User Comments

1. 

   11/06/08

   csiunatc

   Because it goes against "large government"
   
   You see, now someone has to collect, process and distribute the tax. This is what is known as creating fake jobs. Actually making something less effective so that some schmuck can have a job.
   
   Also, not issuing the check one year. will be a hell of a lot less noticeable than raising taxes will be. And much easier to do.

   [reply]
   1. 

      11/06/08

      RMania

      "You see, now someone has to collect, process and distribute the tax. This is what is known as creating fake jobs. Actually making something less effective so that some schmuck can have a job."
      
      Well all types of taxes would still exist, so I don't know what you mean.
2. 

   11/06/08

   csiunatc

   When you separate someone into the "should get refund / should not get refund" you add a step. Which means more work.
   
   If you just rewrote the tax tables, the effect on the taxpayer would be the same. Only better since they wouldn't pay it to begin with.

   [reply]
3. 

   11/06/08

   clioandme

   @RMania: The thing is, government can't make radical changes whenever it sees fit. It can't create entirely new systems, even if it might make sense to do so. Political realities being what they are, government usually has to adapt, reform, or supplement what it already has. Could you imagine the firestorm if your suggestion were taken seriously? People would feel that Social Security and Medicare were under threat, which would be a real non-starter. Democracies usually have to deal in incremental changes after hard-fought battles.

   [reply]
4. 

   11/06/08

   Anok

   I didn't see anything in Obama's tax proposal that suggests his tax cuts will be used to offset payroll taxes by way of refundable taxes. Maybe I missed it, but I haven't seen it.
   
   That said, I think Mark has a point about the way it would be interpreted by the constituency.
   
   My personal suggestion, honestly, would be to limit deductions. Cut the tax percentage, and withhold less - but also limit the amount of deductions that can be lopped off the tax balance at the end of the year. In that way, you will have more money in your pocket every pay period - but you won't be getting all of what you paid in back at the end of the year, thus offsetting some of those costs.
   
   While many people simply take the standard deduction, there are a great many who deduct everything they can and then some, trying to game the system for every last dime. I say make it all standard for individuals, and let's pay in that way.

   [reply]
   1. 

      11/06/08

      MadameX

      I hear that a lot, and it's tempting in theory because so many people do game the deductions, in it doesn't play out in real life because it's just so much more expensive to conduct some types of business than others. A professional maintaining an office, professional subscriptions, continuing education requirements, licensing fees, etc. might be bringing in twice as much income (or more) than he's actually netting when the absolute costs of conducting his business are deducted. That leaves him making $75k and paying taxes on $150k--something that, at the bottom end of the spectrum, is going to be literally impossible to sustain. This would play out beautifully for big businesses, which have better margins, but would be yet another death knell for the self-employed and small, individually-owned businesses. And, though the numbers are smaller, the same kind of impact might apply to people performing jobs that require a lot of travel, equipment, have ongoing educational requirements, etc.
   2. 

      11/06/08

      Anok

      That's why I said make it standard for individuals - not businesses. Personal income, as it were.