Revolution in Wisconsin

[Wraith]

If you are inclined to agree with Randblade about the taxation of people employed by government what you are really saying is that you want government to raise more taxes from all non-government workers so that the government can play at being a regular employer. Meaning that there is a high price to be paid for make-believe uniformity. In my book that doesn't make it simple, efficient or effective.

Think of all that money in 'taxes paid by government workers' not winding up in the coffers of the state but staying in the pockets of people with productive jobs

It's a bit less effecient in theory, but I think the realities are that it's easier and safer to just say that there are no exemptions based on your employer. If there were exemptions, it would be abused, and people would try to use it to cheat, and this would happen no matter how air-tight you think things are. So the government has to either let that money vanish, or spend more money on enforcement. In the end, I think it's better just to keep things simple, even if the result is a bit silly with the government basically paying itself.

[Khendraja'aro]

It's a bit less effecient in theory, but I think the realities are that it's easier and safer to just say that there are no exemptions based on your employer. If there were exemptions, it would be abused, and people would try to use it to cheat, and this would happen no matter how air-tight you think things are. So the government has to either let that money vanish, or spend more money on enforcement. In the end, I think it's better just to keep things simple, even if the result is a bit silly with the government basically paying itself.

Yes, "simple". The application of the tax code is "simple".

Wasn't there something about the tax code being overly complicated?

The word you're searching for is "fair" because that way everyone will be subject to the same dreadful kraken. But that's not "simple".

[LittleFuzzy]

For the second time in a decade, Democratic state legislators flee the state to avoid losing a vote. Unbelievable.

God I love a quorum flight. It never fails to entertain.

[Dreadnaught]

I should clarify that I meant flee *a* state, the last time was Texas.

[Hazir]

It's a bit less effecient in theory, but I think the realities are that it's easier and safer to just say that there are no exemptions based on your employer. If there were exemptions, it would be abused, and people would try to use it to cheat, and this would happen no matter how air-tight you think things are. So the government has to either let that money vanish, or spend more money on enforcement. In the end, I think it's better just to keep things simple, even if the result is a bit silly with the government basically paying itself.

How does one fake being a government employee? And how is it simpler to tax person A extra to be able to pay the tax due for person B than not having person B paying taxes so that you can tax person A less?

Also, the tax-code for civil servants could be extremely simple, as they pay no taxes, they don't need to file as there are no deductables.

[Hazir]

God I love a quorum flight. It never fails to entertain.

Did you follow the quorum debate over the Turkish presidency? That was really gob-smacking; the opposition refused to be present at the vote, then the AKP voted in Gül with a vast majority of the members present and more than 50% of all votes in Parliament. Then the CHP appealed at the Constitutional Court which effectively ruled that to be president of the Turkish Republic you needed the support of 2/3 of the members of Parliament.

After which of course the whole election was changed from a indirect parliamentarian vote to a public vote. As things stand nobody knows though if Gül's term now is 5 years or 7 years, becuase nobody knows which rules apply.

[Wraith]

How does one fake being a government employee?

Check the box that says "I am a government employee and thus exempt from taxes" or whatever, depending on the implementation of the system. There will be ways to try to claim the exemption without actually being an employee no matter what the system is. Call up the IRS and explain to the new girl working there that there's been a terrible mistake and that you're a government employee and should be getting hassled by them about your taxes. Get your friend at the records office to slip your name in the employee roster before it's sent out to the IRS - it never bounces back, so they'll never know. Have an on paper only government job, and claim all your income comes from that.

Sure, there are ways to check people to stop that sort of abuse and cheating, but now you're spending money on enforcement, and there are still holes, they're just smaller. And you're also going to get false positives. Johnny's form 1728-C really was just misplaced due to a clerical error, and he's not a scammer and should get his exemption. Mary's salary was increased three months ago and her boss just used the wrong employee identification number when he wrote the interagency memo for the IRS documenting the status change, but at least he wrote the memo and filled out all the forms in triplicate, unlike Alex's boss. Sam's paperwork got filed a bit late, and Sam really only got flagged due to propagation delays. And there's Bob, who only looks suspicious in the database because someone in the reporting chain really doesn't like him.

