Reference:

---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Ryan Wold ryanjwold@gmail.com Date: Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 9:00 PM Subject: Re: [sunlightlabs] Re-Engineering the Tax Code To: sunlightlabs@googlegroups.com

The 'code engineering' aspect of this topic intrigues me. About 2 years ago, we took a stab at visualizing dependencies and references within the US Federal Code of Law - http://sunlightlabs.com/blog/2010/olympics-coleslaw. Spaghetti.

Very generally, our written body of law is like a codebase. Creating a shared, open way to refactor it would be amazing. Certain object-oriented concepts would need to be adapted, such as Inheritance, but it's an interesting thought experiment. Somebody could fork a bill from one municipality, add or modify a provision, and send a pull request for the bill to be considered for adoption in another. Someone could patch a corporate loophole. The concept of unit testing seems applicable here as well. Testing tax code, laws, or public program outcomes would be a great way to write learning loops into public policy and practice. Ryan Wold

On Wed, Nov 14, 2012 at 7:48 AM, Tom Lee thomas.j.lee@gmail.com wrote: Folks, there are plenty of places on the web for picking ideological fights, but I'm afraid this isn't one of them. The arch ad hominem attacks, in particular, aren't something that I suspect many subscribers are interested in reading. Those interested in tax policy might want to have a look at the helpfully-named Tax Policy Center (http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/), CBO (http://cbo.gov/) or (shameless plug time) Pew's Subsidyscope Tax Expenditure database, which Sunlight helped to build (http://subsidyscope.org/tax_expenditures/summary/). You might also want to follow the output of venerable wonk/academics like Len Burman (http://blogs.forbes.com/leonardburman/ and other outlets), Stan Collender (http://capitalgainsandgames.com/blog/stan-collender), and Greg Mankiw (http://gregmankiw.blogspot.com/), though the latter writes about a bunch of econ topics, not just budget and taxes (if that appeals, Tyler Cowen is worth throwing into this mix, too). It's great to see people digging into a really wonky topic like this one -- that's something we believe in strongly at Sunlight. Credentialism is pernicious and dumb. But it is true that there are a bunch of smart people who've been working on these issues for decades, and people who want to join the conversation will probably do well to spend their time engaging with that body of work rather than sniping at one another. On Wed, Nov 14, 2012 at 8:58 AM, indie indiejade@gmail.com wrote:

Excellent. Because your comments have added little of anything useful or interesting to the conversation, we'll thank you for them, and wish you a nice day as well. As far as constitutional mandates go, the premise of the article is based on the assumption that the main purpose of government is to foster an environment where free enterprise can thrive while protecting citizens' freedoms from the crippling power of monopolies and oligopolies.

The main problem with the GOP's approach is that they want the first (unrestrained free enterprise), but not the second (protection from monopolies/oligopolies). The GOP wants to profit from monopolies + oligopolies because that's one of the quickest ways to generate lots of wealth, quickly, and to essentially siphon the wealth off those who are earning it.

But we've already accumulated enough evidence that oligopolies such as those in the mortgage industry have weakened practically destruction of the middle class, and hurt more people than they help. Heavily taxing those oligopolies as they start to converge and become a colluding monopoly essentially puts the brakes on their power and makes it easier for more new players to compete.

With the following articles, I will continue to make the case that if government encourages small business with lower bottom-bracket taxes and , but takes the approach to aggressively tax and restrain oligopolies that act as monopolies, everyone but the greediest scum on the top tier benefits.

On Tue, Nov 13, 2012 at 11:04 PM, Connor Vlakancic connorv@gmail.com wrote: P.S.: The federal tax code is bizare and arcane, but the lack of fiscal restraint is worse. On Wed, Nov 14, 2012 at 8:02 AM, Connor Vlakancic connorv@gmail.com wrote: No, it's about engaging a rational budget process of constitutional mandates, not a wish list for as much as you want.

Your opion got two comments and you attacked one of them. I got better things to do than engage your acrimonious diatribe, like work to finance MY budget.

Have a nice day. On Wed, Nov 14, 2012 at 4:16 AM, indie indiejade@gmail.com wrote:

On Tue, Nov 13, 2012 at 2:12 PM, Connor Vlakancic connorv@gmail.com wrote: What does all of that cost on a budget basis. Then... extract the taxable numerics from the budget. There are innumerable things wrong with this approach. It's the equivalent of shopping with a credit card while unemployed: "spend as much as you want, then we'll figure out a way to pay for it" mentality that is idiotic an unsustainable.

I studied accounting for my undergrad and economics for my grad degrees; your attempt at insulting this thought experiment by calling my approach to the brackets "imaginary" is vapid if you can't suggest something better. If you actually read the article, you'll see that what has been outlined thus far is just Part 1 of the series. Encouraging entrepreneurship by having extremely low tax on the lowest incomes (not making distinction between marital status or business structures), and gradually being more aggressive where higher incomes stunt the ability of impoverished people to get out of the poverty -- this is just the first step.