The problem isn't technical debt. It's affording and attracting talent. Talent follows money. Even SJW's have to eat. The IRS doesn't have any money because the last time they devoted resources to understanding the tax landscape of the ultra-wealthy the ultra-wealthy lobbied to slash the IRS's budget. The IRS was purposely castrated by the very demographic it sought to understand.

This is, quite literally, a won battle at this point. The only way to fix it is for the ancient republican party to either collapse or iterate into something that serves America's interests instead of ultra-wealthy interests.

Can you get out of your republicans are evil bubble and look at what they really stand for?

Care to elaborate?

Those views of mine were developed over years of observation and represent my true opinion of the Republican party. If you feel I'm misrepresenting anything feel free to get specific about your beliefs.

The choice to attack/blame 100% of the countries problems on 50% of the voting population doesn't feel justified.

Fair enough. However why did the republican administration pick a specialist in tax evasion for the position of IRS commissioner?

That in itself doesn't necessarily mean ill intent. Someone who knows what to go after can be very useful, if they chose to utilize that knowledge.

Also, the IRS is big, the commissioner does not decide cases, however it issues policy memos, which have a large influence on enforcement. And these are usually public and or can be FOIA-ed.

So all in all, their pick is very much a political ally, and that he/she happens to be a tax specialist is just a convenient factor. (So that the man is fit to deal with IRS stuff.)

Let me roll a dice through history were one side of the political spectrum has harmed the other.

Republicans are not even close to 50% of the voting population.

Honestly, I'm not sure what this means.

You're the one that brought up "50% of the voting population".

Trump only got 46% of the popular vote.

The Republican Senate majority represents 18% of the population.

They really stand for deregulating business, reducing taxes (particularly for corporations and the wealthy) and stripping down the Federal government to the point of inefficacy. Zelon88 didn't call the Republican party evil, but did correctly describe their political and ideological incentives.

Can you name a Democrat who proudly proclaimed that not paying taxes made them "smart?" Or a Democratic equivalent to Grover Norquist saying he wanted to reduce the size of government enough to be able to "drown it in a bathtub?"

What ever else the Republican party might stand for, they obviously also stand for plutocracy, albeit with a veneer of libertarian and populist rhetoric that leads the rank and file to believe they're doing it for the sake of the common people.

Do you agreed with 100% of everything that the extremist of the Democratic (>insert proper political affiliation here<) side believe in? I suspect you would agree with most of the core philosophy but may disagree on some of messaging and actions by extreme groups.

Grover Norquist's influence is overwhelmingly mainstream [1] among Republican politicians, not extremist.

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grover_Norquist#Taxpayer_Prote...

Fair. But to say something as bold as understanding someone's political motivations, and ideology based on how politicians behave doesn't seem like good faith effort to understand the other side.

Legitimate question, would it be viewed as "not extremist" if it came from another group such Libertarians, or SJWs?

What does "SJWs" mean in this context?

NB: you're not answering the questions asked, but are instead moving goalposts. Repeatedly.

Whataboutism isn't attractive. The extreme groups in the Republican party steered Congress (2010-2018, via the Freedom Caucus) and steer the Executive through Trump. That has not happened with the modern Democratic Party.

So it's Whataboutism when trying to point out others' hate? Maybe it was a bad attempt, but it was a question to show that both sides are capable of doing horrible things to each other. And that the extremists of any group probably aren't the best at accurately representing the majority's philosophical thinking. Both sides deserve the hate. I'm okay with talking about the hate, but can we be intellectually honest and say both sides have made mistakes.

So I agree Whataboutism isn't attractive.

Arguably the wealthy are now liberals...cultured elites in the cities. I think you can see this by tracking who donates to Dem. campaigns....so just saying...don't be quick to roll out this old trope that Rep.= wealthy. I don't think it's that simple.

I'll counter and say the only way to fix it is to either go to pre-1917 no income tax, and have a smaller government (do we really need $700BN/yr on defense around the world?), or move to a flat % wealth or income tax (if you are pro-progressive, set an offset that neutralizes to $0 at say $50k/year, but I am against).

We can do this without all the loopholes and misaligned incentives that causes finger pointing in all directions. And we won't need the CompSci majors from CalTech!

