“Sadists who were trying to be nice”: that’s George Will’s characterization of the folks who devised the current tax system. “Every wrinkle in the code was put there to benefit this or that interest,” Will notes: that’s the “trying to be nice” part. But “since the 1986 tax simplification, the code has been recomplicated more than 14,000 times — more than once a day.” The result? A painful, byzantine code that puts the whole metabolism of taxation beyond the ken of laymen.
As a citizen, I feel I should be conversant with the rudiments of the tax system. But time is precious. I do not have scores of hours to devote to filling out tax forms. So I do what many people do. Every year, I repair to my accountant who produces an impressively thick document full of complicated depreciation schedules, etc. I haven’t the foggiest idea what it’s all about, but I reckon it must be valuable since after handing me this opus he also send me a hefty bill. Why should this be? Why not follow Will’s advice? Under his scheme, “Masochists would be permitted to continue paying income taxes under the current system.” I might go further an denominate all Democrats honorary masochists. But that is a detail. The meat of his proposal is this:
Others could use a radically simplified code, filing a form that fits on a postcard. It would have just two rates: 10 percent on incomes up to $100,000 for joint filers and $50,000 for single filers; 25 percent on higher incomes. There would be no deductions, credits or exclusions, other than the health care tax credit [“$2,300 for individuals, $5,700 for families”].
Will has a few other ideas. After simplifying the income tax code, he suggests we go on to
eliminate taxes on interest, capital gains, dividends and death. The corporate income tax, the world’s second highest, would be replaced by an 8.5 percent business consumption tax. Because this would be about half the average tax burden that other nations place on corporations, U.S. companies would instantly become more competitive — and more able and eager to hire.
What’s not to like? Well, how do you spell “vested interests”? What do you know about perpetuating dependency under a banner called “Compassion”?
This is where Will’s arresting notion of “sadists who were trying to be nice” comes in again. The sadists in question are not only the creatures who devised the tax code. They are also the liberals who believe they have a monopoly on virtue. The people look upon their fellow man as an opportunity for moral calisthenics. They are “trying to be nice.” They want to boost us all up to what they perceive as their own level of moral excellence on issues from race and education to international relations and “the environment.” (It is curious, isn’t it, how “the environment” has become a repository for moral aspiration. At what other period could Al Gore, apostle of global warming, have garnered serious attention?)
We agree in principle with Mr. Will’s suggestions about income tax, but would reverse the proportions. That is, we would tax those making under a hundred thousand dollars at 25% and those making over one hundred thousand at 10%. Our thinking is, this would provide impetus for Americans to reach the magic plateau of 100,000 dollars. It would reinvigorate the American dream and, in the long run, as tens of millions of Americans reached the magic plateau, would actually increase tax revenues.
Yours sincerely,
The Playdo Institute
Handel Glassberg, President
“They want to help the poor, so they devise government systems whose effect is to keep the poor in perpetual dependence”
Ah yes, that perpetual dependence guarantees self-perpetuation of liberalism’s existance. Their greatest fear is that liberalism will become obsolete.
The Byzantine tax code provides work not only for accountants, but for a huge government bureaucracy. How many of our tax dollars goes to imposing this monstrosity on us and to collecting the taxes?
I recall that a 1993 study conducted by 3 U.S Senators, one of whom was Sen Rudman, concluded that the U.S. Tax Code costs the private sector 40 cents for every dollar actually collected in taxes due to the costs of compliance with IRS regulations.
In other words, the actual burden of the tax system on the country is 1.4 times the money collected.
Is it possible? Is it truly possible that I might live to see a reinvention of our labyrinthine tax code.
My, oh, my! What a day that would be?
Can you imagine how that would completely turn our national “tax conversation” on its ear! How could politicians operate, if they weren’t able to buy the votes of special-interest blocs by promising tax breaks, or tax credits, or tax rebates, or tax shelters, or tax exemptions, or …
Wow! This will now be part of my daily prayer: God, please bring forth the leaders who can drive this rebirth!
Let’s roll!
FLASH!!
This Brand New Video Blows a Huge Gaping Hole in Obama’s Cap and Tax Scheme: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BVm5-6H_sH4
It is more than sadism. It is about control. If we adopted a “fair” tax, prosperity would spread like wildfire.
Alas, prosperity is too dangerous to be entrusted to the common folk. We have the progressive tax code to keep the serfs in check.
Which is why there’s a large and growing underground economy. And by the way when it (the underground economy) gets big enough it becomes a necessary component and you just have to accept it. Ask any Italian.
…one of Ronald Reagan’s great achievements to overcome, at least temporarily, the emotional mandate of punitive liberalism.
Quote RR all you want, Rog. Fact is that he raised taxes and expanded government. (But the guy could really talk. I mean, it was almost as if he were an actor or something.)
The IRS, along with the BATF, the DEA, the EPA, the FAA and the Fed, are evil institutions that need to be abolished.
Roger, I’ll do you one better- pass the Fair Tax bill to eliminate all income taxes and replace it with a consumption tax that has half the compliance cost of a VAT and 1/16 of the compliance cost of the current system.
flat tax will never happen for a single massive reason; the only true difference between the conservative and liberal factions of Govt are in how they view and use the tax system, and then manipulate it to benefit their financial backers
A flat tax would eliminate the system of payback to their backers…without that system, there is no gain to either side.
You are mistaken regarding the source of the problem. The IRS is going nuts trying to make what Congress dumps on them work.
#14 . . . Yes, you are totally correct . . . I have had the honorable experience of setting across from one such nut, an imbecile, an idiot who spent more time on the phone asking the supervising auditor questions about the paper work than addressing the reason I was setting in the IRS office. It scares the poop out of me to have to think that each year I submit paper work to such a weird bunch of idiots.
“liberalism (a linguistic oddity, since it is so markedly illiberal)” Not so odd. The thing with which liberals are liberal, and with which conservatives are conservative, is the use, or threat, of government violence against the citzens. That, I believe, is what the American middle should be taught by the example of this administration and should be repeated by every conservative seeking to explain that we are in fact the middle, not an extreme. All of these solutions (HCR, stimulus, cap and trade) ultimately rely on the government’s use of force, or threat of the use of force, to coerce compliance or surrender of taxes.