Lost in the noise: a tax holiday is a bad idea

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Fenixgoon

Lifer
Jun 30, 2003
32,049
10,822
136
What spending would you cut first...?

\ah, that Gordian knot...

entitlements, for starters.

i would eliminate social security entirely over the next 40-50 years, that way people depending on it now wouldn't be hurt, but people my age (20's) would know not to expect anything and would need to start planning for retirement now (which i am).

i would increase efficiency at all levels of federal government by operating it more like a traditional business - incompetent employees are fired. as it currently stands, there are lots of people who are still there simply because the actions to fire them are too lengthy.

third, i would decrease the size of many parts of the government. there are people whose sole job is to purchase things for other people, and it costs money on a per transaction basis. that means if i wanted to buy something from newegg for $5, it'd cost probably $200 (in terms of time) just to have someone else buy it for me. ridiculous.
 

novasatori

Diamond Member
Feb 27, 2003
3,851
1
0
We currently get NOTHING from the money overseas. It's not a matter of saying "ok, we'll tax you less, we'll give you a break", we get nothing right now. Anything we get is a positive.

why would they bring it back, when they know they will get these dumb tax holidays like they have previously?

the companies that did it before paid out extra bonuses and cut employee numbers
 
Last edited:

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
349
126
entitlements, for starters.

i would eliminate social security entirely over the next 40-50 years, that way people depending on it now wouldn't be hurt, but people my age (20's) would know not to expect anything and would need to start planning for retirement now (which i am).

i would increase efficiency at all levels of federal government by operating it more like a traditional business - incompetent employees are fired. as it currently stands, there are lots of people who are still there simply because the actions to fire them are too lengthy.

third, i would decrease the size of many parts of the government. there are people whose sole job is to purchase things for other people, and it costs money on a per transaction basis. that means if i wanted to buy something from newegg for $5, it'd cost probably $200 (in terms of time) just to have someone else buy it for me. ridiculous.

Ah, the sound of a new babe to the federal government, 'I'd cut the waste' myth.

You're making up your own facts and not aware the impact of what you suggest.
 

Michael

Elite member
Nov 19, 1999
5,435
234
106
So, the USA has this really weird tax code that taxes you on worldwide income (research it, this is very different than almost all other countries in the world). The printed rate is way high and very uncompetitive so Congress has based a trillion special incentives to allow American companies to compete on a semi-even play field.

Damn those "loopholes".

Michael
 

Doppel

Lifer
Feb 5, 2011
13,306
3
0
You should be embarrassed to post anything written by Matt Taibbi.

The guy is a complete hack and nothing more.
LOL is hack now the word used for people who actually break away from the pack and perform...what's that word, damn--oh I remember, journalism?

Most of us get our news from 800 word articles consisting of little more than a bot cut/paste of stuff from the AP. He actually delves into things.
 

Nebor

Lifer
Jun 24, 2003
29,582
12
76
third, i would decrease the size of many parts of the government. there are people whose sole job is to purchase things for other people, and it costs money on a per transaction basis. that means if i wanted to buy something from newegg for $5, it'd cost probably $200 (in terms of time) just to have someone else buy it for me. ridiculous.

You couldn't buy it from Newegg. You'd probably have to buy it from gsaadvantage.com. A whole website built around fleecing the government. If they didn't have it on there, or you needed it now, or it was impossible to get shipped to you, you'd have to attempt to purchase it on the local economy. But of course, that means you can't buy at national chains (Walmart, Home Depot, Lowes, etc.) you have to purchase from a place that's locally owned, and on an order of preference list based on if the owner is a racial minority or woman. The end result is that when when we need to get some ramps so that we can drive the lawnmower into the storage unit we have to drive an hour each way (in a .gov truck using $4\gal gas) to a "locally owned" hardware store and pay 70% more than the same item costs at Lowes, because the "locally owned" store knows they have us by the balls.

Ugh.
 

piasabird

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
17,168
60
91
If we just move some of the government offices we could pay people $45k instead of 100k+. Instead of having all the government offices in Washington, DC, we should spread offices out more around the country.
 

novasatori

Diamond Member
Feb 27, 2003
3,851
1
0
If we just move some of the government offices we could pay people $45k instead of 100k+. Instead of having all the government offices in Washington, DC, we should spread offices out more around the country.
someone talked about this in a video I saw, not about wages per say but basically..
voip conference for congress and they stay in their home region, if people want to lobby them they can visit all of them locally plus we pay less for travel etc
 

MotF Bane

No Lifer
Dec 22, 2006
60,801
10
0
And those who are anti-tax ideologues, remember every dollar you cut in these taxes is another dollar added to what you owe in the public debt.

Fucking bullshit. The government chooses to spend, adding to the public debt, and then looks at taxes. You blind little hack.
 

LegendKiller

Lifer
Mar 5, 2001
18,256
68
86
Fucking bullshit. The government chooses to spend, adding to the public debt, and then looks at taxes. You blind little hack.

