The Problem
The number of pages of tax rules skyrocketed from 40,500 in 1995 to 70,320 in 2009. Congress is increasingly micromanaging society with special tax incentives for education, energy, and other activities.
Federal tax paperwork consumes 7.6 billion hours of time annually, which is like having a full-time “tax army” of 3.8 million people.
There are about 500 changes to the tax code every year as Congress and the Treasury churn out a never-ending stream of laws and regulations.
The share of taxpayers requiring professional help keeps rising, with 62 percent of returns completed by professionals in 2007.
It complicates decision-making in the economy, for example by confusing family financial planning and generating uncertainty for businesses.
It encourages an invasion of privacy by the government. Each new tax incentive requires special documentation, which exposes people to scrutiny by the IRS.
It results in frequent errors by taxpayers and the IRS. Individuals and businesses can get locked into battles with the IRS for years because of uncertain tax rules.
It encourages tax evasion. High tax rates combined with complexity fosters aggressive tax dodging, which prompts Congress to pass even more complex tax regulations.
43 percent of U.S. households don’t pay any income tax as a result of all the low-income benefits in the code. Those people perceive federal spending to be costless, and thus they are little interested in tax reform or budget restraint.
source
Mark Levin’s solution
Eliminate the progressive income tax – replace it with a flat income tax or a national sales tax – for its purpose is to redistribute wealth, not fund the constitutionally legitimate functions of the federal government.
All residents of the country must be required to pay the tax so they have a stake in limiting its abuse.
Eliminate the automatic witholding of taxes, for it conceals the extent to which the federal government is confiscating income from its citizens.
Eliminate the corporate income tax, for it is nothing more than double taxation on shareholders and consumers, and penalizes wealth and job creation.
Eliminate the death tax, for it denies citizens the right to confer the material value they have created during their lives to whomever they wish, including their family.
All federal income tax increases will require a supermajority vote of three-fifths of Congress.
Limit federal spending each year to less than 20 percent of the gross domestic product.
Reduce the civilian federal workforce by 20 percent or more.
pilgrim’s modifications to Mark Levin’s solution
Replace the progressive income tax with a dual rate income tax. Under the plan, the individual income tax would be turned into a two-rate tax that eliminated most deductions and credits. Individuals would be taxed at a low 15 percent rate on income up to about $100,000 (singles) and $200,000 (married) and 27 percent above those thresholds. I fear a national sales tax would become just as huge in no time as our current tax code. The opportunities for Congress to do social engineering with respect to different kinds of commodities and what tax would be applied to them is too great IMO. I also agree with Adam Smith that I do not object to wealthier individuals paying more to finance the legitimate functions of government.
In addition to the supermajority votes in Congress I would require that any tax increase bill must include a detailed explanation of how the bill is limited to dealing solely with the enumerated powers that Congress possesses.
I would have the date for the general election changed from the first Tuesday in November to the third Sunday in April. This would cause the election to occur in close proximity to Tax Day, April 15th, and a larger number of aroused citizens would show up to vote at polls.
The cynical side of me thinks that this will not happen in my lifetime. There are a lot of perks that the Washington, DC establishment are enjoying from the deals they can work out with special interests in fine tuning and writing of additional code into our US tax code. This is true for both Parties. Perhaps the Tea Party movement can provide the impetus to change the business as usual in our Nation’s Capitol.


Steve Maley
Neil Stevens
Daniel Horowitz
People working very hard to comply with government regulation...
David123 (Diary) Thursday, December 10th at 9:47PM EST (link)are often not producing anything of value. So government regulation/complexity imposes another tax/decrement on the economy – so much work that ultimately produces nothing.
A simpler government and tax code would be better.
David123
thanks David123
pilgrim (Diary) Thursday, December 10th at 10:31PM EST (link)Right now the only sector in the US that is showing any growth is the federal government. I think things are going to get worse until we get the WH back in Jan. 2013.
Much agreed, pilgrim
Hermes (Diary) Friday, December 11th at 12:55PM EST (link)The US Tax Code is a labrythine document designed to allow only those with access to the best of CPA’s and/or tax lawyers to reap the full benefits of its many loopholes. As it stands now, it is neither egalitarian nor progressive. I would argue that the Tax Code is actually anti-American and unconsitutional and I think that I would be on solid ground with those arguments. While I’m not sure that the dual-rate scheme that you mention would be ideal, at least it would be a major improvement over the mess that we have now.
