AIP column: Pet projects and tax reform
posted at 9:30 am on October 1, 2009 by Ed Morrissey
A story earlier this week about a proposed tax deduction for pet expenses got me thinking about tax reform. Every election cycle politicians of all stripes talk about simplifying the tax code or reforming the process, and yet the last time any serious effort was undertaken by Congress on this issue was over two decades ago — and it fell far short of success in the long term. We spend over $250 billion a year in tax preparation and possibly more than twice that on tax compliance, according to the GAO. Why does nothing change?
In my new AIP column, I explain why Congress doesn’t want to part with its Byzantine weapon, and why taxpayers love the idea of tax reform just up to the moment that it impacts their own deductions:
Too many people have stakes in the existing deductions. Homeowners will shriek if the mortgage interest deduction disappears, and parents will burn the phone lines if Congress eliminates their deductions for their offspring. The more deductions that get offered, the more stakeholders they create in the status quo. And let’s not forget that tax preparation industry, which would stand to lose hundreds of billions in a simplified system.
However, if those stakeholders were the only problem, Congress could probably sell an overhaul. As much as those deductions mean to taxpayers, a simplified system would mean more – in efficiency, in economic growth, and most importantly in individual liberty. An IRS in such a system would work as a simple collection agency, not an invasive, pervasive presence in our lives, giving the government access to information it should have no business accessing. Taxpayers would certainly want that.
Unfortunately, as the HAPPY Act and the other deductions show, Congress is the biggest obstacle to real reform. The existing tax code perfectly suits their purposes. It gives them the power to tinker with the choices made by Americans, from pet ownership to home ownership, and from procreation to fishing tackle. It also gives Congress an inordinate amount of power to pick winners and losers in the marketplace through tax incentives and penalties. In short, the existing tax code gives Congress far too much power for a legislature in a free society.
Be sure to read it all. If a political party wants to get serious about liberty and less intrusive government, then overhauling the tax code should be one of its highest priorities. In fact, given how most people are satisfied with their health care and Americans overwhelmingly hate the tax system, a tax-system overhaul should have been far ahead of a health-care system overhaul on the political agenda — and the tax system is entirely a government activity, unlike ObamaCare’s intrusion into the private sector.
While you’re at AIP, don’t miss the other columnists and bloggers there. Matt Margolis wonders whether President Obama has turned Afghanistan into a quagmire. Lorie Byrd notes that the phrase “budget cuts” has a strange definition these days. John Hanlon discusses the difference between Rep. Joe Wilson and Rep. Alan Grayson.










Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
No more blood in this turnip.
Akzed on October 1, 2009 at 9:33 AM
Taxes we don’t need no stinkin Taxes.
A simple tax code would be very welcome…
SHARPTOOTH on October 1, 2009 at 9:34 AM
I’ve been talking to my employer about making me a contract laborer, so that they don’t have to pay the Payroll Tax.
I would then not file a tax return and would not pay taxes. If an illegal alien, or Charlie Rangel, or Tim Geithner can cheat the government out of taxes, why can’t I.
PappaMac on October 1, 2009 at 9:39 AM
“Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.”
-Lord Acton
Wethal on October 1, 2009 at 9:43 AM
I plan on not paying taxes any longer and refusing to declare my citizenship. The authorities can’t legally ask for any proof of that and I will utter “No speaka da English” to any query.
Bishop on October 1, 2009 at 9:44 AM
A politician revising the tax code….just a minute……I had to catch my breath from laughing….wiping tears from my eyes…..oh, man that was funny.
right2bright on October 1, 2009 at 9:48 AM
Tax reform without tax simplification is not reform.
Loxodonta on October 1, 2009 at 9:50 AM
The Fairtax is a great idea and many congressman are behind it. Gov. Huckabee is a huge proponent of the Fairtax and I am sure he will run on it again in 2012.
texasconserv on October 1, 2009 at 9:52 AM
I would use the image of a person as a string puppet to campaign for a simpler tax code.
ALso, thanks renters for subsidizing my home ownership.
WashJeff on October 1, 2009 at 9:52 AM
I like the pet deduction idea. But only for dogs, and NOT “drop kickers”. The highest deduction for Labrador Retrievers
Jeff from WI on October 1, 2009 at 9:54 AM
Don’t advise this. The “Rangle defense” has not worked so far. Folks are sentenced to serious prison time for tax evasion. The DOJ and Treasury Department play for keeps in these matters.