I would point out that the "elitist liberals" in the cities are actually your middle/lower-middle class citizens. They make probably between $50k and $150k. So they're not doing terrible, but not wealthy enough to blip on anybody's radar. They're the prime movers of the economy (we can agree on that or not).

On either side of those "elitist liberals" are where I see the biggest concentration of conservative political views. There's the stoic >$50k crowd who preach personal responsibility between drags off a Pall Mall while Rosanne reruns play softly in the background but carry balances on all their debts and haven't had a raise or a job interview in 10 years. They think the world should be like them, content to stay near the bottom because they think they're still in the middle. Probably lower-mid level education with a proclivity to disdain any social spending at all with an emphasis on "WWJD?" These people are conservative because their own brand of low-effort thought aligns with typical knee-jerk conservative policies like "shut down the entire border" or "trickle down economics creates jobs (that aren't worth having)." They only know about the social conservative policies that (they believe) affect them. Like women's rights (or lack of), LBTQ rights, anti-discrimination, gun laws. Economically they have no idea what's going on and they just trust whoever tells them they get to keep their guns.

On the other side of the "elitist liberals" are the ultra-wealthy conservatives. They are the engines of the party and use their resources and influence to concoct the low-effort policies that rope in the lower-class conservatives. Then they focus their hoarde on how "amoral" the left is while these ultra-wealthy conservatives empty all of the social services the non-stoic poor people rely on to save themselves money and taxes. They use their lower-education counterparts as pawns and fodder to keep the liberals busy talking about non-issues while they dismantle safety nets and redirect government resources into the private sector. They don't believe half of the things their own party tells poor people, but they all rub each other off and that's what keeps the party going.

and yet, when we look at most of the political endorsements of Jeff Bezos, Warren Buffett, Michael Bloomberg, Bill Gates and nearly all of SVs billionaires we see that they tend to favor Democratic candidates.

the simple idea of rich republicans vs. average to poor democrats has some truth, but there's also the pesky fact of a large number of liberal Democratic billionaires which complicates the picture.

i think it's because these ultra-wealthy folks can extract their needs from (aka corrupt) any politician. D vs R doesn't really matter much.

> and yet, when we look at most of the political endorsements of Jeff Bezos, Warren Buffett, Michael Bloomberg, Bill Gates and nearly all of SVs billionaires we see that they tend to favor Democratic candidates.

Actions speak louder than words. Endorsing a democratic candidate while paying your warehouse employees barely enough to survive without food stamps doesn't exactly quality you for "liberal of the year."

> i think it's because these ultra-wealthy folks can extract their needs from (aka corrupt) any politician. D vs R doesn't really matter much.

This is 100% true, and also why I did not/do not support Hilary Clinton for any elected office.

yeah. rich Democrats are not always so liberal with their own cash. but they can still drape themselves in the cloak of the "socially liberal," whatever that means and for whatever it's worth.

of course, even that idealism may evaporate if it means an intelligent, meritorious poor or disadvantaged student might take the place of a favored son at an elite university.

are the wealthy really "D" or "R" at all? it seems to me they're "W" first and foremost. also narcissistic. really narcissistic. presidentially narcissistic.

You can look at a map by precinct of what percentage of people voted for Hilary Clinton and you will see that some of the highest percentages were the most wealthy areas in CA:

https://www.latimes.com/projects/la-pol-ca-california-neighb...

The republican issue is the post-LBJ realignment of racists and western resource owners with the old-school "chamber of commerce" mainstream GOP.

The problem is a democratic party one -- they need to figure out a way to grow beyond their urban core to appeal to some subset of rural and other voters. You need a better message to control the Senate.

There's no real way to counter the Republican strategy which is to build a voting bloc by appealing to the baser tribal instincts of humanity. They have carefully crafted an image that hides their true nature from those who vote them into power. All failings are blamed on the opposition, further reinforcing the group identity. Those who control the party get all the benefits. Those who keep electing them get to stew in their perpetual acrimony.

Farmers were the original progressives. The embrace of corporate interests above all else is what drove those folks away.

The GOP is the party of grievance. The democrats are a big tent, but smaller groups get lost in the crowd.