Great diary!
thanks Hermes. nt
pilgrim (Diary) Friday, December 11th at 12:59PM EST (link)I updated this diary with an additional bold solution.
pilgrim (Diary) Saturday, December 12th at 9:48AM EST (link)The update to what I already propose with respect to scrapping the US Tax Code and reducing the federal workforce is change the date of the election from the first Tuesday in November to the third Sunday in April.
GC HIGHLY RECCOS - Pil, you and Levin make strong arguments, and
Mike gamecock DeVine (Diary) Saturday, December 12th at 1:02PM EST (link)I want to make more comments later, but for now, let me through these thoughts into the mix:
I have never thought that progressivity, per se, is a problem, so long as the top rate is below 33%.
I do favor a minimum federal tax at much lower levels of income than we have now, so long as the rate is very low at incomes below twice the minimum wage. I also think the minimum wage is ok, so long as it is low enough not to cost many jobs. I think it ought to be $4/hr, fwiw.
I do want all to have a stake in keeping spending and taxes low, but don’t want to hurt the poor and lower income workers, hence the above.
I don’t have a problem, per se with some incentives in the tax code (marriage, children, housing…) but your compilation does give me pause. I have always opposed the “fair” tax (massive sales, VAT etc..) for many reasons, mainly due to its regressivity and esp since I think the mechanisms for removing the regressivity are unworkable or too intrusive.
I see major problems with removing the automatic withholding but agree with the sentiment behind it.
Yes, eliminate the corp and estate taxes and make cap gains the same as ordinary income. I actually favor a cap gains and FICA tax holiday for a year as a stimulus.
And speaking of FICA, given that there is no soc sec lock box, I don’t think its really fair to consider those that pay FICA as not paying federal taxes.
More later
Mike DeVine’s Examiner.com, Charlotte Observer and The Minority Report columns
“One man with courage makes a majority.” – Andrew Jackson
thanks gamecock for the recommend
pilgrim (Diary) Saturday, December 12th at 1:19PM EST (link)I updated this diary to also include having the date for federal elections coincide with Tax Day, April 15th as another bold solution to have citizen voters aroused when they go to vote at the polls. I believe the US Constitution is written for the US Congress to establish a date for federal elections, and they can choose any date.
I understand your having a pause at the elimination of most tax deductions and credits, but the process can not be made simpler without eliminating a lot of this type of tax code. Try to understand the sentiment that if you hold down the adding of new credits and deductions by Congress, then you change business as usual in DC where the established career politicians make deals with career lobbyists.
agreed - nt
Mike gamecock DeVine (Diary) Sunday, December 13th at 7:50AM EST (link)Mike DeVine’s Examiner.com, Charlotte Observer and The Minority Report columns
“One man with courage makes a majority.” – Andrew Jackson
I of course agree very MUCH with Levin....
JadedByPolitics (Diary) Sunday, December 13th at 8:50AM EST (link)I think that when ANYONE is NOT paying a tax they are not buying into the American dream. Those who are here illegally for one are NOT paying their fair share but nor are those who get back HUGE checks at the end of the year for the taxes they paid throughout the year.
IF America is to go back to that “shining city on the hill” then EVERYONE is going to have to participate and I for one am ALL IN on either the flat tax or the National SALES tax.
Excellent diary pilgrim but of course would expect nothing less from you!
Unified Patriots – How-To:
Activists Taking Action
thanks Jaded.
pilgrim (Diary) Sunday, December 13th at 10:18AM EST (link)In addition to more citizen participation and concern about paying taxes, I want less participation by the US Congress writing extra tax code all the time being paid money by these asshats for creating special tax code breaks for them. That kind of business as usual behavior in DC needs to cease.
That is why we should have a
izoneguy (Diary) Monday, December 14th at 10:19AM EST (link)tax on every Mexican national crossing the border…..
Every time they want to come in they should pay $150….
And they should be photographed, finger printed and retina scanned.
There is a great jobs program for you.
The point cannot be made often enough: Modern liberalism, as embodied in the Obama presidency, is the defender of the status quo. And the status quo is a road to economic ruin. Political forces cannot redistribute the wealth that the economic system does not produce.
Great ideas pilgrim!
nessa (Diary) Sunday, December 13th at 9:23PM EST (link)I especially like putting tax day and the election so close together, brilliant. Elections have consequences, legislation should as well.
