How would you fix the tax code?
Not that it's so terribly broken, we do manage to collect lots of money and most people owe a reasonable amount and pay what they owe. Still, there are many things that could be improved, from the inconvenient paperwork to the odd loopholes to the inconsistent enforcement. Suppose you had the job of overhauling our tax system -- what would you change, and why?
- Would you retain a progressive system or switch to a flat tax?
- Would you decrease income tax and increase usage (eg, gas) taxes?
- Would you alter our withholding system so employees keep more money until taxes are due?
- Would you tie the AMT to inflation, scrap it, or leave it?
- Would you change SS and Medicare payroll tax rates? Change the SS cap?
- Would you increase or decrease auditing? Change which groups of taxpayers are targeted?
- Would you (continue to) promote saving and investment through tax policy? Home owning?
- Would you permit taxpayers to target a portion of their payment towards specific programs?
- Would you change the child tax credit? Change rates for married filing jointly?
- Would you eliminate the gift tax? The inheritance ("death") tax?
- Would you tinker with the rates for different brackets? With what goal in mind?
My answers: I would retain a progressive system because it's not significantly more complicated than a flat tax and because I believe it is a more efficient means to raise revenue; I would not utilize targeted taxes (gas, cigarettes) because they have a nasty habit of turning into general income collected in a regressive manner; I would consider only withholding FICA taxes and letting people budget their own money; I would tie the AMT to inflation absent any other significant changes in the tax code; I am fine with current SS and Medicare rates; I would increase auditing of high-income taxpayers because it's more efficient; I would use the tax code to incentivize behavior I consider beneficial, such as saving, investing, or buying a home (which is also an investment); I'd allow taxpayers to direct a portion of their dollars between top-level programs (military, education, etc); I'm not sure government ought to be encouraging marriage and having kids but I don't see any real harm either so I'd keep things as they are; I'd keep gift and inheritance taxes; I'd keep current rates for now and look to cut federal spending slightly.
What would you do?

Comments :
My Crack at It (tax Questions)
To keep this from going too long, I'll only hit a few of them.
- Would you retain a progressive system or switch to a flat tax?
Flat tax. Hands down. It would involve no altering of the Constitution (like the Fair Tax requires). Under my 20-20 plan, I would exempt the first $20,000 from any tax, then tax each dollar above that amount by 20%. I would also raise the interest income to 20% as well, so no matter where you make money, it's taxed at 20%. It would bring a steady flow in, and even if you live off you interest (meaning you don't pull an income), you would be taxed at 20%. Sounds fair to me.
- Would you decrease income tax and increase usage (eg, gas) taxes?
Sure. I know Libertarians suggest this all the time. They tend to follow a "legalize it and tax it" approach to things like prostitution and marijuana. I'm not a Libertarian, but I don't think it's a bad idea. If red states like Nevada and Colorado don't have a problem with it, I don't see it as a major issue.
- Would you alter our withholding system so employees keep more money until taxes are due?
No. the reason why it was put in place to begin with is because as a whole we tend to spend what we make. Some people are convinced that "they don't even pay taxes, because the government pays them," when actually they are getting a refund. Withholding enforces the idea of "out-of-sight, out of mind," and keeps people from going into bankruptcy when they get a $7500 tax bill in April.
Would you tie the AMT to inflation, scrap it, or leave it?
Scrap. AMT was an envy tax, and now everyone is getting bitten. Let the government find a way to budget properly and cut spending, like the rest of us do.
Would you change SS and Medicare payroll tax rates? Change the SS cap? I might leave it the same, but I just don't feel as if I'm getting any SS anyway. SS is supposed to go under in 2042, just when I turn 62 and can start to claim benefits. Knowing that I probably won't get any return on my "insurance investment" will probably make me more reluctant to raise the cap on how much more of my hard-earned paycheck they can take.
- Would you (continue to) promote saving and investment through tax policy? Home owning?
You know it! Saving is very important, and we need to convince future Americans to save like their grandparents did, to have a supplement for Social Security. And I would favor responsible home-owning and discourage giving out loans to people who cannot pay them.
- Would you permit taxpayers to target a portion of their payment towards specific programs?Not a bad idea, as long as it's properly regulated. I wouldn't want people to cheat the system by having John Smith donating to the "Smith Family Empowerment Fund."
- Would you change the child tax credit? Change rates for married filing jointly? Nah, I'm not heartless. The EITC/Child Tax Credit is helpful to families who need a little help sometimes. I would extend this. If you're married filing jointly, I would not penalize you for this.
Would you eliminate the gift tax? The inheritance ("death") tax? To compromise, I would bring it down to the flat tax rate of 20%. 50% is kinda harsh. I agree money can be taxed "every time it changes hands," but we should be reasonable, so that we won't have an AMT-type problem in the future.
