The mechanism you're describing still relies on wealthy decision-makers choosing how to allocate resources, with benefits supposedly trickling down, just with different incentives driving those decisions.

Without proper regulation and oversight, even with high tax rates, businesses can characterize financial instruments as "business expenses", create shell companies and circular arrangements, or move money offshore. Nothing changes.

[–] Rivalarrival@lemmy.today 1 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (1 children)

We're having two different conversations, apparently. You're talking about enforcement. I'm talking about policy.

The low-tax policy we have is fundamentally designed to funnel money into the hands of the wealthy. It doesn't matter how much we enforce that policy: the policy itself is exacerbating wealth disparity, income disparity, wage stagnation, etc. "Regulation" and "oversight" of compliance with that harmful policy does not make it less harmful.

Policy enforcement is meaningless when the existing policy is the problem. We need a tax policy that drives wealth toward the working class.

Regulation and oversight only become important after we have a valid policy to be regulated and enforced.

[–] chemical_cutthroat@lemmy.world 0 points 4 days ago (1 children)

We're having the same conversation. I'm just saying that the IRS has been gutted to a shell and had to be rebuilt before we even begin to worry about how much anyone is getting taxed. Regulation first. Then we can look at the rates.

[–] Rivalarrival@lemmy.today 1 points 4 days ago (1 children)

We're having the same conversation.

The closest we've come to having the same conversation was when I claimed that the current tax policy is the root cause of wealth disparity, income disparity and wage stagnation. From my point of view, your response was "Enforce it anyway".

Our current tax policy was established by Reagan. It was not designed to incentivize a thriving economy. It was deliberately designed to funnel money to the rich.

It does not matter how much we regulate or enforce Reagan's tax policy, because even 100% perfect compliance with Reagan's tax policy promotes wealth disparity, income disparity, wage stagnation, and all the other socioeconomic problems that these conditions create.

Until we have a proper, economy-focused tax policy to enforce, enforcement is irrelevant.

[–] chemical_cutthroat@lemmy.world 1 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (1 children)

I didn't say, "enforce it anyway." I said that we have to be able to enforce anything we go. Go ahead. Change the tax rates. Tell you what, I'll do it for you. Corporate tax is 91% now. Boom. Done.

What's that? I have no power to enforce it? Kinda like the IRS and our currently gutted system? Well, it doesn't matter, because we changed it and now everyone will just do it.

[–] Rivalarrival@lemmy.today 1 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (1 children)

Well, it doesn't matter, because we changed it and now everyone will just do it.

The IRS can audit books and initiate enforcement action at least 7 years after the fact. So yes, even if the IRS is currently gutted, "everyone" tends to at least pay lip service to the rules, because they don't know if the IRS will stay gutted through 2032.

Our current tax policy is not beneficial to the economy. Enforcement of the last seven years of Reagan's garbage policy doesn't get us anything. So there is no urgent need to rebuild the IRS, and won't be until we establish good tax policy.

Establishing new policy has to be the priority. We have seven years to rebuild the IRS to enforce the policy we establish today.

[–] chemical_cutthroat@lemmy.world 1 points 4 days ago

Im out.