Sorry, but the *PEOPLE* choose to spend and the government has to fund it. Everybody thought that Medicare D was a great idea when Bush signed it. Polls on the left and right said it was a great idea. Now if Obama passed it, everybody would be screaming "entitlements!!!!!!11111". One problem is, in the last 30 years, everybody took their cue from Reagan, spend and worry about debt later (except for Clinton and that R congress). Even Reagan raised taxes, but nobody on the right thinks that, nor will they even entertain new taxes or even a rollback of the Bush cuts.

The problem with the people is that the right thinks that everything on the left is evil. The problem with the left is that they think that everything on the right is evil. The right thinks there can be *NO* increase in taxes, even though taxes were higher 20 years ago and we had a huge economic boom over a decade, sure, there was some malinvestment, but, overall, it made the US a leader in IT (MSFT, Oracle, IBM...etc). The left thinks that there can be *NO* decrease in spending, but even 12 years ago we had a far smaller budget.

The ironic part is, even if we rolled back the clock to 10 years ago, pull out of Iraq and Afghanistan, we'd eliminate ~50% of our current budget deficit just from taxes and wars. You roll back Medicare D and other entitlements, you bridge the gap completely.

This shit isn't hard but nobody wants to look past their party lines. It's quite pathetic.
 
Last edited:

Fenixgoon

Lifer
Jun 30, 2003
32,049
10,822
136
Ah, the sound of a new babe to the federal government, 'I'd cut the waste' myth.

You're making up your own facts and not aware the impact of what you suggest.

every spending cut is going to have impact. the fact of the matter is is that cuts MUST be made.

what would you do, craig?
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
349
126
The government wastes almost 2/3rd of all the money it gets.

Idiotic made up lie.

When the government is 'inefficient', it's typically the result of 'private sector' corruption.

Social Security and Medicare are two of the biggest programs, and are a fraction of the overhead of private sector counterparts - except corruption like Medicare Part D non-negotiation put in the bill directly as a result of Republicans selling out to big pharma, or military contractor spending made profitable for companies by their lobbying.
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
349
126
...spend and worry about debt later (except for Clinton and that R congress).

One correction: The deficit was reduced about the same when Clinton had a D Congress.

The problem with the people is that the right thinks that everything on the left is evil. The problem with the left is that they think that everything on the right is evil. [/quote]

False equivalency isn't helpful; and it leads to straw men like:

The left thinks that there can be *NO* decrease in spending, but even 12 years ago we had a far smaller budget.

The left will favor a variety of spending cuts (they're not the ones who put the 'non-negotiation' Medicare Part D clause in, most would take it out).

They don't favor balancing the budget on the backs of poorer citizens - part of the 'shift the wealth to the top' strategy - but they'll cut a variety of spending.

The timing for cutting is not during a weak recovery, much, though. You know that, I presume.

You roll back Medicare D and other entitlements, you bridge the gap completely.

Obama 'sold out' on the issue, but the Progressive Caucus would like to roll that back.

The big increase by Democrats has been the temporary stimulus that has helped the country have a weak recovery instead of a much larger crash.

The criticism for Democrats is not getting enough people elected to get past Republican obstructionism, gutting programs from healthcare reform to financial reform to pass them.

Because of that, we haven't yet addressed the coming skyrocketing of medical costs (no matter what the payment system), the continuing Wall Street bad behavior, etc.
 

ohnoes

Senior member
Oct 11, 2007
269
0
0
You couldn't buy it from Newegg. You'd probably have to buy it from gsaadvantage.com. A whole website built around fleecing the government. If they didn't have it on there, or you needed it now, or it was impossible to get shipped to you, you'd have to attempt to purchase it on the local economy. But of course, that means you can't buy at national chains (Walmart, Home Depot, Lowes, etc.) you have to purchase from a place that's locally owned, and on an order of preference list based on if the owner is a racial minority or woman. The end result is that when when we need to get some ramps so that we can drive the lawnmower into the storage unit we have to drive an hour each way (in a .gov truck using $4\gal gas) to a "locally owned" hardware store and pay 70% more than the same item costs at Lowes, because the "locally owned" store knows they have us by the balls.

Ugh.

There are many problems with gov't procurement, but they're not for the reasons you cited. Quite the opposite actually.

1. Decentralized purchasing/non-mandatory contracts. This leads to a fragmented supply base as each department or user buys whatever he/she needs. Vendors then don't have significant enough volume to offer meaningful discounts. Management also becomes an issue as no one knows how much overall $ is spent on XYZ, further reducing any leverage in negotiations. Individual departments like decentralized purchasing b/c it gives them freedom to do what they want, which isn't always in the best interest of the overall local/state/fed gov't.

2. One-off bids/contracts. Many bids are done on an ad-hoc basis, so instead of trying to negotiate a 3 year contact with price escalation clauses, it's a one-time contract or a one-year contract. Again, reducing overall volume & commitment to suppliers and reducing their incentive to lower prices.

3. Lack of standards. Stems from #1. Too much fragmentation of types/brands of products when a set of standard products would satisfy the majority of needs. Much easier to get better discounts and lower pricing when you can say to a supplier I want 1 million units of product A, B, and C, vs. I want everything in your catalog.