-Would you tinker with the rates for different brackets? With what goal in mind? See first answer above. My goal is to help educate people that they are funding the government and they should keep an eye on how their money is being spent in Washington.
http://wealthweekly.blogspot.com
Wii FC:2805-8311-8040-2678
Brawl: 2277-7051-2186
Thanks for the detailed answers!
The only one that doesn't seem precisely consistent with your overall philosophy to me is the withholding one. True, people have an unfortunate tendency to spend what they have, but some of those people still get hurt under the current system if they get a refund and spend it all right away.
I guess by switching more of the tax from income to sales that problem diminishes.
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
Suggestions
1) Treat the normal income of hedge fund managers as normal income instead of as capital gains income.
2) Bring back estate tax.
3) if we're feeling frisky try this:
Washington monthly
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
I like it
3 sounds particularly nice -- what's the potential downside? Discourage people from investing?
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
Personally I hate sales taxes
because if the price tag says a 39.99 I want to pay 39.99. I don't want to have to multiply four digits by a decimal in my head to figure out if i have enough cash on hand.
Oregon has rejected a sales tax like every damn year, fortunately. I wish people would take the hint and stop pushing it.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
Easy solution
Federal legislation mandating that price tags include all applicable tax!
I'm sure everyone would support that...
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
They already do it with gas n/t
http://wealthweekly.blogspot.com
Wii FC:2805-8311-8040-2678
Brawl: 2277-7051-2186
That'd be fine. -nt.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
I rather like this as well.
I think "capital gains" should be taxed, but treating capital gains as normal income is something I've long favored.
Something fairly radical has to happen vis a vis corporate taxes.
"Everyone believes in the atrocities of the enemy and disbelieves in those of his own side, without ever bothering to examine the evidence." - George Orwell
I'd re-read Milton Friedman's take on taxes;
he's the only one I trust!
Politics is a clash of interests masquerading as a clash of principles. – Anonymous
Not a big reader of Tax Policy..
Can you give me the Cliff-notes version? What's Friedman's Philosophy?
http://wealthweekly.blogspot.com
Wii FC:2805-8311-8040-2678
Brawl: 2277-7051-2186
He was a flat tax guy
with a negative income tax at the bottom instead of the govt acting as a "middle man."
I've never heard him opine on the consumption tax.
My ideas
Throw current code in the garbage. Clean Slate.
1. No itemized deductions on personal income tax.
2. All income is taxed by the same method.
3. Method is NO INCOME TAX up $30K (single or married), 10% from 30K to 70K, 15% from 70K to 150K, 18% above 150K.
Accompanying spending cuts:
Freeze social spending for 3 years and then vote by department for 3 year periods.
Cut military by 30%
Abolish DofEd and several others. (gimme time, I'll find them).
I won't even touch non-discretionary though it does need reform.
I think you and Tlaloc might actually
manage to find common ground here.
I assume the reduction in income is more-or-less balanced by the cuts?
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
Partly balanced by the cuts
The rest is made up by the economic growth from having so much less drag on the economy.
The other important component that I didn't mention was a tighter money supply and less Fed interference....if not none.
That may upset those short-term investors
Market traders have been like drug-poppers lately, looking to the Fed for their next hit (by asking them to pump more money into the market and cut rates), which seems only work in the short term.
http://wealthweekly.blogspot.com
Wii FC:2805-8311-8040-2678
Brawl: 2277-7051-2186
Well that's too bad.
The Fed playing God with the money supply causes so many of our problems.
I prefer Pence's
fair tax (could come in the form of a VAT). I think it's a flat 23% on consumption with rebates or outright negative taxes for the poor (in combining with Friedman's idea.)...and please destroy the current code.
I'll have to get more detailed. Good subject.
I'm fine with all of this, except one thing...
...your values should be indexed for inflation.
It shouldn't be hard-coded as $30K, $70K, $150K.
The values need to be tied to realistic inflation numbers.
That's how we got into this whole AMT mess.... the number stayed static, while incomes rose over the years.
In 25 years, half the population will make $150K a year.... and a loaf of bread will be $5.
“Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth.” --- Albert Einstein
well, obviously
sorry I didn't specify that. That goes without saying.
Of course, what would be great would be to have a constitutional amendment to forbid higher percentages. But those busy bodies in DC would be terrified to have such limits of what they can tell us is "necessary". They'd be nearly speechless. Oh the self-important power of the purse.
And as I consider those percentages a little longer, I think I'd raise the minimum income from $30K to $35 or $40K as well as leave off that extra 3% over $150K....maybe have it apply at $250K.
Hmmm.
Reforming the tax code is quite beyond the capacity of a single human being, so I won’t even try. Rather, I’ll share the principles that I think should guide such a task:
All that said, I’m no big fan of taxation, what it is used for, or the state generally. Most of our discretionary budget, for instance, goes to fund
a trillion-dollar-a-year war machine
. That’s certainly not on my agenda.
