Green Room

One more reason to prefer tax reform over taxing the rich

posted at 2:22 pm on October 19, 2012 by

For over a century, liberals have wanted tax increases on the wealthy to force them to pay their “fair share.” Never mind that taxes such as the individual income tax and the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT) went from hitting only the wealthy to hitting many middle-class earners, or that the top one percent pay 1,500 times the taxes of the bottom 20% of earners.

In Tuesday night’s Presidential debate, President Obama made this argument yet again. From a clip on The Washington Post’s website:

If we are serious about reducing the deficit, if this is genuinely a moral obligation to the next generation, then in addition to some tough spending cuts we’ve also got to make sure that the wealthy do a little bit more.

There are a number of ways to refute this class warfare by the President. However, data from the IRS shows a new one that once again proves that it is not higher rates that will help reduce the deficit most effectively – but instead, tax reform that simplifies the tax code and makes it both more economically fair and efficient.

In January 2012, the IRS released a study showing (in 2006 dollars) that $385 billion in tax dollars were lost to noncompliance, equivalent to 14.5% of lawfully required 2006 tax dollars. Perhaps the most devastating part of this study? According t one analysis, out this week, this noncompliance was equivalent to an extra tax of $3,846 on all households in 2006 alone.

So what does this all mean? Well, clearly we must balance the budget, and many people are purposely avoiding taxes they are legally required to pay. Liberals argue the difference should be made up by higher taxes, even though plans such as the Buffett Rule would only bring in $47 billion over a decade, according to the Joint Committee on Taxation and we’ll borrow that much before midnight on Halloween. Even taking every dollar from every American earning at least one million dollars annually in 2009 would only bring in $235 billion, barely more than one-fifth of the Fiscal Year 2012 deficit. Clearly, with spending going up dramatically every year since 2007 and not expected to slow for many years to come, taxing the rich is going to be inadequate to substantially shrink the deficit, never mind balance the budget.

The IRS’ study provides us the path to the tax side of the deficit question. Rather than raise rates and risk harm to the economy, why not simply shoot for more compliance with the tax code? Considering that tax regulations take 14,000 pages to spell out, and are thus incredibly complex, simplifying the tax code to prevent illegal navigation of the code would bring in far more revenue than the Buffett Rule, and do so without raising rates for any taxpayers. Thus, we could kill three birds with one stone: elimination of potentially criminal activity, increase economic efficiency and growth, and diminish the deficit.

Of course, that would require liberals to admit they prefer practicality over ideology…

Recently in the Green Room:

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

Comment pages: 1 2

Yeah, I know. I can’t believe the douchebag bit that hook.

single stack on October 21, 2012 at 2:31 PM

Another person who does not believe in contracts? LOL

Dante does not believe there should be a government, ONLY contracts. Two adults should be perfectly capable under his argument to write up a slave contracts. Slavery is also known as Indentured servitude. The slave receives something in advance or as part of the contract.

What went wrong, was in the United States the lack of Government allowed slave contract owners to subvert the contract by charging the slaves for things such as a place to stay, the same place they were required to state. Their food, their clothes, their work utensils and so forth. They charged so much that the contracted was never able to free themselves. Eventually slavery became a permanent position that was handed down from generation to generation. But that is a perversion of the same system that has been practiced throughout history in a mutually beneficial and thus moral way.

You guys sure do not know much about history.

astonerii on October 21, 2012 at 4:23 PM

astonerii on October 21, 2012 at 4:23 PM

You can always be counted on to write some incredibly stupid crap but you’ve really outdone yourself here.

Indentured servitude is service in payment of a debt as part of a contractual agreement.
Slavery is ownership of a human being.
If you think they’re the same thing my already low opinion of you isn’t nearly low enough.

single stack on October 21, 2012 at 4:50 PM

Yeah, I know. I can’t believe the douchebag bit that hook.

single stack on October 21, 2012 at 2:31 PM

There’s not much else that needs to be said. He’s ignorant.

Dante on October 21, 2012 at 5:05 PM

There’s not much else that needs to be said. He’s ignorant.

Dante on October 21, 2012 at 5:05 PM

That would be you. The only slavery you know about is that which the progressive left has taught you. All of your anarchist friends are ashamed of you at this moment.

astonerii on October 21, 2012 at 5:38 PM

Indentured servitude is service in payment of a debt as part of a contractual agreement.
Slavery is ownership of a human being.
If you think they’re the same thing my already low opinion of you isn’t nearly low enough.

single stack on October 21, 2012 at 4:50 PM

They started as one and the same. Indentured servitude which got twisted.
But in essence, so long as the debt is owed, you are the property of the person you owe the debt.
The difference between the two is that here in America, it got twisted into total ownership with no ability to buy oneself out of the deal. Indentured servitude has been called throughout history slavery, the bible uses the term, ancient roman documents uses the term and they are in fact interchangeable.

Are you two the exact same person? Sock puppet morons?

astonerii on October 21, 2012 at 5:40 PM

Comment pages: 1 2