This Rolling Stone piece hits the nail on the head. Deficits only matter when Democrats are the President

I think it would help a lot. Both the government and the private sector would save tremendous amounts of time, money, and resources if the tax code were simplified. 

I would argue for something like a flat 15 percent on the first half million and 20 percent on anything over that. With everyone receiving the same standard deductible of $50k. (The numbers aren't meant as an exact proposal but to illustrate the concept)

Yes this would likely, especially at first, result in less revenue from the income tax but imagine all the savings from a more streamlined and efficient system.

The cost of audits and enforcement actions would plummet. The IRS could function at a fraction of its size. 

I also really like Milton Friedman's idea of the negative income tax. 

(My preference would be that no individual pay any income tax but if we are to have an income tax that's how I think it should work)

    The reason for the "overspending" you lament is because of the effort to right the many wrongs the DemocRATs did during 2009-2016 and 2020-2024. Currently the economy is set to rebound greatly the next 2+ years because of the businesses and jobs that have/are being created because of the tariffs instituted by President Trump. Once the Iran business is taken care of, gas prices will drop and the economy will prosper greatly. The current inflation rate is low at 3.26% and thousands of new jobs have been created beyond projections. Remember this, the national deficit was not created in the past 17 months - it is where it is because of the overspending done by theDemocRATs 12 of the last 16 years. They are solely responsible for the national debt doubling from 10 trillion to 20 trillion during the years 2008-2017 - Democrat controlled/governing years. (From Google today) ---Post-2008 Financial Crisis: The debt doubled from roughly $10 trillion to $20 trillion in just 9 years (2008–2017). ---- The question asked of Google was - "growth of the national debt since 2008 to present"

Of course it all wasn't produced in the last few years / months;it  involves decades. Once again David, I think both sides are to blame..cumulatively. The rate of deficit increases has certainly balloned since 2008 as you noted. The Great Recession emergency spending and bailouts at that time, tax cuts without commensurate revenues,  Covid related spending measures, and Social Security / Medicare cost increases partially fueled deficit spending. during that time window. Both parties are at fault imo...can't blame the sum total spending all on those pesky Dems. 

I don't pretend to know the fiscal impact of the tariffs especially now in light of the recent SCOTUS decision , tariff refunds, and other trade legalities. In the end it adds to the taxpayers bill in the short term. That doesn't address how much additional revenues are / will be generated from tariffs and/ or levies. IMO the jury is still out on tariff effects. 

I don't have a specific detailed approach process to the code, but in the end I'd almost be willing to pay more simply for simplification's sake. I'd agree with you regarding the simplified revisions effects on enforcements and cost reduction, be it a flat tax or otherwise. Do you think our Congress would ever pass a negative income tax bill?

Perhaps. If it were presented correctly. Certainly more likely than most UBI proposals I have seen. 

There are a lot of Democrat politicians (and voters) who push for a UBI. One of the problems is they never come up with a way to pay for it. Most proposals want a check issued to every American over 18.  (Similar to social security after retirement) 

The cost would be astronomic and unsustainable. Giving a check of let's say $2,000 a month would basically match the entire US government budget last year. This makes UBI basically DOA for the middle and the right. 

A negative income tax could be set up to essentially pay for itself. It could help ensure that the assistance is only going to lower income people.

It could streamline  and nearly eliminate the current "welfare state". Increasing efficiency and lowering costs.

No more wastefully filtering money through the States, no more massively expensive administrative bureaucracy, no more maze of various assistance programs. The amount of money and  man hours saved would be incredible. 

It could do the above while also severely curtailing fraud and abuse. 

I think that would make the proposal much more palpable and a much better sell for politicians and voters on both sides of the aisle.  

Thank you. I will in fact have a very nice Mothers' Day. You as well (facetious as that wish on your part may have been).

I was ABSOLUTELY CERTAIN that you would call me a "radical." Anyone who disagrees with MAGA is automatically assigned that label. I blame you not. You had no more control over that reflex than a baby has over its bowels.

I continue to believe and think that conservatism is fundamentally flawed. It is also fundamentally immoral. However, there are thousands of sociopolitical philosophies out there that are even worse in those regards. So it would be merely an intellectual exercise to evaluate conservatism if my and all of our lives weren't currently being run by that philosophy--and fucked up big time as a result.

And of course, a true conservative government wouldn't be that bad (albeit putting us about eight decades behind the rest of the world intellectually and technologically), but what we actually have now is some fascistic funhouse mirror/clown car version of it, driven by one of the most evil men to ever walk the earth. I've been shocked and saddened by how few--how very, very, very few--Republicans have repudiated their party for its allegiance to that Orange Thing.

