The Buzz at Peach Pundit

I have known Buzz Brockway for years, though we’ve only met in person a couple of times. Buzz started the Georgia GOP Yahoo group that has slowly dwindled. Buzz moved on from it long ago and established himself as a real player in Georgia Republican politics. We are absolutely thrilled that Buzz has agreed to start posting at Peach Pundit on the front page.

As with all the new comers, we’ve asked Buzz to use his best judgment in staying away fron the Reed v. Cagle “let’s all hate each other and bash each other’s candidate” race.

Also, I say again, Bobby Kahn, email me if you have any Dem bloggers you want to recommend. We really are striving to be non-partisan here, but we also know that our circles run mostly in the GOP.

14 comments

  1. Bill Simon says:

    “Non-partisan” denotes a non-political approach.

    “Bi-partisan” denotes people from both political sides participating.

    Please stop trying to denote involvement from both sides of the political spectrum as “non-partisan” as if one side neutralizes the other side. The correct terminology that you want this site to be, Erick, is “bi-partisan.”

  2. landman says:

    Guys,I just left my accountant’s office and wrapping up 2004 tax returns,WE NEED TAX REFORM,NOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!This may be a subject we can all agree on.Whats the best plan out there and Why? Writing this check is gonna ****………..

  3. GAWire says:

    >>>”””WE NEED TAX REFORM,NOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!This may be a subject we can all agree on”””

    All of us, except the Democrats!

    Or, we could just raise taxes. Personally, I would love it if I had to give more $ to the gov’t every year. C’mon, Dems – where ya’ at?

  4. Revenue neutral payroll tax relief + two tier income tax level with no deductions. I know a lot of people on this site probably get some income from a small business or self employment and there absolutely should be a tax system under which small businesses get tax relief while their established corporate competitors pay the same rate as them instead of effectively 0% in most cases.

    We probably won’t see any meaningful reform on any issue right now though as both parties aren’t really rewarded by their core voters for putting forward pragmatic solutions. Example: Dems will merely want to “roll back the Bush tax cuts” even though the tax code as it existed in 2001 isn’t much preferable compared to the one now, Reps will only want to discuss some sort of flat/”fair” tax that isn’t realistic and like many problems in Washington no progress at all will be made.

    How’s that for non-partisan?

  5. Bill Simon says:

    I think you are an example of my “bi-polar” claim, Chris. You had the opportunity to froth-at-the-mouth in typical Red Clay Dem fashion, yet, you chose a more reasoned approach. This site must be a good influence on you. 😉

  6. Booray says:

    Bobby Kahn is a bi-polar, bi-partisan ass.

    Mr. Erickson – I implore you to shut the door on that SOB. His shot at the Perdues over the Mansion Fund is way below the belt. I have had the pleasure of meeting Mrs. Perdue a few times, and she is as innocent as any person in Georgia politics, and for her to be involved in this (and get as upset about it as she did) shows how filthy Kahn really is.

    George Washington once said, “Only a fool treats a clown and a prince the same way.” Just because Kahn is chairman of that other party does not mean he is entitled to be treated like a prince when he is definitely a clown.

    At some point, one’s lies disqualify you from being in polite company. Kahn is disqualified in my opinion.

    Booray Bussey

  7. kspencer says:

    Every tax reform proposal I have seen keeps running into the same (or similar) problem. Heck, even Chris’s has it. It’s the explanation my prof for Fed Income Tax of a few decades ago gave:

    We wind up paying tax attorneys because the code is complex. And the reason the code is complex is twofold – we want to be fair, and we want to encourage people to behave in certain ways.

    We think it’s not fair that charities devoted to caring for others (parallelling government duties) should have to pay as much. Thus we give exemptions and reliefs. We think it unfair that those scrabbling to barely make it have to pay as much (actual or proportional) as the fat cats. And so and and so forth, leading to this tax credit and that tax deduction. And then we compound it.

    We want to encourage people to buy instead of rent. We encourage marriage, and we want to encourage people to use more energy-efficient items on their houses. We encourage people to go to college, and encourage them to invest in businesses. All by giving adjustments and credits and deductions and, well, more complexity.

    Chris has a nice reform idea, and right up front throws out a loophole. And I suspect that as details got thrashed more loopholes would appear – and that’s just bandying about the idea. Add in a few years of people trying to be fair and people trying to encourage or discourage certain behavior – plus a few who are trying to get a little more of their own – and the whole thing ends up being a repeat of what we’ve got now.

    Oh, I’ll end with my own personal recommendation. Don’t change anything in the taxes at this time. Cut some of the extraordinary increases in spending. And change the prioritization of IRS audits so that instead of audits being equally distributed by gross income they’re distributed in a skew curve weighted toward the high end. It’s “simple” time management. You can’t pursue all the violators as drastically as the IRS has been cut, so go after the bigger payoffs instead.

  8. Where’s my loophole? Small businesses, many who pay the top tier rate right now, could get a huge tax cut if you eliminated the loopholes that their large competitors can drive trucks through.

    If large businesses are going to pay something instead of nothing, someone else can see their taxes go down by comparison and it can still be revenue neutral. Or am I missing something?

  9. kspencer says:

    Chris, I may have been misunderstanding what you meant when you wrote that small businesses get tax relief.

    I note that nominally big corporations pay higher rates – similar to how high income individuals nominally pay higher rates. Your solution is (it appears to me) to reduce the number of tiers AND to eliminate exemptions. Mine is to pursue and recover the money that wasn’t paid.

    Oh – businesses are actually more frustrating for tax issues. The reason is defining expenses. An old Hollywood cliche is applicable – always get a piece of the gross because the net is never over zero. As long as you can be creative enough in defining expenses – and it’s worth paying attorneys and accountants to avoid having them challenged too effectively – it’s amazing what your tax burden can shrink to become. [addition – that is not a slam against attorneys or accountants, nor is it intended to paint all who’d support such with a broad brush. It’s meant as a simplified example of a complex issue.]

Comments are closed.