4. One round sealed bid process. There's no follow-up negotiation as each supplier submits their bids and hope that it's the lowest.

"Paying someone else to buy for you" is exactly the answer to this as it allows you better control and visibility into your expenditures. Most companies have centralized purchasing departments precisely for this reason.

As to the point on small business, minority, & women-owned businesses, they don't "have you by the balls." While these entities do get a preference, the preference is small. They usually get something like a 5% bonus to their final score during the bid evaluation process. If you look at the statutes governing procurement, it'll be stated there.
 

halik

Lifer
Oct 10, 2000
25,696
1
0
Matt Taibbi, commondreams.org ha!

I too get my tax policy analysis from Rolling Stone magazine. You wonder why no one takes you seriously?
 
Last edited:

brencat

Platinum Member
Feb 26, 2007
2,170
3
76
Ok, explain to me how we could possibly not see any effect if the money comes back to this country. No matter how they use it, it has a positive impact. How positive depends on how they use it (investing in growth and creating jobs, very positive. Paying bonuses to CEO's, not so much), but I don't see any situation where we collectively wouldn't see some positive impact of that money being brought back. Can you explain how the money could be brought back to the US without us seeing any impact?

The same way as last time. Repatriation tax holiday = opportunity for public companies to pay one-time special dividends to shareholders and/or increase bonuses for top execs of the company that would do absolutely nothing for ordinary U.S. workers. I'm all for granting a repatriation holiday/tax discount IF we can also ensure the money brought back will be invested in capex in the U.S. or for job creation in the U.S. But I'm not sure how practical that is considering the free-trade cheerleaders will scream "unfair!".

I think Infohawk's comment earlier says it all. What is different today than 15 years ago is the relentless offshoring of jobs to slave-labor countries that were previously done in the U.S. by lower and middle class workers. It is going to be a lonnnnnnng road to full recovery indeed.
 

ayabe

Diamond Member
Aug 10, 2005
7,449
0
0
Matt Taibbi, commondreams.org ha!

I too get my tax policy analysis from Rolling Stone magazine. You wonder why no one takes you seriously?

Love all the Taibbi hate on here recently.

Documented hackery is still zero, other than from the zealots where he's in the hole at least 5 points by default due to uncomfortable subject matter.
 

Nebor

Lifer
Jun 24, 2003
29,582
12
76
There are many problems with gov't procurement, but they're not for the reasons you cited. Quite the opposite actually.

I didn't cite any reasons. Procure a wheel barrow full of dicks and eat them.
 

ohnoes

Senior member
Oct 11, 2007
269
0
0
I didn't cite any reasons. Procure a wheel barrow full of dicks and eat them.

Is it that you are incapable of learning, learn the wrong things, or don't want to learn? Therapy can help with the first, higher education with the second, but unfortunately no cure for the last.

Have fun in your world of misfacts, unfacts, & fauxfacts. Just don't look outside when the world passes you by.
 

ProfJohn

Lifer
Jul 28, 2006
18,161
7
0
Love all the Taibbi hate on here recently.

Documented hackery is still zero, other than from the zealots where he's in the hole at least 5 points by default due to uncomfortable subject matter.
Hackery found...

Here are quotes from a piece he wrote about Bachman.
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/michele-bachmanns-holy-war-20110622
for Michele Bachmann is almost certainly the funniest thing that has ever happened to American presidential politics.
Bachmann is a religious zealot whose brain is a raging electrical storm of divine visions and paranoid delusions.
She's trying to look like June Cleaver, but she actually looks like the T2 skeleton posing for a passport photo.
And Bachmann is exactly the right kind of completely batshit crazy.
in which case this hard-charging challenger for the GOP nomination is a rare breed of political psychopath,
And that is all in the first 6 paragraphs of his Bachmann story.

Anyone who takes him seriously is a joke.
 

Zivic

Diamond Member
Nov 25, 2002
3,505
38
91
don't forget that home mortgage deduction "loop hole" or that dependent deduction "loop hole" or property tax deduction "loop hole" or vehicle registration deduction "Loop Hole" You took the bate. You call compliance with existing tax law "Loop Holes" so now the tax law that benefits you and be considered a "loop hole" and used to strangle more tax revenue out of you and other bottom feeder "loop hole" parasites.

^^^^ best post of this thread.

we need to cut spending plain and simple. I don't want anyone paying more in taxes. we all should be able to keep our money. We have a bad mentality here than the gov't has first count of the money we earn and whatever they choose to leave us should be more than enough and we should be thankful for getting any....

we need to ask ourselves, when is enough enough. People need to realize that corps don't pay taxes. They just input that into the cost of whatever good or service they produce and pass it along to the consumer. so any increase in taxes to corps will basically mean you and I pay more for whatever it is they produce -> this is not to say that if corp taxes were eliminated today we would see a decrease in prices. we won't likely see that, but would see the increase on the upside.

we have a leaking bucket and the politicians all want to keep filling it with our tax dollars vs fixing the damn thing. @ss backwards thinking -> that's what makes a politician a politician. We are all over qualified