I’m positive we can make some very sizable cuts in the government’s income, if we can also curtail their ability to borrow or merely print to meet their needs, they will find ways to cut back. Business does it all the time, business is finding ways to get by on less right now, the government’s solution when America has to “tighten our belts” is to raise wages and hire more gov’t employees.
“If you love wealth more than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, depart from us in peace. We ask not your counsel nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains rest lightly upon you and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen.”—Samuel Adams
Contributor to Unified Patriots
teh twitter
thanks nessa. nt
pilgrim (Diary) Sunday, December 13th at 9:40PM EST (link)Hmmm...
zroxx (Diary) Monday, December 14th at 10:10AM EST (link)I also agree with Adam Smith that I do not object to wealthier individuals paying more to finance the legitimate functions of government.
For what reasons do you propose taxing “wealthier individuals” at higher rates? We could haggle over the details of why you think $175,000 should go for 15% but $225,000 should be taxed at 27%, or to put it another way, why should the latter individual’s tax rate 180% higher and tax burden be more than doubled?
But as a matter of principle, why do you think “wealthy individuals” should be taxed at a higher rate?
if you really want to know why
pilgrim (Diary) Monday, December 14th at 11:52AM EST (link)Read Adam Smith’s books The Theory of Moral Sentiment and
The Wealth of Nations
After you finish reading and comprehending what are in these books then you will have your answer.
So...
zroxx (Diary) Monday, December 14th at 12:00PM EST (link)You are not able or willing to give your own rationale (or Smith’s, in your own words) as to why there should be a higher tax rate for wealthier individuals?
Were a politician to take up your cause and in debate be asked to defend this proposal you’ve outlined, you would advocate he/she should recommend to voting citizens that he/she will not explain their position but that the citizen should go read about a thousand pages to find out?
yes. nt
pilgrim (Diary) Monday, December 14th at 12:15PM EST (link)Ok.
zroxx (Diary) Monday, December 14th at 12:17PM EST (link)Good luck!
zroxx, what is the rationale for wealthier people paying an absolute amount more that others without regard to rates?
Mike gamecock DeVine (Diary) Monday, December 14th at 7:51PM EST (link)We are all equally protected by the military and all benefit equally from most legitimate functions of govt?
Mike DeVine’s Examiner.com, Charlotte Observer and The Minority Report columns
“One man with courage makes a majority.” – Andrew Jackson
I don't know.
zroxx (Diary) Tuesday, December 15th at 2:02PM EST (link)You tell me! Please make a case for it, without merely waving the written words of Adam Smith in the air.
When it comes to income why is the family of four with household income $1M a year hit for $300k while the family of four with household income $100k only gets hit for $30k? I’m all ears.
It’s particularly confounding to me given the other taxes that the “wealthy” tend to get hit with when they own a business (of any size) – payroll, unemployment, inventory, etc etc.
raising more revenue to pay for government functions that we would with flat rates is the case, and
Mike gamecock DeVine (Diary) Wednesday, December 16th at 10:47AM EST (link)so long as the top rate is reasonable, I don’t have a problem with progressivity per se.
The first dollars everyone earns must go to necessities but above a certain level, I don’t have a problem with different rates based on income.
The real problem is that govt is so big that we need so much tax revenue.
Mike DeVine’s Examiner.com, Charlotte Observer and The Minority Report columns
“One man with courage makes a majority.” – Andrew Jackson
Ok...
zroxx (Diary) Wednesday, December 16th at 5:54PM EST (link)I think there is a pragmatic issue where you and I could agree on. And for that matter I am sure we concur that the root problem here is the size of the government and the fact that it requires so much cash to operate at that size. You might concur that a right-sized government could require on the order of 20-25% of the cost of what we have now, if not smaller.
My rough calculation (I may be wrong, feel free to correct me) is that burden currently works out to around $14,285 per adult to cover the cost of, lets say, the 2008 federal budget. If we had a right-sized government it would be far less.
The pragmatic issue that is valid to me is that you simply can’t squeeze blood from a stone. If a given tax paying person/household makes so little as to be unable to cough up $15k to cover their share of the cost, ok, I can live, grudgingly, with exempting them from fully funding their piece of the burden. I still like the idea of levying a token amount, even $20 gives them a financial stake in the federal government. So to account for this issue we have to define an arbitrary line or lines somewhere, right?
