Sometimes, the inspiration doesn't come until a bit late

[jducoeur]

So this weekend's music was mostly off of Kate's father's playlist, and it happened that Janis Joplin came up a couple of times. That seems to have percolated in the back of my brain, because this came out in the middle of the night:

Lord, won't you buy me the Pre-si-den-cy.
I think I deserve it, since I'm a Romney.
And it will ensure that I remain tax-free.
Oh, lord, won't you buy me the Pre-si-den-cy.

Lord, won't you buy me a house painted white.
I know that it's small, but I'll try to pack light.
To earn it, I've made sure my wings are quite Right.
Oh, lord, won't you buy me a house painted white.

Comments

[herooftheage.livejournal.com]

It would be interesting to see next year's tax return. Of course, at $1.3m, last year he paid more in taxes than you will in your entire lifetime.

[jon-libby.livejournal.com]

It seems to me (note the opinion qualifier) that the tax code exists for two purposes:
1) To raise revenue for government expenditures.
2) To encourage some behaviors and discourage others.

#1 everyone seems to agree on though how much and what expenditures is the subject of great debate.
#2 is where it gets convoluted and one person's loophole is anther's desired outcome. Examples: As a nation, we wanted to encourage home ownership so we created the mortgage deduction. Now, when the mortgage mess is part of what got us into the current economy, there is talk of reducing or getting rid of it. We wanted to encourage investment, so unearned income is taxed less. Now, concerns about the gap between the rich and everyone else is causing there to be a debate about what's "fair".

What I would like to see is every deduction and the entire tax code have a statement of intended purpose and the debate center around whether the purpose is worthy and whether the purpose accomplished the purpose it is trying to achieve. That addition would be far better than a "simplification" to a regressive system.