It's not that the Dems have a bad message. It's that republican propoganda has made it hard to make inroads in these places no matter the message.

Trump said he could shoot someone on fifth avenue and not lose a single voter. And he's right.

Who should non-racist proud white Americans, that believe in individuals over groups first, and doesn't care who marries who or why, vote for?

For now, not Republicans. Republicans (the politicians) don't care about individuals, despite what they claim, and they downright disagree with the rest of your position behind closed doors.

If we can change our voting system, then maybe I can give you better advice. Until then, game theory suggests voting Democrat.

> proud white Americans

Better be careful here. Proud to be an American is okay. Proud to be white... why should anyone be proud of the color of their skin? Even if it should be okay (but honestly white people have an awful history, as do most skin colors if you look back far enough), it's so arbitrary. There's nothing to be proud of, you just have specific pigmentation.

> Better be careful here. Proud to be an American is okay. Proud to be white... why should anyone be proud of the color of their skin? Even if it should be okay (but honestly white people have an awful history, as do most skin colors if you look back far enough), it's so arbitrary. There's nothing to be proud of, you just have specific pigmentation.

I cannot argue with any of this, and highlights some of my flawed thinking. I guess I thought of "white americans" as an abstraction of Americans of European decent. So I guess, I don't know the proper way to convey "Someone who is proud of their European heritage, and proud of being an American."

White Americans?

You apparently do care about groups over individuals, using that classification.

The current generation in ad-tech and the previous generation in financial engineering. We've got greater problems to solve that need big, but altruistic, thinkers.

I think it is funny that we perpetuate this myth that the geniuses are in financial engineering and ad-tech.

I look at this differently.

The way I see it, if you default to working for or starting yet another ad-tech/surveillance company, it's a sign that you aren't creative and probably don't have anything original or useful to contribute to society. If they weren't on the ad-tech bandwagon, they'd just be going for the next path of least resistance.

If you care about maximizing human welfare, helping the IRS take in more money is about one of the least useful things you can do.

Whoever is angrily downvoting this is welcome to explain why they think allocating brainpower to the IRS is the best way to maximize welfare.

You are worried about the wasted brains in tech companies reading this article? I didn't worry about wasted brains at all, because I value people's agency. But now that you bring it up, it seems like if you're going to worry about brains being wasted, surely it should be those of the tax lawyers helping the rich hide this income?

Agreed on that too, by the way. Why should it be one or the other? All the wasted brains spent hiding rich people's money from paying their fair share, is equally sad.

The best idea i’ve heard is to abolish taxes and print money instead. Inflation becomes the tax and you just print enough to provide the services that are critical (health, police, fire, Ubi etc). That way you wouldn’t have to waste the brain power on pointless legal squabbles (antechamber on the other hand...).

It's a regressive tax, as it affects everyone at the same rate. Modern tax systems are progressive, ie people get different tax rates depending on their income.

"As it affects everyone at the same rate." That's a flat tax. A regressive tax is one that affects the poor more.

However, you are right that it is probably regressive, since the rich normally place more of their wealth percentage-wise in non-cash assets than poor people do.

A flat tax is regressive. It affects the poor more since each marginal dollar affects their lifestyle to a greater degree.

It is the difference between not being able to afford childcare and not being able to afford a second vacation home.

> A flat tax is regressive [because what matters is utility of money].

It's fine to think that, but normally when people are talking about tax progressiveness, they are thinking about the fractional tax on dollars, not "utils". Otherwise, you'd also call our existing, progressive taxation scheme "regressive," since it still probably taxes poor people's utils at a higher rate than rich people. And there would probably not anywhere in the world be a tax scheme that can properly be called progressive.

One good rule of thumb, IMO, is that when you want to change the meaning of a classifier such that all extant instances of the classified type fall into a single bucket, that's probably not a useful change. YMMV.

A flat tax is regressive in nature since the wealthy demand a greater share of the services provided by civil society.

Do they really 'demand a greater share' in proportion with how much more they contribute?

Police protect assets, fire services protect assets, schools are better in wealthy districts, The IRS targets poor and middle class because it's easier. Courts give better outcomes to the wealthy. Businesses are generally started by those with money. Pretty sure that the wealthy use significantly more resources because they have more to protect.

