I
am a tax professional who has been preparing 1040s for individuals in all walks
of life since 1972. As a tax preparer I
know full well that the United States Tax Code has grown into a complicated and
convoluted “mucking fess”.
Bring
me the head of the US Tax Code!
Like
Frankenstein, the Tax Code must be destroyed.
It must be shredded and totally rewritten from scratch, acknowledging that
the one and only purpose of the Tax Code is to raise the money necessary to
fund the government.
The
new Tax Code must –
(1)
Be simple – easy for everyone to understand.
Simplicity for simplicity’s sake.
(2)
Be fair and equitable - treat all taxpayers equally.
(3)
Be consistent – treat specific conditions, situations, and activities, and
maintain specific definitions and descriptions, the same in all instances.
(4)
Encourage savings, investment, and growth.
(5)
Index for inflation all allowable deductions and credits.
The
new Tax Code must not –
(1)
Be used for social engineering, to redistribute income or wealth, or to deliver
social welfare and other government benefits.
(2)
Encourage or discourage certain economic decisions (other than savings,
investment, and growth), or provide exclusive benefits for specific industries,
business activities, or classes of taxpayers.
(3)
Contain any refundable credits, or any phase-outs, exclusions or adjustments
based on Adjusted Gross Income or Modified Adjusted Gross Income.
(4)
Contain any “alternative” tax calculation systems (such as the current
“Alternative Minimum Tax”).
(5)
Contain any temporary deductions, credits, benefits, or provisions.
A
new Code would state “Everything is taxable, except . . .” and “Nothing
is deductible, except . . .”. Only
those “excepts” – exclusions and deductions - that are absolutely necessary and
appropriate, in the context of the “musts” and “must nots” listed above, should
be added back.
The
Tax Foundation, a nonpartisan, educational organization, has earned a
reputation for independence and credibility. All Tax Foundation research is guided
by the principles of sound tax policy, which should serve as touchstones for
policymakers and taxpayers everywhere.
It has identified key principles of sound tax policy:
Simplicity:
Administrative costs are a loss to society, and complicated taxation undermines
voluntary compliance by creating incentives to shelter and disguise income.
Transparency:
Tax legislation should be based on sound legislative procedures and careful
analysis. A good tax system requires that taxpayers be informed and understand
how tax assessment, collection, and compliance works. There should be open
hearings, and revenue estimates should be fully explained and replicable.
Neutrality:
Taxes should not encourage or discourage certain economic decisions. The
purpose of taxes is to raise needed revenue, not to favor or punish specific
industries, activities, and products.
Stability:
When tax laws are in constant flux, long-range financial planning is difficult.
Lawmakers should avoid enacting temporary tax laws, including tax holidays and
amnesties.
No
Retroactivity: As a corollary to the principle of stability, taxpayers should
be able to rely with confidence on the law as it exists when contracts are
signed and transactions are completed.
Broad
Bases and Low Rates: As a corollary to the principle of neutrality, lawmakers
should avoid enacting targeted deductions, credits, and exclusions. If tax
preferences are kept to a minimum, substantial revenue can be raised with low
tax rates. Broad-based taxes also produce relatively stable tax revenues from
year to year.
Put
simply, good tax policy promotes economic growth by focusing on raising revenue
in the least distortive manner possible.
This
new Code would state “Everything is taxable, except . . .” and “Nothing is
deductible, except . . .”. Only those
“excepts” – exclusions and deductions - that are absolutely necessary and
appropriate, in the context of the “musts” and “must nots” listed above, should
be added back.
One
of the biggest problems with the current system is the inappropriate use of the
Tax Code to deliver social welfare and other government benefits – hence its
appearance as #1 on our list of “must nots”.
This practice is not only inappropriate, but it also invites and
encourages tax fraud.
The
Internal Revenue Service, and the tax professional community, should not be
required to act as Social Workers and administer and verify government program
benefit payments.
I
am not saying that the government shouldn’t provide financial assistance to the
working poor and college students, provide encouragements for purchasing health
insurance, making energy-saving purchases and improvements and other “worthy” benefits. What I am saying is that such assistance and
encouragements should not be distributed via the tax return.
The
benefits provided by the Earned Income Tax Credit and the refundable Child Tax
Credit should be distributed via existing federal welfare programs for Aid to
Families with Dependent Children. The benefits provided by the education tax
credits should be distributed via existing federal programs for providing
direct student financial aid. The benefits provided by the Premium Tax Credit, energy
credits, and other such personal and business credits should be distributed via
direct discount payments to the appropriate vendors or direct rebate programs
funded by the budget of the appropriate Cabinet department.
Distributing
the benefits in this manner is much better than the current method for many
reasons:
1.
It would be easier for the government to verify that the recipient of the
subsidy, discount or rebate actually qualified for the money, greatly reducing
fraud. And tax preparers, and the IRS, would no longer need to take on the
added responsibility of having to verify that a person qualifies for government
benefits.
2.
The qualifying individuals would get the money at the “point of purchase,” when
it is really needed, and not have to go “out of pocket” up front and wait to be
reimbursed when they file their tax return.
3.
We would be able to calculate the true income tax burden of individuals. Many
of the current “47 percent” would still be receiving government benefits, but
it would not be done through the income tax system, so they would actually be
paying federal income tax.
4.
We could measure the true cost of education, housing, health, energy and
welfare programs in the federal budget because benefit payments would be
properly allocated to the appropriate departments.
Unfortunately,
my dream of true substantive tax reform will probably remain just that - a
dream. Tax law is written by Congress
the members of Congress have absolutely no knowledge of or experience with the
practicality of tax return preparation.
And, of course, there are the personal agendas of Congresspersons, who
rely on the political contributions of lobbyists working to maintain specific
tax breaks, and who more often than not, especially today, avoid independent
thought and merely do what they are told by their Party.