Last month a guy who hired me my first job (35 years ago) was sentenced to 5 years for ‘promoting’ these types of anti-tax schemes.
clorensen on October 1, 2009 at 9:54 AM
No $$$ for cats, rabbits, hamsters, birds, turtles or any other pathetic excuse for a pet.
Jeff from WI on October 1, 2009 at 9:56 AM
35 years ago. Are you kidding me. I’ll be dead in 35 years.
PappaMac on October 1, 2009 at 9:57 AM
Can’t I just Finish My Waffle a Florida Resident, has the skinny on Grayson, and where his funding comes from. We should name these post like Colbert Report’s “better know a district”. How about: Better save a district.
http://bellalu0.wordpress.com/2009/10/01/save-district-8-florida-vote-out-incumbent/
Dr Evil on October 1, 2009 at 9:57 AM
I love this idea. I wonder how strict Ed and the flat tax types are. Will they tax capital gains and interest income the same? How about deductions for home mortgages? Second homes? Charitable donations?
How about corporate taxes? Nobody benefits more from a complex tax code than institutions that can afford both lobbyists and full-time accountants and tax lawyers (which is why, although nominal corporate tax rates are rather high, actual corporate tax rates are relatively low).
Most important, in the long-term, is it possible to have a Congress with the courage to hand out money directly — subjecting subsidies to a much stricter scrutiny — rather than sliding a tax-break into the code. I mean, as far as taxpayers are concerned a grant is the same as a tax break. Let those Alaskan whalers justify their subsidy rather than weaseling a tax-break into the code.
Bleeds Blue on October 1, 2009 at 9:58 AM
It will work if you cover all the bases.
Laminated SEIU membership card, Ogabe 2008 bumper sticker, change my name to Dishaun Gonzales Geithner, and an ACORN banner flying from the flagpole; these will get me a free pass.
Bishop on October 1, 2009 at 9:59 AM
My dog was born without a left foreleg and had to have a rod implanted in his right foreleg, so I should get a handicapped license plate and a double deduction for him.
rbj on October 1, 2009 at 9:59 AM
I could live with a system that is as follows:
[(Income + Dividends + INterest + capital gains) - Poverty Level income] * 10%
For corporations, a business net receipts tax rate of 1%.
WashJeff on October 1, 2009 at 10:07 AM
Believe it, or not, see Bleeds Blue. This time he’s not dripping drivel (except for his lame attempt to indict corporations with his broad brush):
I agree that the tax laws ar atrocious, and need to be changed, as in simplified. Pronto.
hillbillyjim on October 1, 2009 at 10:08 AM
Here’s a puzzler, Bleeds Blue:
Do you agree with the Baucus proposal’s inevitable outcome, that being that a citizen could be facing jail time for losing his or her job?
hillbillyjim on October 1, 2009 at 10:17 AM
Has to be on gross…net is too difficult to define.
Most every movie “losses” money, but it grosses millions.
It it is on the gross (like .1%) then it is easy to add to the cost of goods.
The only difference I would make is that I think every American should pay tax…I know it sounds strange, but even if they get $1,000 from the gov, they should pay back in taxes.
That way everyone learns that there is no “free ride”…everyone, even if it is just a dollar year, needs to pay taxes.
*
If businesses are expanding or purchasing new equipment, if it is American made, I would think about an incentive to kick start our domestic economy.
If a car manufacturer and purchase their plastic lenses domestically and keep a plant of 500 workers working, that is a huge plus to us.
right2bright on October 1, 2009 at 10:23 AM
Depends…what kind of dog?
Jeff from WI on October 1, 2009 at 10:30 AM
I’ve already seen Obama’s revised tax code:
IRS-1040
Line 1: Income (how much did you make) __________
Line 2: Send it in
CC
CapedConservative on October 1, 2009 at 10:30 AM
Mom was a Min Pin, dad was a terrier of some sort. He will challenge bigger dogs
rbj on October 1, 2009 at 10:33 AM
ER…well..maybe…we do have that “no drop kicker” rule though…LOL
Jeff from WI on October 1, 2009 at 10:43 AM
just kiddin’
Jeff from WI on October 1, 2009 at 10:44 AM
He’s bigger than a drop kick dog, about 22 lbs.
rbj on October 1, 2009 at 10:44 AM
http://www.fairtax.org
Rufus on October 1, 2009 at 10:46 AM
The term I used came from what was proposed for the state of CA.
