« Which Of These Things Is Not Like The Other? | Main | Crack on the Mind »
January 12, 2006
Why The Tax Code Is Complex
It's not that I mind arguing over the Flat Tax, it's just that I dislike doing it so disingenuously. Which is why I'm glad to see Jon Henke breaking with tradition and admitting that, while he'd like a flat tax, the complexities in our code are structural outcomes, the inevitable results of our legislative process. But then, just as soon as he mentions it, he forgets again, assuming that a move to a flat tax would indeed end loopholes and even out taxation. Most pundits do this, and it's bizarre.
When I say the word loophole, folks think of Bermuda mailboxes. But those are second order changes, quirks that are opened and exploited long after the original distortions are introduced. The real changes dumping complexity onto the code are the popular ones: mortgage deductions, child credits, health care deductions, and so on. Once you begin creating massive, though well-meaning, hills and valleys in what should otherwise be a smooth rate progression, it becomes exponentially easier for savvy lobbyists and interest groups to add in a few more, then a few more, then a few more. Sometimes, the reasoning is sound, creating incentives meant to bolster flagging industries or encourage worthy behavior. More often, they're not. In any case, the changes become anachronistic, with the original pressures compelling their enactment fading but the loopholes and tax breaks remaining in full force.
Tax simplification is easy. The Alternative Minimum Tax, which everyone apparently hates, is simple enough to verge on insulting. And yet it's tough to find a politician in this country not urgently calling for its repeal when, if simplification were the object, they'd simply nix "alternative" from the title and make it the primary tax code. The reason they don't is easy: voters don't want a simple tax code. They want a code in which they pay less money and other people pay more.
So even if we did pass a simplified tax code (I, for one, think, Chakka Fattah's Transaction Tax, CAP's proposal, or Ron Wyden's "Fair, Flat Tax are all great plans), in a couple years, some Republican will carve it apart with complicated, partially-sunsetted, strangely distributed tax cuts, or some Democrat will propose a popular system of deductions and targeted rebates, and we'll be right back on the road to complexity, with future amendments receiving little scrutiny and business interests eventually dominating the process. Because in the end, voters like tax simplification as a concept, just as their eyes light up to "small government." But they'll happily sacrifice the government's shrinkage for programs that benefit them and they'll quickly abandon the tax code's simplicity if it'll save them money.
January 12, 2006 | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/19450/4029941
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Why The Tax Code Is Complex:
Comments
The URL for the Chaka Fattah tax proposal seems to include the phrase, "FinalFattahFeeLegSeal", which struck me as amusing.
I'm kind of wary of transaction fee tax schemes, because I don't know how much of the $3 trillion daily transaction amount is highly leveraged short-term trading in currencies and other financial instruments. But I'm guessing it's a pretty big amount. Lots of big currency trades are done for a profit under 0.4%, and if you charge that much to get in and out, these trades just won't happen. So the total daily transaction figures after Fattah's tax was instituted could be a lot lower than they are now, and the tax rate would have to rise as a result. If anyone has numbers on this, I'd be curious to see them.
Also, I'm wondering if this scheme would create weird incentives for businesses to vertically integrate (merge with their suppliers/customers), so that they could avoid taxable transactions with outside entities.
Posted by: Neil the Ethical Werewolf | Jan 12, 2006 1:07:10 PM
I agree with a lot of what you write, and I really do think there's a lot of room for liberals, libertarians and conservatives to have some real convergence on this issue. A properly structured flat tax could be effectively progressive and a LOT more economically efficient than the current code.
But I'm curious why you say I forget the structural complexities after I mention them? I do agree that any permanent tax reform would absolutely have to end and/or substantially restrict the rent-seeking/social engineering incentive to play with the tax code. (and that's a very bipartisan problem) I didn't go into that, but I did link to this New Libertarian article, which discusses exactly that problem.
I'll look into the proposals you link. In the meantime, I want to add one more thing: "simplification" is often taken to mean a reduction in the headache of compiling tax returns, and that's certainly a part of it. However, I think it's important to remember that real simplification -- of the kind I'd propose -- would involve simplifying the economic incentive problems introduced by the tax code. Come to think of it, liberals could probably find something to like about that, too.
Posted by: Jon Henke | Jan 12, 2006 1:13:56 PM
Also, I'm wondering if this scheme would create weird incentives for businesses to vertically integrate (merge with their suppliers/customers), so that they could avoid taxable transactions with outside entities.
The tax code allows and encourages this now through the consolidated 1120 tax return. If businesses meet the owndership percentage tests, they may disallow income on transactions between themselves and only report transactions with outside companies. They then report their adjusted earnings as a block on one return.