"Everyone believes in the atrocities of the enemy and disbelieves in those of his own side, without ever bothering to examine the evidence." - George Orwell
This, of course, presumes...
...a state-capitalist economy and property rights schema not radically different from the one we now have; it's not that useful, I think, to devise specific policies for fundamentally different circumstances, because there are too many variables and intangibles.
Appropriate institutions would likely evolve organically.
"Everyone believes in the atrocities of the enemy and disbelieves in those of his own side, without ever bothering to examine the evidence." - George Orwell
This is probably a more productive way
to look at taxes -- thanks for the answer! I would think Democrats would sign on to most or all of these principles -- the voters anyway, if not the politicians. Number 9 is the one that I don't see happening anytime soon, even with the increased concern for global warming, but maybe I'm wrong about that. People with a range of political beliefs seem to favor a carbon tax, so perhaps there's enough support to get it enacted.
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
My answers....
Would you retain a progressive system or switch to a flat tax?
I'd go consumption tax which would effectively be flat to slightly progressive (after rebates at the low end.) I'd favor a negative income tax for income level below some point (I dunno, $15,000?)
Would you decrease income tax and increase usage (eg, gas) taxes?
Definitely get away from income tax. I'm a big believer that taxes affect behavior. If you're going to affect behavior, I would think that a tax that doesn't discourage earning and encourages saving would be the most beneficial type of tax we could have.
Would you alter our withholding system so employees keep more money until taxes are due?
Not an issue in my system, but Milton Friedman regretted his influence on getting the witholding system in place soon after it was implemented. It increases compliance, but our citizens aren't nearly as conscious of excessive taxation as I think they would be if there were no witholding.
Would you tie the AMT to inflation, scrap it, or leave it?
My system scraps it. This was a government scam anyway. Basically, certain taxpayers beat a terrible tax system and the government didn't like it....so they arbitrarily say, "Here, pay this."
Would you change SS and Medicare payroll tax rates?
Definitely. The payroll tax is especially destructive. It discourages production from the employees end and it discourages hiring from an employers end.
Change the SS cap?
I probably wouldn't have a cap if we kept with the current system. I don't know what sense it really makes. Maybe someone can explain that to me.
Would you increase or decrease auditing?
Auditing would be greatly hampered in my system ;-), but I dunno. We have to have a way to enforce this terrible system.
Change which groups of taxpayers are targeted?
Targeting is an interesting word. I don't want to target. It implies that taxation is a punishment....maybe that's what our current system is....but, to answer the question, you can plainly see the differences I would promote above.
Would you (continue to) promote saving and investment through tax policy?
YES!
Home owning?
No.
Would you permit taxpayers to target a portion of their payment towards specific programs?
Very interesting. I've never thought about it. As much as I like the idea of less centralized control, is it workable? Give me some examples.
Would you change the child tax credit?
No, I'd built that into rebates.
Change rates for married filing jointly?
N/A
Would you eliminate the gift tax?
Yes
The inheritance ("death") tax?
Yes
Would you tinker with the rates for different brackets?
No.
With what goal in mind?
No over-riding objective although it probably seems that way compared to the current code.
Re: targeting tax payments
I guess I had in mind some broad categories of federal discretionary spending (although we could make it total) with current percentages indicated, and then taxpayers could indicate what percentages they would like to see go to e.g. military or education spending. They would only be able to target a fraction of their total payment. I would think it would be really easy to implement electronically and too much hassle to do with paper filings. Not sure what the consequences would be in practice, but it's appealing to give everyone a (small) voice in how the government spends that income.
I'm curious, how come you'd promote savings and investment but not home ownership? What's the distinction?
Thanks for your answers!
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
Maybe almost accidentally....
this is my answer. My goal with creating a tax would be for it to be temporal neutral, meaning it doesn't affect the behavior of the people. No tax can achieve this, but I think you're getting the least destructive with this type of tax. (ie, income tax discourages work, payroll taxes discourage work and new hires, etc)
So almost by default, the consumption tax discourages--well, consumption. And the flipside of that is that you encourage savings.
Regarding a home, it's a decent savings vehicle, but I don't really consider it a great investment, and encouraging it? Well, I'm not necessarily opposed, but I don't see compelling enough reason that I should be for it.
The housing bubble was a perfect storm, but our zeal to get people in homes was certainly one aspect of it.
"They would only be able to target a fraction of their total payment."
Well, I don't see any pitfalls in the idea so far. Put me down for tentatively "yes" on that one (as long as it's only a fraction and wouldn't completely impair our military.)
Repeal the 16th Amendment...
Abolish the income tax on labor and capital. Replace with usage taxes,land tax, excise taxes, modest tariffs.
Raise the minmum age of ss and medicare by 5-10 years with the goal of eventually phasing it out.
Spending -- where does your money go?
I imagine most people have seen either this
or something similar, but I'm going to post it here anyway so I don't have to google next time I'm wondering.
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson