More bias from US News, another lame-stream media outlet that won't give you the facts.
The US News headline to this item: "How a Flat Tax Would (Ahem) Kill Jobs." Note: the vast majority of people who just skim headlines will be saying 'flat tax kills jobs' at the water cooler tomorrow.
What does the article say? It says that some tax preparation assistants, tax lawyers and tax accountants will lose their jobs under a flat tax. The article doesn't mention that these jobs are the wasted inventions of a bureaucratic nightmare, the 11,000 page tax code. It does say "... the cost of "tax compliance" [is] nearly $400 billion this year, nearly as much as President Obama wants to spend on his latest jobs plan. So simplifying the tax code, theoretically, would cut back on compliance costs and put more money into the pockets of ordinary taxpayers."
Theoretically? Theoretically cut back on compliance costs?
Yes, that's what it says. But its just a theory you know.
Who among us looks forward to paying that tax preparation bill? What value is it adding to the economy?
These are the same preparers that cannot agree on anything "same data, different tax" an important reason to consider a flat tax. However, Rick Newman doesn't want you to know that, and instead says those tax preparers "are well-trained professionals ... supposedly the kinds of high-paying, white-collar jobs we want to keep in America, not the kind we want to eliminate." [Emphasis mine.] Folks, this is partly why its so difficult to get rid of wasteful bureaucracy, including bureaucratic overhead. Liberals consider these changes 'job killers' never mind they are useless regulatory compliance jobs.
Since when are useless regulatory compliance jobs we want to keep in America? US News says so, Rick Newman says so. The same Rick Newman that has a rap sheet at NewsBusters. He continues "enactment of a flat tax could plausibly be labeled as a 'job-killing' plan..."
Time out! Rick, you can't label something 'job killing' without examining both sides of the equation.
Eliminating the costs associated with the government regulation and the laborious tax code frees up enormous capital to be put to a more useful purpose, enriching the economy, instead of being a drag on it. As Carl Says: "Indeed, government spending plus the costs of regulatory compliance total 35.5 percent of our economy."
I'd quote more idiocy from the article, but it gives me abdominal pains to read his drivel, I could do a whole book correcting his logic and facts. I don't have time for that.
By the way, Rick Newman doesn't want you to know that a flat tax would also kill a lot of jobs at the IRS too.
8 comments:
I've been wondering when someone would notice this very basic fact...
Lots of tax preparers, lots of accountants, lots of tax lawyers, lots of computer tax programs...
And these aren't "little" guys. My guess is that they'll fight simplification tooth and nail.
>>> These are the same preparers that cannot agree on anything
Oh, but wait, there's more...
The REALLY lovely part of this, is that, if you ASK THE IRS ITSELF what the law is, the response they give you, even in writing, should it be in error, does not protect you in any way from any failure to obey the diktat of some other IRS official or Tax Court as to wat you should have done.
Right -- the IRS itself denies any responsibility for correctly answering questions about the tax code.
You want insanity, that's insanity.
When the government can demand compliance with laws which their own agents are not expected to be able to provide an accurate answer as to the meaning of, that's insane.
SueK -- You are so right! Lawyers and accountants lobby to keep their jobs, and their lobbies are powerful. Some might say the head of their lobby is sitting in the White house right now.
By the way Suek for whatever reason all your comments end up in the spam bin and I have to dig them out manually. Not sure why, but that's why you see a delay in posting on the blog, it takes me a while to get to them.
Yes OBH even a blind squirrel catches a nut now and then.
Here is an interestingly relevant quote I heard recently:
"Institutions try to preserve the problems of which they are the solution" ( Jay Parkinson, MD).
I recently heard an interestingly relevant quote:
"Institutions try to preserve the problems of which they are the solution"
---Jay Parkinson, MD
I'm guessing here - since I'm in no way a technological whiz - but my son is a somewhat paranoid technological whiz, and convinced me that installing "NoScript" was a good move. I suspect that it has something to do with that. As I write this, I show that 19 scripts on the page are being blocked. Probably one of those 19 is some kind of a cookie or something similar and controls some other little device that redirects the comment.
My trick is going to be to find out which one it is, and allow it.
I'd dump the whole thing, but I must admit that between the blocked script count and the "Ghostery" list (another one he had me install), I'm a bit spooked myself. Who is collecting what information with all these javascripts?? It probably wouldn't bother me as much if I knew more. Or maybe it would. My son knows more and it bothers him. Of course, he's always been slightly paranoid.
He's going into computer security. It's a good field for him!
I'll make changes one by one - and please let me know if I move from the spam file!
Ok...testing. Commenting from the computer at work. If this works right, I'll be pretty certain it's something in the NoScript program.
Looks like the comment I did this AM from home didn't come up. Probably in the spam file again.
Testing testing...
Post a Comment