Quote Originally Posted by Koga No Goshi View Post
Wouldn't pushing everything onto the states just increase state deficits? CA is already in deficit, as an example. This seems like just pushing the debt around, and I'm unconvinced that huge waste happens less at the state level than Federal. A state for instance would have less mass purchasing power or contract power for things like prescriptions than a nation wide purchaser does.
Yes it very well could - which would require the state to ask for money from the Federal Government by petetioning congress. Is there some Federal government buereracies that should remain - sure for the exact reason you stated. However I would have them controlled and limited in size to prevent huge waste and fraud.

Now corruption is also in the states, and this requires the states to get a handle on the corruption within their own systems.


Could you mention what specifically is waste within the IRS? If you mean things like auditing, which yes is quite costly, it really is one of the very few things that scares a few skittish people into obeying the tax laws. I'm sure there are some wasteful branches of the IRS but I was just curious which ones you meant specifically.
Interesting anadote - is that I worked for the IRS 20 odd years ago while in college and so did my mother before she passed. Audits are indeed useful, but the system itself is full of double bueraracy. Pre-audit, audit, review, notication of audit and so forth. Then there is the tax code itself which creates a bloated bueraracy just to inform the unspecting of what new law has just been made. Cumbersome tax codes for the most part cause the waste within the system


Correct, and my point is that it should stay that way. The argument I was responding against originally was the idea that the rich deserve to pay less tax, and have their tax burdens lightened. Basically the ideologically conservative mindset. I think that with loopholes, with staff lawyers and family financial planners and estate planners and such, the rich already get out of most of their on paper tax liability. So a suggestion of remove estate tax, remove graduated income tax, that floats around a lot... I just don't see where people expect the money would be coming from otherwise. I think it fits into this whole "make government" tiny thing, but I think people don't think 2 steps ahead and picture how that would look if we didn't have enough for defense or public education. Or, these are people who already use private schools and private healthcare entirely, and really don't care what effect it would have on the people who can't afford those things. My suspicion is that the people who lobby hardest for cutting taxes especially at the top end of the spectrum do it less out of a sincere belief that we will enter utopia of free market capitalist nirvana. I think it comes down more to individual wealthy people wanting to be wealthier and not liking money going to taxes. This is, of course, just a guess. But I don't see what else could be behind it when they seem unconcerned with being in a huge deficit and wanting to cut taxes on the portion of the economy fit to pay any serious tax revenue per capita.
My arguement is that the tax code needs to be restructured to prevent just the instance that you are speaking about. The graduated system we have installed is extremely prone to abuse by all groups that pay taxes. (the problem is that the rich have lawyers and accountants to get them off, where the middleclass and the poor get to pay the fines themselves). Any system as full of loopholes that we have in our tax code has to be overhauled from the base up. I dont have a problem with graduated taxes, what I have a problem with is the loopholes that have been created and the bueraracy that is supported because of those loopholes.

Now take for instance inherientance tax - a lot of people think it only applies to a certain income bracket - and that is true for Federal, but each state also has a inherientance tax and some of them are different then the Federal. Should a family loose its family property because of inheritance taxes? some would say this would not happen but I know of several instances where this actually happened so that the inheritance tax could be paid.

And yes loopholes within the inheritance taxes also need to be removed so that its a more fair and equitable distribution of assets between the estate and the government.

Congress has made a mess of the tax code in addressing special interests, primarily corporations but some toward all groups of wealth in the United States to include the poor.


I agree, though it's a double whammy in the U.S., where you probably wind up fighting with the insurance company or having to cover large portions of your care out of pocket, while simultaneously unable to work, and still having bills and your mortgage due. I'm sure it's far from perfect in socialized medicine, but it's a double whammy for us in the present system. And that's not even mentioning the people who don't have any form of private healthcare.

Well here is where personal responsiblity comes abit into the picture, you have to investigate your health insurance before purchase. I do this every year during the company open enrollment phase of paying for my insurance for a year. So those with the ability to pay for insurance owe it to themselves to probably research their policies. (and with a bi-polar wife who is hospitalized at least yearly, I make sure that they cover the condition before enrolling.) If the health insurance company refuses to pay for an agreed upon condition that is stated in their policy, then there are recourses that the consumer can take.

But I agree the current system has a severe flaw because insurance companies often do attempt not to cover something that was agreed upon in the policy in the first place.

For the un-insured this personal responsiblity does not apply, they only have the personal responsibility to attempt to insure they life as healthy as they can.