One problem, which the article discusses just after the parts you quoted, is that there’s a huge amount of lobbying of and money flowing to politicians willing to thwart reform efforts. Closing tax loopholes would be easier if we also had publicly financed elections or stricter limits on campaign contributions, and if the media wasn’t a consolidated corporate cartel.

> “[...] Many influential Republicans, already uncomfortable about the Peru reforms, are expected to use committee hearings to launch an attack on the European commission’s ongoing state aid investigations into suspected sweetheart tax deals granted by Ireland, the Netherlands and Luxembourg to, respectively, Apple, Starbucks and Amazon. ¶Well-resourced rightwing lobbyists are agitating in Washington for a final push against the G20 tax reforms. [...]”

There’s a feedback loop involved between corporations saving billions in taxes -> donations of some portion of that to politicians willing to play along (and offer to give them board seats and high-paid speaking gigs after they leave office, etc. Just look e.g. Bill Clinton’s post-officeholding career.). Same story with industries that receive large government contracts, or which are under heavy regulation. In every case, there’s big money to be made in helping corporate interests at the public’s expense.

Candidates running for public office have great incentive to talk about how they want to close tax loopholes, etc., but once they are elected, the only thing holding them to those promises is personal integrity, and none of the US presidents since Jimmy Carter have been able to face down that kind of temptation. The pressure might be even greater for Congress, as smaller amounts of money directed at unseating particular troublesome Reps goes further, and there’s less direct public attention on each one.

The root cause here is the amount of money required to be elected. Get rid of the need for money and you get rid of the corruption.

I personally like the idea of increasing the number of members of congress so each member only represents around 25,000 people like they did 200 years ago. If your electorate only had 25,000 voters you would not need much money (nor staff) to get elected.

It is not the root cause. Money would mean nothing if the idiots sitting on the other end of the ad the money paid for bothered to form their own opinion or research something. Politicians need money because ads cost money. They run vapid attack ads, because vapid attack ads work. Vapid attack ads work, because we are stupid and lazy.

Worked in politics for many years: trust me. Money is not the root cause. We are.

I think you are saying the same thing. The commenter to whom you are responding didn't say that money is the root cause, but that the amount of money required to win is the root cause.

And the reason that it costs this amount of money, as you point out, is that attack ads (inter alia) are often successful.

Exactly right. It is the scale of money required to get elected that is the issue. When you have districts with upwards of a million people then they only way you can have any contact with any voter within that district is via adverting.

A 15 second ad is not a good way to get across a complex idea, hence we end up with campaigns built around personal attacks and dog whistles. Get the electorate down to the size where each politician knows the majority of their electorate personally, where you can call up your representative and talk to them rather than some staffer, and where public meetings can work, and then you will change the whole dynamic of politics. It won’t be perfect, but it should be more resistant to corruption as the root cause will be removed.

Although, anybody who has been involved in municipal or campus politics can attest that, at least occasionally, oversimplification and attack ads work in those markets as well.

All things considered though, I agree with you.

One other thing to overcome though, is gerrymandering. If we have 10x-100x the number of house districts, the gerrymandering algorithms will have a field day unless we take action to stop them in practice first.

Why do politicians need to buy ads? If the districts were small enough that you could get elected without massive advertising then you would remove the need for money to buy ads. Large districts mean advertising is they only way you can make contact with the voters.

The need for money is the root cause.

This is a very naive view. Ancient kings were not elected yet were beholden to money just as much as modern politicians. The fundamental issue is that at the end any government runs on people with weapons who require money to brandish these weapons (otherwise they will have to do something else including but not limited to brandishing for their own interest or leaving the whole brandishing business for more productive endeavors).

For a short while you can make the people with weapons work for free with an ideology. But this won't last forever and eventually you will either have to pay them or forget about your government (see USSR vs PRC to see how both ways work).

There are huge problems with that idea. California represents 10% of the population. Good luck convincing the other 49 states to give up that much power.

Another huge problem with that idea is that congress is not held accountable for their decisions by the public. In my opinion, this is because they are able to split the blame 100 different ways in the senate and 435 different ways in the house, making no one responsible for any given decision. Your suggestion makes this problem much, much worse and guarantees more bureaucracy.

California would still have 10% of the representatives, they would just have many more like everyone else. There would be no power shift from state to state.

So you are saying the problem is no one is held accountable now, but the problem will be worse with smaller districts because then no one will be held accountable?

I think having smaller electorates where you can get elected by knowing your constituents personally rather than via advertising and attack ads would be an improvement.

The second part is just my own bullshit, but yes. I think that we want to be able to point to someone and say that it's their fault. I think that's why we don't care who our representatives are. We don't see them as being directly responsible for what happens. Even if I'm wrong, more representatives will mean more bureaucracy, which means slower governing.

If you could personally call up and speak to your representative and they had to speak to you in person to get elected then I think you would be happier. You could at least hold them responsible for their actions and your vote would count much more for them than it does now.

I don’t see how having more representatives will increase bureaucracy. We would basically shift from having one representative with 19 staff to having 20 representatives with no staff. The net cost should be zero.

It's my own bullshit, but I just think that when something comes up like a drug company raising the price of aid's meds from $13.50 per tablet to $750 that we want the ability to point to a single person and be like, "this is your fault. you are supposed to be making sure this kind of stuff doesn't happen." Right now, no one is held responsible. You can't blame the people who run the company. They're just trying to make money like the rest of us. They're following the law. Just my opinion.

> I don’t see how having more representatives will increase bureaucracy.

For the same reason a dictator is the most efficient form of government. It's just how governing works.

Dictatorships have a massive problem with bureaucracy. They have all the normal bureaucrats and then on top of this they need another whole set to watch the first set. Lean government and dictatorship are not concepts that readily go together.

318,000,000 ÷ 25,000 = 12720

That's a little excessive, don't you think?

Well it is voters not citizens so the number is a little less than this, but no I don't think it is excessive. The current system only works because each member of congress has a huge staff - about one for every 25,000 voters. If you increase the number of members of congress then you get rid of the staff.

Of course you will have a problem fitting everyone into the capital building, but with technology there is no need for everyone to be in the same location at the same time. We need to think of innovative solutions to fighting corruption, not just hoping that things will get better if we wish hard enough.

That assumes that all the people that get elected are capable of doing all the things that staff currently does.

I don't think that's a good assumption.

I would certainly hope the people elected are not capable of doing many of the things that the staff currently do - say like soliciting bribes (sorry "donations").

If there is a need for certain skills then there is no reason that this could not be handled by a pool of experts working for congress - say in the same way the library of congress works now.

> there’s a huge amount of lobbying of and money flowing to politicians willing to thwart reform efforts

I suspect all these companies would get behind a low, flat tax.

That's hard to lobby for.

Strategically, it makes more sense to lobby for a special tax break or loophole and let everyone else fend for themselves. All of this lobbying could disappear if every country adopted flat, nearly equal rates.

I should point out that when I say it makes more sense strategically, that I mean a dollar spent lobbying for a tax break will pay off sooner than a dollar spent lobbying for a flat tax.

I don't mean strategically as in trying to get a leg up on the competition.

For the record, flat tax is hugely regressive. It hurts the poor more than the rich. The reason is the marginal utility of money.

With a flat tax of 20%, someone making 80k would pay 16k, and someone making 30k would pay 6k. Sounds good on the surface, except losing 6k hurts the second person far more than losing 16k hurts the second person.

There are ways of simplifying the tax code while keeping it progressive. The bracket system we have for income taxation is good. They just need to close loopholes, eliminate a lot of deductions and tax capital gains at the same rate as regular income.

This is a discussion of corporate taxes not individual income taxes. Much of your comment is not germane.

It also applies to corporations. Flat tax hurts smaller/less profitable corporations more than more than bigger/more profitable ones.

So if a smaller/less profitable corporation is wholly owned by a multi millionaire it's still a good thing if that corporation pays a lower tax rate?

That's an extremely strange assumption.

Smaller = less profitable? What? Why would you think that?

Less profitable as in total profit amount, not percentage of revenue.

I've said it before and will say it again, what I take issue with is that people don't have access to the same loopholes as corporations do. It's surprising that there isn't a bigger uproar over the fact that corporations pay a lower effective tax rate than people do.

> It's surprising that there isn't a bigger uproar over the fact that corporations pay a lower effective tax rate than people do.

Why? At the end of the day a person will make the profit, every corporation is owned by someone. So that person should pay the tax, not the corporation.

The only issue is the ability of corporations to defer the tax paid by their owners endlessly. If you changed that, you could get rid of corporate tax entirely.

"You don't like the loopholes? Close them."

The problem is the loopholes extend way beyond the tax code into the election system, specifically campaign finance and things like the Citizen's United ruling and into things like the weakening of the media ownership rules which bring us a level deeper into the morass with a largely uninformed (and often just plain scared) electorate. Thus we have mostly shitty bought-off politicians (on both sides) representing "us", but mostly really representing their donors who are big business.

The current system is unfair by design, as much as big corporations complain about it these issues (like taxes too high, but with plenty of loop-holes) serve as a giant moat for them to avoid the establishment of any serious competition because you have to hit a certain scale before you start to worry about things like how to hide tens of billions of dollars offshore.

We are honestly probably way beyond really fixing this stuff at this point, no matter how easy it is to say "Well just fix it" or "just close the loopholes".

America's entire large-corporation/government system needs something like a defrag and full reinstall, but there's basically no way to do that while keeping things running.

Agreed. As long as private money does the nominating of our political candidates, then the piper (loopholes) will need to be paid. If we were to switch to government funded elections, then there would be no pressure on the legislature to return the favour once they are elected. The only snag I see with publically funded campaigns is determining who qualifies for the public funding.

Tax loopholes existed long before Citizens United and the end of the Fairness Doctrine. In fact there were more tax loopholes in the 1970s and 1980s than today.

Great quotes there at the end of your post.

I've always shook my head at how people get mad at other people (individuals/corporations) for doing smart things with their money.

I would be a lot more comfortable with this approach if the powerful corporation had not bribed the current system into existence. Yes the best solution would be to lower rates and reduce loopholes, but until the corruption that allowed the current tax system to arise is addressed all you will end up with a lower rate and the same number of loopholes.

What exactly is the "loophole" here, and how could small companies take advantage of it?

The loophole is setting up a multi-national structure to implement the base erosion and profit-shifting strategies discussed here:

https://www.oecd.org/tax/aggressive/beps-2015-final-reports....

How is that a "loophole." Multi-national structures seem like a necessary facet of the tax code. And the listed strategies don't seem to take advantage of obscure provisions, but basic mechanics of the tax system: deduction of costs from gross revenues, etc.

Take a closer look at the sections on hybrid entities, treaty shopping, and transfer pricing. There are loopholes wide enough to let tanker ships pass.

"loophole" is a word for "a completely legal tax maneuver I don't like"

Worse, it's often a work for "a completely legal tax provision I don't understand."

> You don't like the loopholes? Close them. Do not blame people for using every single option they are given.

You say that as if it's not the corporation's lobbyists that create and defend the loopholes.

Politicians complain ... but ... c'mon, they have had plenty of opportunity to fix things. Still do.