You don't need to scurry to that argument that the Democrats used to be this country's racist assholes and the Republicans were the liberal reformers. DUH. I'm not talking about 1885. I'm talking about the present. What YOU'RE doing is talking about "my party" as if my allegiance was to the label, rather than to the ideas and ideals they currently support. If they chuck those ideas overboard, then I'll drop them like the proverbial hot potato.

BUT--you haven't done the same to your Republican masters for violating your/their cherished ideals, have you? Support for the Constitution and the rule of law? Checks and balances? No man is above the law? That quaint ol' Bill of Rights? All toilet tissue to the Republicans, all of a sudden. 

Oh, and regarding government debt/finances, please don't do the weak Tom-shit of putting words in my mouth. I didn't say that the debt isn't a problem, and you're lying when you say that I did. What I said was that its magnitude was ameliorated by our #1 position on the world debt market. I said that was the reason why that debt hasn't crushed us. I also said that the evil and stupid actions of YOUR party are jeopardizing that. Doesn't the public believe, haven't they always believed, that the Republicans may be assholes, but they're the ones who can better manage the purse strings (despite the exact opposite being true, but never mind)? If they lose that faith, well, the Republican Party will join the Whig Party on the ash heap of history. And lest you believe I would consider that a good thing...I don't. One-party rule would be horrible no matter which party it was.

Believe it or not, I do respect your positions, because I think you never had any choice in the matter and at least you're true to them. I grew up in a pretty conservative household, albeit with a few kinks. But I was lucky in that my dad was kind of laissez-faire about it all. I can only pity today's conservative household children who are forced to kneel and kiss Trump's portrait before they can start dinner.

I hope the scales fall from your eyes someday. Truly. If not, I hope you're happy.

I feel the same way. Although I would probably add the word appalled as well. 

The Earned Income Credit is an existing mild negative income tax. And boy oh boy oh boy oh boy, did conservatives scream when it was first proposed/introduced. Predictably: socialism. SOCIALISM! SOOOOOOOOCIALISM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Any more extensive such policy would therefore be a non-starter. After all, how much bleating do we already hear: I DON'T WANT MAH TAX DOLLURS TO PAY FOR THOSE FILTHY (whoever) BUMS AND FREELOADURS. The recent focus has of course been on ILLEGULS, but I remember when it was on NIGGUHS and then on WELFAIR CHEETS and then on GAY PREVERTS and on and on and on and on and on. 

So like so many things that could be done in this beknighted proto-fascist failure of a society, whether it would work or not is beside the point. The only question is whether it would SELL or not. And the answer seems to be: absolutely, hell no. My fellow Americans like the idea of helping the poor about as much as they like the idea of drinking battery acid.

There is one semi-legitimate objection that would surely be raised if your suggestion was made. Wouldn't a negative income tax be a disincentive to work/earn? And if you wanted to deal with that by evaluating whether a recipient was hale and hearty and fit to be chained to the oars, and if so, giving him nothing, nothing, nothing unless he worked...well, then I suspect that a LOT of people would be judged as such and denied assistance. OR...everybody with a pulse would get the goodies, which wouldn't be any better.

Of course, we could have a society wherein everyone gets medical care, basic food, clothing, and shelter, regardless of circumstance, but we're not nearly that evolved, even though we're certainly wealthy enough.

My thesaurus has about twenty appropriate entries, such as "disgusted." But maybe the most powerful emotion evoked has been, for me at least, "surprised." How many politicians' careers have been shot down instantly and permanently for doing 1/100th of the crap Trump has done? Shouldn't bragging about being able to shoot people with no repercussions, mocking a disabled reporter, calling all immigrants rapists and murderers, "grabbing 'em by the pussy," etc. etc.---ANY of that--have doomed his political career then and there?

And then fast forward to 2024, and we can't even excuse them for not knowing who he really is that time around. It was abundantly clear! And yet...

I've said it before: Trump is merely the symptom. The black hearts and befogged minds of the American public constitute the disease.

Do you think Trump, if he was a citizen of and running for election in any other country, would have had a prayer of being elected?

Depends on how you sell it. You could stress the cost savings and efficiencies that could be created. 

As far as the distancecentive to work is concerned I would reply: 

If we were starting from ground zero, that could certainly be the case but we are not. We are starting with the current "welfare state". We are already spending money on this issue. This is about making it more efficient and streamlined to save money and reduce fraud. 

It provides no more disincentive to work than the current system.

In fact it provides less disincentive to work than the current system. 

If someone receiving benefits gets a job and stops benefits, it can be very difficult to get back on welfare if they lose that job a year or two later. This is a powerful disincentive against finding work and encourages people to get trapped in the system long-term. 

A negative income tax would eliminate that problem.