The WSJ claims it is like a VAT tax, which I am not well versed.
I like the feature of the tax since it seems less complicated in reporting to the IRS and it does not penalize companies for making a profit and subsidize those companies that do not (like our current system).
One critical part of and tax simplification, and maybe an amendment is needed, is to require 60% approval for tax and spending increases and only 50% for tax and spending cuts.
WashJeff on October 1, 2009 at 10:50 AM
OK…he’s in…No death panel for him! He gets his leg
Jeff from WI on October 1, 2009 at 10:53 AM
I would prefer a consumption based tax rather than a wealth creation (income) tax that includes all goods & services, excepting food, clothing, medical care and primary residential real estate. But for that, I would want to see a constitutional amendment that 1) specifically repeals the 16th Amendment and 2) specifically states that Congress does not have the power to levy a tax on incomes.
rbj on October 1, 2009 at 10:54 AM
How much more of our own money are we going to get to keep under these plans? I am distrustful when I’m told that government needs the revenue it’s getting right now, so all we can do is shuffle the burden around.
Chris_Balsz on October 1, 2009 at 10:56 AM
Phew, otherwise we would have to flea, er flee, to Canada.
Speaking of fleas, first of the month so I’ve got to give him his heartguard & frontline.
rbj on October 1, 2009 at 10:58 AM
Let me sweeten the pot.
Throw in “property” as in “incomes and property” and you would manna from heaven.
WashJeff on October 1, 2009 at 10:58 AM
If we could do this one thing, tax simplification/reform would no longer be elusive.
Require all employers (private, government, charitable, all of them) to include in each employee’s paycheck envelope — or a separate envelope if they’re paid electronically — a notice, in large type, as follows:
AS REQUIRED BY LAW, FOR THIS PAY PERIOD WE DEDUCTED AND YOU PAID THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT INCOME TAXES IN THE AMOUNT OF $_______________.
APPROXIMATELY $_____________ OF YOUR TAX PAYMENT WILL BE GOING TO PEOPLE WHO DO NOT WORK.
The second number would be a standard percentage determined annually by the CBO or an independent organization to be named.
TXUS on October 1, 2009 at 11:00 AM
LOLOL
Jeff from WI on October 1, 2009 at 11:02 AM
I would leave the States part to each state constitution. Some states, like Washington & New Hampshire don’t have income taxes. Let people move to where they want — if you don’t mind a lot of taxes, come here to Ohio.
rbj on October 1, 2009 at 11:09 AM
The reason I toss in the states because how hard it would be to eliminate forms of taxations for population centers that are near state borders. The Chicago-area, where I live, is a good example. If IL moved to a low income\property tax and high-sales tax state. People may live in IL but shop in IN. That thinking, which is valid, makes tax reform hard in some states.
WashJeff on October 1, 2009 at 11:16 AM
IL is high enough thank you, but I will come once a year for Cedar Point.
WashJeff on October 1, 2009 at 11:18 AM
Flat tax, fair tax, income tax, cap gains, AMT…. Screw em all, I sez.
Make it a yearly membership fee. $3 trillion annual budget, 300 million people, $10,000 each per year to stay here. Certified receipt required to buy anything, anywhere.
Troll Feeder on October 1, 2009 at 11:33 AM
TERM LIMITS.
TERM LIMITS!
I don’t know how we get them to pass a Constitutional Amendment to kill of their Golden Goose Eggs but the starting point to all the reforms we need may be
TERM. LIMITS.
TERM LIMITS !!!!!!
ExpressoBold on October 1, 2009 at 12:32 PM
The problem IS ‘Tax Credits’!!!
Like you said both parties are guilty of tax credits and even conservative pundits like to promote tax credits for behavior they agree with (Hannity for health care savings accounts). This is what I see as the problem. Tax credits are being used to control economic production and consumption behavior and NOT being used to provide revenue to the government. Even Obama admitted increased revenue is not the goal for taxes.
There could be so many benefits for moving toward any type of flat tax for government revenue. It would reduce the influence of lobbyist, make it easier for people to move up the economic ladder. Even your stated reasons to simplify filing personal and business taxes.
lwssdd on October 1, 2009 at 4:09 PM