'm strongly opposed to a federal flat tax (whether on income or consumption or however you do it), because I think it's fair that higher income should be taxed at higher rates. It's based on need. The more dollars you accumulate, the less necessary those dollars become to sustaining a comfortable lifestyle.
Think of it this way: switching to a flat tax would increase taxes for most Americans least able to afford it while decreasing taxes on the wealthy far more able to afford it. That strikes me as perverse, and it certainly wouldn't get voter approval. (And, if one day we decided to actually tax the ultra-wealthy -- outlawing such schemes as buy-borrow-die that allow them to live on untaxed loan proceeds backed by spectacular wealth at low interest -- a progressive tax would finally result in taxing the greatest income at the highest rates.)
I'm left cold by the argument that the very wealthy have an equal moral claim on all their dollars, from the first to the one gazillionth. I don't think anybody has a strong moral claim on vast riches, no matter how obtained. Even if the presence of vast riches in a democratic republic is not necessarily a sign of latent criminality somewhere down the line, or, at least that something has gone wrong, I'm with Shelley on this one: "No man has a right to monopolize more than he can enjoy; what the rich give to the poor, whilst millions are starving, is not a perfect favour, but an imperfect right." https://www.grace.umd.edu/~djb/shelley/declaration1880.html
I certainly favor rewarding hard work and rare talent and great genius and useful accomplishments, along with all the Ben Franklin-ish thrifty virtues, and I don't even say, as some do, "outlaw billionaires" or, worse, "eat the rich." But a progressive tax maintains good incentives. Indeed, the genius of it is that, because only income beyond the given thresholds is taxed at the higher rate, it's always in one's interest, no matter how high the next bracket (so long as it's not 100%), to earn more.
As a moral matter, a flat tax can only be sustained on a radical principle, at odds with reality and common sense, that the wealthy always and everywhere deserve all their wealth equally merely for having acquired it legally, whether through wholesome means, gift, or grift, and never mind the social consequences. The first progressive tax was Lincoln's and we can thank Wilson (now on the outs in progressive circles, ironically) for instituting our now hundred-year-old progressive tax. In that time, America's has become the richest, most dynamic economy in the world, so I think we can afford a little Robin-Hooding in the name of a slightly more just distribution of our rich society's riches.
Your quotation from Shelley, “No man has a right to monopolise more than he can enjoy,” reminds me of one of my favorite scenes in the movies. It’s in the movie Chinatown, and Jake Gittes, played by Jack Nicholson, is asking Noah Cross, played by John Huston, why he cheated the farmers and murdered his partner.
“Jake Gittes : How much are you worth?
Noah Cross : I have no idea. How much do you want?
Jake Gittes : I just wanna know what you're worth. More than 10 million?
Noah Cross : Oh my, yes!
Jake Gittes : Why are you doing it? How much better can you eat? What could you buy that you can't already afford?”
I really don’t understand why people want more money than they could possibly spend leading normal lives. Give me enough for a roof over my head, enough to eat, and enough to a vacation every year.
Agreed. Also, one of my favorite movies. It's sort of a sick alchemy by which market fundamentalists turn Adam Smith, the brilliant Scottish Enlightenment author of both the Wealth of Nations and the lovely Theory of Moral Sentiments and one of my favorite people, into the sanctification of Cross-ish naked greed and lust for power, as though, to sustain our economy, we must, on principle mind you, rigorously assure vindication of the supposedly natural human desire to be a vulgar asshole. I don't buy it.
Yeah, the government is so good at pre-filling-in things like, say, assessed property values that a major, pretty successful industry has grown up to dispute them.
Having been through a tax audit in which the amount the IRS claimed they were owed was off (they finally agreed) by a factor of 10 in their favor, I remain unenthusiastic about having them do my taxes.
It is definitely good to have the option to have one's own opinion on taxable income and tax liability, I do not see any harm in allowing the option for use software authorized by the IRS. If they made it mandatory, then it gets more complicated. TurboTax or TaxCut could have errors (to be clear, I do not know of any), but you have the option to not use them.
The property tax assessment is done by PEOPLE who work at the government. And they use their own understanding of the value of stuff to make the assessment, not to mention the value of keeping rich people rich and happy. Nothing about the property assessment process is likely to result in a fair outcome.
The IRS already has all the facts it needs to prepopulate the tax filing form for regular salary folks. The IRS has our W-2s, 1099s, and the like. No human will be involved in setting those values.
It likely would NOT appeal to those people who have investment income and the like. Nor would the IRS offer its 'Free File' to those people.
IRS offering free filing program. That's ridiculous. What about all those people who save all their receipts in a shoe box? The dad's that carves out "that Saturday" to sit uninterrupted until files are finished. Think of librarians who have the responsibility to point out where the paper forms are located in the lobby. Are we just going to follow the lead of every other country? Germany offers mandatory vacations and free healthcare. Are we suddenly going to offer that? Anarchy I say!
Speed Limits. You have to admit the article is biased - because the change doesn't (directly) affect bicyclists. We support limits on drivers. Drivers already have obstacles to avoid pedestrians, bicyclists, squirrels, potholes - but let's add more obstacles to lower speeds. Policing this change... don't get me started. That system has bigger fish to fry. (Times being what they are - can I say that phrase?) I'm sure I'm not the only one who would be suspicious that speed cameras would be the next revenue driving factor behind this. Drive 26 MPH - $200 fine.