Even if you can keep the enforcement costs at about the same level as for normal taxpayers (big databases, paperwork verification, random checks), you've now removed the practical benefits of this, and are still left with a bunch of other new and exciting headaches to deal with. And don't forget the initial costs to set up this infrastructure and train people to use it!

And how is it simpler to tax person A extra to be able to pay the tax due for person B than not having person B paying taxes so that you can tax person A less?

It's the system I was referring to, not a specific person's tax filings. When there are less rules and exceptions to the rules, a system is simpler.

[Hazir]

Your examples are highly unlikely and besides that, they don't constitute abusing or tweaking the rules, but outright fraud. AFAIK the kind that can get you in prison in the US.

It should be quite easy to compare the files of the government of who are on its payroll to the files of the IRS.

I don't know about the US, but that kind of comparisons are done on a regular basis here in Holland between my employer and the tax service in order to check if information is consistent. If it isn't an audit is started.

[Wraith]

Your examples are highly unlikely and besides that, they don't constitute abusing or tweaking the rules, but outright fraud. AFAIK the kind that can get you in prison in the US.

It's hard to come up with examples of rules abuse without knowing the rules, but so what if a lot of what I said constitutes fraud? Tax faud is very common! Depending on how the rules are formulated, not all of it might be illegal at first, and there's going to be a bunch of loopholes and opportunities for tax evaders that neither of us can think of in advance.

It should be quite easy to compare the files of the government of who are on its payroll to the files of the IRS.

Yeah, two agencies both in the federal government are so great at staying in sync with each other, it should be easy to get all of them and all the state government levels and divisions to sync up and maintain that as well! (though I will admit that the IRS has the most experience with these sorts of situations save maybe the census bureau and will probably screw it up the least)

I don't know about the US, but that kind of comparisons are done on a regular basis here in Holland between my employer and the tax service in order to check if information is consistent. If it isn't an audit is started.

We've got stuff like that too, but if we have to do the compliance enforcement either way, then we've lost any advantage from the switch, and still have the additional problems caused by an entire second reporting and compliance pipeline and all the new support mechanisms, learning curves, new opportunities for tax evasion, etc.

[Dreadnaught]

How does one fake being a government employee? And how is it simpler to tax person A extra to be able to pay the tax due for person B than not having person B paying taxes so that you can tax person A less?

Also, the tax-code for civil servants could be extremely simple, as they pay no taxes, they don't need to file as there are no deductables.

Our government organizations are much less centralized and more devolved than yours. Remember, this is the country that has no national ID card. New York State isn't even sure how many employees it technically pays, as many are part of local government organizations. We've recently had local government organizations that were run as unaccountable dictatorships.

The point is with a government that has several layers to it, there can't be a standard "government" ID or database that could possibly be less expensive to set up and maintain than simply collecting taxes.

*****

More teacher walkouts are exposing the immaturity and selfishness of this movement. And the Wisconsin governor seems to be playing it cool so far. It all boils down to what our New Jersey governor Chris Christie said-

I understand you’re angry, and I understand you’re frustrated, and I understand you feel deceived and betrayed. And the reason you feel all the things is because you have been deceived and you have been betrayed. And for twenty years, governors have come into this room and lied to you. Promised you benefits that they had no way of paying for, making promises they knew they couldn’t keep, and just hoping that they wouldn’t be the man or women left holding the bag. I understand why you feel angry and betrayed and deceived by those people. Here’s what I don’t understand. Why are you booing the first guy who came in here and told you the truth? See, there is no political advantage to me coming into that room and telling the truth.

http://www.state.nj.us/governor/news...20110217a.html

[Hazir]

Very simple; government pays its employees without witholding taxes or premiums, pre-tax = post-tax. People who work for the government have no deductables, are not required to report their income from their government jobs.

It's really not so easy to fake being a government employee if the prove consists of being paid by a government agency as an employee. Some complications could occur if people move in or out public service during the year, but these are easily tackled.

[Hazir]

Our government organizations are much less centralized and more devolved than yours. Remember, this is the country that has no national ID card. New York State isn't even sure how many employees it technically pays, as many are part of local government organizations. We've recently had local government organizations that were run as unaccountable dictatorships.

The point is with a government that has several layers to it, there can't be a standard "government" ID or database that could possibly be less expensive to set up and maintain than simply collecting taxes.

*****

More teacher walkouts are exposing the immaturity and selfishness of this movement. And the Wisconsin governor seems to be playing it cool so far. It all boils down to what our New Jersey governor Chris Christie said-

What you claim to be the preferable situation is one where government should continue without even knowing who are paid by it? If that is really the case this should be fixed immediately regardless of any other objective you might have.

It has got nothing to do with being centralized or not, it has got to do with decent accounting.

Otherwise I am highly amused a borderline-Republican like you and a Tory like Randblade are defending a principle which just means that more money needs to go through the hands of government

[Wraith]

Very simple; government pays its employees without witholding taxes or premiums, pre-tax = post-tax. People who work for the government have no deductables, are not required to report their income from their government jobs.

Deductions are there because the government wants some people to keep more money than others; are we tossing that all out (ha! good luck with that), or building it into the pay system (shit-tons more work, costs, and risks, no gain over current system)? And what do we do with households with multiple sources of income? Surely they can't pay federal tax rates and take deductions based on their non-government sources alone. More complications!

It's really not so easy to fake being a government employee if the prove consists of being paid by a government agency as an employee. Some complications could occur if people move in or out public service during the year, but these are easily tackled.

It's going to be very easy to try and fake, and with so many different government agencies and payrolls at federal, state, county, city, and occasionally random other levels, it's going to be easy to slip into the system. You're proposing a system without any significant gains, and with a lot of extra risk and required infrastructure. As nice as it'd be to stop some people from claiming the government's doing something that looks a bit silly at first glance, it's just not practical here in the US.

[Wraith]

Totally missed this until just now.

Yes, "simple". The application of the tax code is "simple".

Simpler than the proposed system, which adds further costs, complications, caveats, and a word for risks that starts with 'c', anyways. Not trying to say that the current tax system isn't already more complicated than it should be.

[Dreadnaught]

Very simple; government pays its employees without witholding taxes or premiums, pre-tax = post-tax. People who work for the government have no deductables, are not required to report their income from their government jobs.

It's really not so easy to fake being a government employee if the prove consists of being paid by a government agency as an employee. Some complications could occur if people move in or out public service during the year, but these are easily tackled.

Our tax system assumes everyone has to pay and pursues everyone to make sure they pay what they owe. It takes work to allow millions of people to verify that they are in a special class of people who don't need to pay.

Plus, this kind of stuff would just be an irresistible source of corruption.

And on principle, I don't think it's right that government employees get a free pass on all government services. Just because I'm an underline at the bakery doesn't mean I get free bread.

[Khendraja'aro]

And on principle, I don't think it's right that government employees get a free pass on all government services. Just because I'm an underline at the bakery doesn't mean I get free bread.

Uh, Dread, they're not "free". Way to miss the point. Once again.

The argument is: The state gives some people money. And then the same state takes back some of that money afterwards. So the question then becomes why the state doesn't simply hand out less money instead of this back-and-forth.

Simple enough for you to comprehend?

And I do know some shops where in-store purchases by employees are deducted directly from their wages (they even get a discount). THAT is the principle we're talking about. Nobody but you talked about "free" and got their knickers in a twist over it.

Totally missed this until just now.
Simpler than the proposed system, which adds further costs, complications, caveats, and a word for risks that starts with 'c', anyways. Not trying to say that the current tax system isn't already more complicated than it should be.

Right, because adding those employees tax filings to the already existing tax filings is something that doesn't cost money and manpower to process? It's a bit dishonest to talk about "added costs" and disregard the fact that those same "added costs" also exist with everyone paying taxes - since someone has to process them.

And knowing the complicated nature of tax systems, I'm a bit dubious that it would actually save money.

[Dreadnaught]

Why are you always so condescending?

Everyone's tax situation is different. Mortgage interprets deductions, child credits, mansion taxes. Plus there are many types of government workers with their own salary schedules. And we give people salary bumps because of things like degrees, experience, etc.

When everyone's tax situation is different, trying to create a parallel salary scale for tens of thousands of jobs and job levels is maddeningly complex. What are you going to do? Pay government workers more salary when they buy a home because they would have used their mortgage interest deduction to pay less in taxes post-purchase? It doesn't add up.

[Khendraja'aro]

Why are you always so condescending?

Everyone's tax situation is different. Mortgage interprets deductions, child credits, mansion taxes. Plus there are many types of government workers with their own salary schedules. And we give people salary bumps because of things like degrees, experience, etc.

When everyone's tax situation is different, trying to create a parallel salary scale for tens of thousands of jobs and job levels is maddeningly complex. What are you going to do? Pay government workers more salary when they buy a home because they would have used their mortgage interest deduction to pay less in taxes post-purchase? It doesn't add up.

That's a problem with your ridiculous tax system, Dread, not with the concept per se.

And I'm condescending because you sometimes choose to make the most harebrained of comparisons.

[Wraith]

Right, because adding those employees tax filings to the already existing tax filings is something that doesn't cost money and manpower to process? It's a bit dishonest to talk about "added costs" and disregard the fact that those same "added costs" also exist with everyone paying taxes - since someone has to process them.

The cost per added person processed would probably be roughly the same, but then you have to add in the cost of creating, maintaining, organizing, and enforcing the extra separate system in parallel with the original. You could probably call it a wash if we could dump the original system in favor of this one, but we'd still need it for non-government employees.

[RandBlade]

How do you define "working for the government" though? What about contractors?

[Hazir]

The cost per added person processed would probably be roughly the same, but then you have to add in the cost of creating, maintaining, organizing, and enforcing the extra separate system in parallel with the original. You could probably call it a wash if we could dump the original system in favor of this one, but we'd still need it for non-government employees.

That is such bullshit; you are saying here it costs the equal amount for the government to tell the IRS, hey this guy is working for us as it costs them to treat that person as if he's working in the private sector? Khen is right, that is a dishonest argument. All you'd need is a simple declaration (that could be entirely automated from one government agency to the other) for the duration of someones tenure. There is no way that costs more than a fraction of the process that now taxes people in the private sector in order to pay people in the public sector their income + taxes, then withhold those public sector taxes again to finally recalculate taxes due when these public sector workers file for taxes.

The people sputtering against the simplicity of a such a system in my eyes are doing so out of a misunderstood sense of equal treatment. Because they pay taxes they want public sector workers to pay taxes too. Because they don't want to see public sector workers get preferential treatment when it comes to taxation. What they don't realise is that in order to prevent that percieved privilege they actually have to cough up more for the employment of people in the public sector, not less.

[Flixy]

How exactly is abusing a technicality to block passing a law by not being there any more ' immature' than a filibuster?

And if a state has to pay their employees more so they can pay federal taxes, doesn't that just move money from state to federal government?

[Hazir]

The whole filibuster thing of course is nothing but institutionalized abuse.

[Dreadnaught]

How exactly is abusing a technicality to block passing a law by not being there any more ' immature' than a filibuster?

And if a state has to pay their employees more so they can pay federal taxes, doesn't that just move money from state to federal government?

A filibuster is built-in to the procedures of just one body of our government. But the point is to allow our legislators to debate an issue as long as they want until 66% of legislators say they've had enough debate. So if a group of legislators really cares about something, they can prolong discussion without getting shut-down.

This means a filibuster still involves showing up to work and nominally "fighting" your case. By contrast, it's immature to flee the State of Wisconsin because the Democrats are going to lose a vote that matters to the unions that bankroll their elections.

