The title, “A
better way for tax reform,” might have been ignored, as I’ve been reading
articles of this sort for more years than I can count and I’ve yet to come
across a convincing plan. However, its
author is a prominent member of congress, so I’m interested to see if there may
be a few well thought out ideas I’ve not heard before.
As you might expect, the first
several paragraphs paint a picture of statistical gloom. Our tax laws consist of 74,608 pages and more
than 700,000 words which, as the article suggests, “bury our families and
businesses in paperwork and confusing language.” And since Americans spend 6.1 billion hours
and $400 billion annually complying with the tax code, it’s “placing the American
Dream beyond the grasp of far too many.”
The final criticism: “Our tax system is broken and adversely impacts all
of us. There has to be a better way.”
So far, so good! I can’t argue with numbers too large to
visualize. Now let’s see what better
ways may be in store. The first
suggestion is that “our tax code should be simple and fair.” This is then translated as being “a
straightforward form that could be only one page . . . clear and concise, like
tax forms should be.” At first blush
this certainly sounds reasonable, for who can object to fairness? However I have my doubts about a tax return
relegated to a single page. Such a
return may be easily prepared, but perhaps not equitably so. My concern is that as a return becomes less
complex, the tax collector has fewer obstacles to overcome when ruling to
assess a maximum taxable income. I’m
convinced simplicity works to the benefit of the taxing agency, not the
taxpayer.
A second aim listed is that
“our tax code should incentivize businesses to invest and grow.” It goes on to stress that, to make the tax
code fair and competitive, “businesses will be incentivized to invest in job
creation and technological innovation.” In
theory this sounds commendable, but I suspect that, as in the past, incentivizing will merely devolve into
the creation of conventional tax credit incentives which are traditionally
lobbied by ever more politically motivated campaign contributions. The only way government can encourage
creativeness in business is by throwing money toward the source and hope
something worthwhile happens.
And lastly, the author described
the plan, recently put forth by the House of Representatives, calling for “a
simpler, fairer and flatter tax code.”
Ah ha, there are the magic words which will always bring cheers from the
gallery: the flat tax. As the concept is actually taken seriously,
it’s worth discussing.
Income tax in the United States
is assessed and collected in what are known as “brackets.” A tax system with a
wide percentage variance between the lowest and the highest brackets is
referred to as progressive, where the
proponents believe it’s fair that
those with the larger incomes pay a greater percentage of that income in taxes. If the number,
size, and tax rates of the brackets constituted the sole variables, income tax
analysis would be a simple matter.
However, it’s by the granting of various exclusions, exemptions,
deductions, and credits that the taxation of income takes on its true
character, and it’s through the use of these devices that the effective rates
are distorted into a bewildering array of meaninglessness.
This brings us to
the flat tax which, at its simplest, is the taxing of all income from whatever
source, with no exemptions or exclusions, at a single rate. This concept is propounded from time to time
by various political candidates in the hope that its simplistic approach will
somehow capture the hearts and imaginations of the beleaguered tax-paying
voters. Its supporters include
representatives of both major parties, where variations on the specific details
are introduced in order to satisfy one or another special interest group.
My objection to the
flat tax is its offer of tax simplification.
For the taxpayer willing to understand and utilize the system,
complexity is desirable, and the more, the better. Complexity, by its very nature, creates
opportunities for creativeness ¾
"loopholes," if you prefer that description. It also complicates the tax collector's
ability, sometimes to the point that the entire process bogs down in a mass of
self-contradictory rules and procedures.
Ease of administration of a tax system normally results, as I’ve
previously suggested, in maximum revenue to the collector, whereas complexity
works in the taxpayer's best interest.
It’s my fervent belief that the sole hope for the citizen is a
perpetuation of the presently existing labyrinth of tax laws. Only a system that provides an element of
indecipherability will allow the knowledgeable
taxpayer some maneuvering room. I
contend that the world of taxation is hostile and the appetite of the
governments is insatiable.
Let me add a
concluding though on this subject. I’ve finally
come to the realization there’ll be no viable tax reform proposals benefitting
the taxpayer that come from elected or appointed government officials. This is true regardless of party affiliation
or philosophical inclinations. The
reason for this is fundamental. The relative
eagerness to collect taxes from the citizen is not a factor relating to
Democrat vs. Republican—nor liberal vs. conservative—nor progressive vs.
reactionary. The distinction is far more
basic than this; it’s one between those on the inside collecting the taxes vs.
those on the outside paying the taxes.
It’s my belief that when dealing in the political world, don’t place
much faith in pronouncements, regardless of the source. You may rarely depend upon the people who
make them. And finally, you should never
have any doubts about exactly what the government expects from you. It wants your money.
♦
♦
♦
♦
♦
If you enjoy this
weekly Straight Talk by Al Jacobs, you’re invited to check out my monthly
Financial Newsletter, as well as my new book, The Road to Prosperity
♦
♦
♦
♦
♦
No comments:
Post a Comment