But we can handle that kind of exceptional situation without a progressive tax rate, can’t we? We could draw the line at $100,000 and tell everyone above it they must kick in their full share ($15k) plus $5k or $10k or whatever it needs to be to cover the burden being unfulfilled by those unable to pay their way. (this might have a fringe benefit of helping people fully realize that welfare doesn’t cost “the government”, it costs the taxpayer!)
My question, dodged by pilgrim and not really answered by you is what principle – lets say, what conservative principle – says that the government is acting justly in forcing households making, for example, $1M a year to cough up an even higher amount, or a higher percentage, ultimately picking up the cost for not only themselves but several or maybe even hundreds of other households?
Particularly when, as you point out, “We are all equally protected by the military and all benefit equally from most legitimate functions of govt”.
You seem to assume that morality dictates that all pay the exact same amount and that even applying a flat percentage
Mike gamecock DeVine (Diary) Thursday, December 17th at 8:19AM EST (link)to varying incomes is unjust. I would suggest that the burden is on you to justify that! smile
Mike DeVine’s Examiner.com, Charlotte Observer and The Minority Report columns
“One man with courage makes a majority.” – Andrew Jackson
My position is...
zroxx (Diary) Thursday, December 17th at 5:11PM EST (link)My position is that it is unjust to force one household to pay twice as much in taxes, or many times more, than another household where both households, as you note, “benefit equally from most legitimate functions of govt”.
I’m not sure why that position requires an explanation, as it’s fairly obvious the former household is being made to pay for benefits that some or many other households are receiving. Aside from the pragmatic exception where it’s just financially impossible for a given household to pay their share, I see no reason for such an arrangement. But you’re telling me that I should explain why it’s not just for the government to charge one household $10k for services and the other $50k?
Like I told pilgrim… good luck!
of course the wealthier person has more wealth being protected, hence my term "most" and not all, and it
Mike gamecock DeVine (Diary) Thursday, December 17th at 7:12PM EST (link)did appear that you didn;t and still don’t understand that your position requires a defense, which you still don’t provide and, in fact, rather have muddied the waters with your “twice as much” obscurity. Must we assume that a mere 99% more or 199%more is “moral”? And is some figure self-evidently “moral”?
Mike DeVine’s Examiner.com, Charlotte Observer and The Minority Report columns
“One man with courage makes a majority.” – Andrew Jackson
Ok...
zroxx (Diary) Monday, December 21st at 1:52PM EST (link)… the wealthier person has more wealth being protected …
At best this is a reason for having a fixed percentage (e.g. 20% for everyone). A fixed percentage would certainly be a step in the right direction from what we have now. But it is not an argument for a progressive percentage (e.g. 15% for some and 27% for others) like we currently have and as proposed in the OP, and which I asked the poster to justify.
It also brings up the question of, if we intend to take more from those who have more to protect, will we also not then tax couples and families with more children at a higher rate than single persons or couples with fewer or no children? They certainly have more to protect and that would be a consistent application of the argument you’re making.
You keep asking me to defend a position that is against the redistribution of wealth, as if the unjust nature of a government that takes money from citizens unequally (indeed, from each according to their means) isn’t self evident. Our government should justly view us as equal citizens, each one no more obligated to pay for the burden of our citizenship than the other and each one no more entitled to the fruits of our citizenship than the other. Within that framework we’ll see success and failure but those outcomes ought to be determined by our own efforts as individuals, efforts that are neither curtailed by nor aided by government favoritism and social engineering. Need I provide some greater philosophical theory, or is this not a restatement of one or two core principles of conservatism itself?
On a conservative website, it confounds me to see two people propose and/or stand up for a socialist tax system, and provide no greater explanation for such a system than a reference to books by Adam Smith and a “take more from those with more” rationale. If this kind of thinking pervades the (R) party, it’s much easier to understand the poor governance and creeping socialism of the last several years.
I wonder how much $$ IRS takes in from late fee, penalties, interest?
Common_Cents (Diary) Wednesday, December 14th at 10:37AM EST (link)Much of that is a direct result of a complicated tax code.
Obama=Golfer in Chief, Leading from,
behind, the Back Nine.Leaders don’t create movements. Movements create leaders. Get involved. Your future depends on it.
Govt “invests” YOUR tax money for POLITICAL return rather than economic return.