That's a problem with your ridiculous tax system, Dread, not with the concept per se.

And I'm condescending because you sometimes choose to make the most harebrained of comparisons.

No, you're condescending all the time from the get-go of any discussion. It's frustrating.

The fact of the matter is that almost every tax system has deductions that are based on the choices of tax-filers. You can't exempt a whole class of people from paying taxes when they have those same choices that impact their taxes. It's not as if Germany doesn't have deductible insurance payments, tax-deductible donations, etc. It's actually unfair to government workers to deny them these choices of reducing their tax burden.

But going back to the principle issue, it's really a bad idea for any society to allow a massive chunk of people to be totally disconnected from taxes. Taxes are a civil duty and it's our responsibility to vote on what we think taxes should be.

If the entire civil service gets paid from tax dollars, votes but doesn't actually pay taxes, they will have no connection at all to the source of their salary. They will just be a rabble on the street demanding more salary and endless tax increases because they have no conception of what people are actually paying. Which isn't that far removed from where we are now, but exempting them from taxes institutionalizes it.

[Khendraja'aro]

The fact of the matter is that almost every tax system has deductions that are based on the choices of tax-filers. You can't exempt a whole class of people from paying taxes when they have those same choices that impact their taxes. It's not as if Germany doesn't have deductible insurance payments, tax-deductible donations, etc. It's actually unfair to government workers to deny them these choices of reducing their tax burden.

Aha. So, they're denied the choice to reduce their tax burden - how exactly does one reduce a "burden" of 0%?

[Dreadnaught]

Because I'm using tax deductions to reduce my taxes and increase my income. They don't have that choice -- they have fewer levers to pull to change their financial situation.

[Wraith]

That is such bullshit; you are saying here it costs the equal amount for the government to tell the IRS, hey this guy is working for us as it costs them to treat that person as if he's working in the private sector? Khen is right, that is a dishonest argument. All you'd need is a simple declaration (that could be entirely automated from one government agency to the other) for the duration of someones tenure. There is no way that costs more than a fraction of the process that now taxes people in the private sector in order to pay people in the public sector their income + taxes, then withhold those public sector taxes again to finally recalculate taxes due when these public sector workers file for taxes.

The people sputtering against the simplicity of a such a system in my eyes are doing so out of a misunderstood sense of equal treatment. Because they pay taxes they want public sector workers to pay taxes too. Because they don't want to see public sector workers get preferential treatment when it comes to taxation. What they don't realise is that in order to prevent that percieved privilege they actually have to cough up more for the employment of people in the public sector, not less.

You're not reading a thing I say, are you?

[Khendraja'aro]

Because I'm using tax deductions to reduce my taxes and increase my income. They don't have that choice -- they have fewer levers to pull to change their financial situation.

Ah, so the more money you have, the more you can avoid paying taxes. Yeah, sounds like a great system to me.

[Flixy]

A filibuster is built-in to the procedures of just one body of our government. But the point is to allow our legislators to debate an issue as long as they want until 66% of legislators say they've had enough debate. So if a group of legislators really cares about something, they can prolong discussion without getting shut-down.

This means a filibuster still involves showing up to work and nominally "fighting" your case. By contrast, it's immature to flee the State of Wisconsin because the Democrats are going to lose a vote that matters to the unions that bankroll their elections.

Sure that's the point of a filibuster, but it's abused just as bad. Whether you block a vote that has a majority by keeping talking, or by not showing up, its essentially the same thing and both are not the way the rules were intended (I assume the reason for the amount of votes rule is that you can't pass a law by having a vote without the opponents being there).

[LittleFuzzy]

How exactly is abusing a technicality to block passing a law by not being there any more ' immature' than a filibuster?

There is additional social stigma in actually fleeing your place of work to avoid doing your job, much less fleeing the state entirely. At least the filibuster is actually part of the work the politicians are ostensibly paid for.

And if a state has to pay their employees more so they can pay federal taxes, doesn't that just move money from state to federal government?

That is one of the points Hazir already made, yes