Posted by: Fred Jones | Jan 12, 2006 1:16:54 PM
Another thing worth mentioning is that for a hell of a lot of people, filing their federal income tax really isn't that difficult. If memory serves, a good 45 million taxpayers use the 1040A or the 1040EZ, which really are pretty simple. Yeah, it might take an hour to fill out, but it's just an hour people would spend watching American Idol or looking at internet porn or beating their kids, anyway.
Posted by: Dadahead | Jan 12, 2006 2:05:17 PM
Great info on this subject:
http://tinyurl.com/7fhwc
Posted by: Fred Jones | Jan 12, 2006 3:30:47 PM
Fred, I think tinyurl and similar services are nice when they come from someone I trust. The possibilities for mischief are too great otherwise. If you really have great info, post some. If the URL's too long, provide the domain and a search item - "Google an advanced search for 'foo' at 'bar.com'" would work.
If you're posting a naked URL, use the 'url' tag.
Posted by: jackd | Jan 12, 2006 4:11:22 PM
Personally, I'm a FairTax guy myself, something Jon Henke and I have sparred about quite a bit in the past. I think it's the best option, and I think we've reached the point that we need to scrap the current system and start from scratch. But no tax system will solve the real problem: that politicians will spend money collected from a distributed source (taxpayers) to benefit small groups (special interests), buying their votes. Any time cost is distributed but benefit is focused, rent-seeking will be highly profitable.
What those of us on the conservative/libertarian side of the aisle (like Jon and I) really want to see is a tax system that is transparent and understandable to the general public. We believe that if people actually see just how much they're paying for the services government provides, they'll demand greater accountability and fiscal discipline. But as long as they believe that taxes can just be raised on someone else, whether that is the eeevvviiilll rich, or corporations, or dividend and capital gains income, etc, they're never going to stand up and fight for it.
But you want to know what I think the absolute possible best way would be to create more small-government proponents? End withholding. If we can avoid armed revolt, we'd see tax rates drop very quickly.
Posted by: Brad Warbiany | Jan 13, 2006 9:49:07 AM
End withholding. If we can avoid armed revolt, we'd see tax rates drop very quickly.
I have heard this suggestion made many time. However, politicians and those who like big government and high taxes will never promote this. It's more important to hide the terrible tax burden.
Posted by: Fred Jones | Jan 13, 2006 10:37:55 AM
Yeah, Fred... I know will never let it happen. But a guy can dream, right?
Posted by: Brad Warbiany | Jan 13, 2006 11:16:29 AM
Yeah, Fred... I know politicians will never let it happen. But a guy can dream, right?
Posted by: Brad Warbiany | Jan 13, 2006 11:17:43 AM
Exposing the tax burden at every turn would be a good thing to strive for. Let them know how much they are paying. Keep reminding them of how little they are getting.
Posted by: Fred Jones | Jan 14, 2006 12:36:18 PM
Wow Best site I liked look my - sexteen
Posted by: tee | Aug 14, 2006 4:38:48 PM
Wow Best site I liked look my - sexteen
Posted by: tee | Aug 14, 2006 4:40:04 PM
仓储笼
仓储笼
折叠式仓储笼
仓库笼
南京仓储笼
上海仓储笼
北京仓储笼
广州仓储笼
杭州仓储笼
仓储笼
仓储笼
仓库笼
仓库笼
折叠式仓储笼
折叠式仓储笼
折叠仓储笼
折叠仓储笼
仓储笼
仓库笼
折叠式仓储笼
折叠仓储笼
仓储笼
仓储笼
仓储笼
仓库笼
折叠式仓储笼
仓储笼
仓库笼
折叠式仓储笼
蝴蝶笼
储物笼
南京仓储笼
上海仓储笼
北京仓储笼
广州仓储笼
仓储笼
仓库笼
折叠式仓储笼
蝴蝶笼
储物笼
南京仓储笼
上海仓储笼
北京仓储笼
广州仓储笼
仓储笼
仓库笼
折叠式仓储笼
储物笼
上海仓储笼
南京仓储笼
北京仓储笼
广州仓储笼
仓储笼
仓库笼
折叠式仓储笼
蝴蝶笼
储物笼
南京仓储笼
上海仓储笼
北京仓储笼
广州仓储笼
仓储笼
仓库笼
折叠式仓储笼
蝴蝶笼
储物笼
南京仓储笼
上海仓储笼
北京仓储笼
广州仓储笼
仓储笼
仓库笼
折叠式仓储笼
蝴蝶笼
南京仓储笼
上海仓储笼
北京仓储笼
广州仓储笼
Posted by: judy | Sep 29, 2007 11:28:08 AM