But where's "with how much more they contribute?" part of the answer? Such as the jobs created?

I would think that most public services, such as public schools or public transportation are consumed by lower and middle class people.

The upper class has their own private version of pretty much everything.

Even if true, you need to make that inference explicit, because that's a confusing, non-standard usage of "flat tax" and "regressive" tax.

Second, can you show your basis for thinking that? I would think it's the opposite: the wealthy aren't using the public schools, free health care, etc.

You know, that's probably debatable. The high wealthy also spend a lot on private services above and beyond what's publically available. Private security, planes, accountant and legal teams, private doctors, etc.

This seems counter intuitive to me but I’m not saying you’re wrong. Could you share more?

Utility of wealth is non linear.

That's why I included ubi in essentials. The thing this solves is tax avoidance evasion.

Inflation's greatest impact is on those holding cash reserves or dollar-denominated assets: bank deposits, loans, mortgages, bonds (federal, state/local, corporate), insurance policies, annuities, cash-denominated contracts, and the like.

The cash-poor with few or no financial holdings or savings, are largely unaffected, as are those holding non-cash assets (real property, capital, commodities, stocks).

This comes from a really old philosophy called ironically "Modern Monetary Theory", MMT. It has been roundly debunked by both Keynesians (where most of HN sits) and Austrians (myself). A government cannot spend its way to universal prosperity. It's been tried and failed, typically with hyper-inflation.

Also I feel that it is immoral to steal from the future generations (my children) via inflation. Cash investments should be allowed to gain value via productivity gains, instead of constantly cashing in our productivity gains for Govt largess. We'd probably have that "4-hour work week" by now if it weren't for inflationary policies stealing gains.

I know benefits are popular, and the gov't recklessness (defense budgets for example) today makes uninformed people feel like it's a gravy train out there...but really it's a house of cards, arguably steered by IYIs (IMHO).

How do you solve tax avoidance/evasion? Inflation rather than tax solves that. Of course there would need to be an agreed cap on inflation that is tied to productivity.

Rich have their money in stock and investments. And if surplus of money would be taxed, being in debt would be the obvious easy way to “earn” taxes instead of paying them.

Now I'm wondering how many ideas you have heard, such that this one is the best of all of them.

Inflation as a tax is inherently regressive, as the rich are usually the first to hold the newer money, and the poor the last to hold it, long after all the information about the new size of the money supply has already leaked out to the market.

And it is a tax on holding the circulating currency. The rich often trade their currency for ownership in ventures that produce passive income, or, at worst, low-risk government bonds. In order for those investments to sell, they will have to offer a rate of return exceeding the expected rate of inflation. If inflation is used in place of all taxes, then just reading the government's budget is sufficient to predict the rate of inflation.

The poor see annual wage increases near the expected rate of inflation, if they have sufficient labor-market power, or below it if they don't.

Monetary inflation is a tax on holding dollars. The rich don't hold much of their wealth in dollars, percentage-wise. They hold ownership of productive assets and inherently valuable properties. A tax on money doesn't touch those who get all the money they need from ownership of their wealth.

I doubt this works. Stock and property prices would rise as more cash becomes available, so only people who keep their funds uninvested would lose value. It would also be easy enough to invest in a foreign currency.

It seems like rapid inflation would really only hurt the poor and middle class.

I don't think this is a good idea. High inflation makes people lose trust in the value of money and start drifting towards barter, which makes the economy slow and inefficient.

This is fine if you don’t mind the poor getting taxed as much as the rich. Inflation taxes everyone the same, meaning the person living on the bread line looses the same percentage as the ultra Rich. That’s a political opinion, but explains why it’s not been implemented.

A theoretical solution to that would be an inflation scaling bursary given to low income workers.

I don't understand why this post is downvoted. I may (and I do) disagree with the contents, but it looks like a fair expression of a person's opinion.

Yeah, they tried exactly that in Zimbabwe some time ago, and now they're giving it another try in Venezuela. Didn't seem to work all that well though, go figure.

(inb4: "Do you want Hitler and Nazis? Because that's literally how we got Hitler and Nazis!" /s)