With tax day fast approaching, it’s time to write about our good friends at the Internal Revenue Service.
One of the new traditions at the IRS is an annual release of tax scams. It’s know as the “dirty dozen” list, and while it may exist mostly as a publicity stunt, it does contain some useful advice.
And that’s true of this year’s version. But I worry that the IRS is looking at a few trees and missing the forest.
The Washington Examiner was kind enough to let me write a cover story on the “dirty dozen” list. Here’s my effort to add some context to the discussion.
…our friends at the Internal Revenue Service have a relatively new tradition of providing an annual list of 12 “tax scams” that taxpayers should avoid. It’s an odd collection, comprised of both recommendations that taxpayers protect themselves from fraud, as well as admonitions that taxpayers should be fully obedient to all IRS demands. Unsurprisingly, the list contains no warnings about the needless complexity and punitive nature of the tax code. Nor does the IRS say anything about how taxpayers lose the presumption of innocence if there’s any sort of conflict with the tax agency. Perhaps most important, there’s no acknowledgement from the IRS that many of the dirty dozen scams only exist because of bad tax policy.
In the article, I list each scam and make a few observations.
But I think my most useful comments came at the end of my piece.
…maybe the tax system wouldn’t engender so much hostility and disrespect if it was simple, transparent, fair, and conducive to growth. And that may be the big-picture lesson to learn as we conclude our analysis. When the income tax was first imposed back in 1913, the top tax rate was only 7 percent, the tax form was only two pages, and the tax code was easily understandable. But now that 100 years have gone by, the tax system has become a mess, like a ship encrusted with so many barnacles that it can no longer function. …the bottom line is that the biggest scam is the entire internal revenue code. The winners are the lobbyists, politicians, bureaucrats and insiders. The losers are America’s workers, investors, and consumers.
In other words, if we actually want a humane and sensible system, we should throw the current tax code in the garbage and replace it with a simple and fair flat tax.
And that’s exactly the message I shared in this interview with C-Span.
Here are a few of the points from the discussion that are worth emphasizing.
The current tax code benefits Washington insiders, not the American people.
But I’m not optimistic about fixing the tax code, in part because the crowd in DC would lose some power.
We’ll never get good tax reform unless there’s genuine entitlement reform to restrain the growing burden of government spending.
The flat tax and national sales tax are basically different sides of the same coin.
If you want class-warfare tax rates on the rich, keep in mind that high rates don’t necessarily translate into more revenue.
The no-tax-hike pledge is a vital and necessary component of a strategy to restrain government.
Itemized deductions benefit the rich, not the poor.
If you care about poor people, focus on growth rather than inequality.
We should mimic Hong Kong and Singapore, not France and Greece.
P.S. I wrote last week that the Senate GOP put together a budget that is surprisingly good, both in content and presentation. A reader since reminded me that the Chairman of the Senate Budget Committee was a sponsor of the “Penny Plan,” which would lower non-interest outlays by 1 percent per year.
Since Mitchell’s Golden Rule simply requires that spending grow by less than the private sector, Senator Enzi’s Penny Plan obviously passes with flying colors.
[…] ability, but I’m an unabashed fan of having a better tax system for America. Replacing the internal revenue codewith a sensible tax system would mean a more prosperous country and a less corrupt […]
[…] ability, but I’m an unabashed fan of having a better tax system for America. Replacing the internal revenue code with a sensible tax system would mean a more prosperous country and a less corrupt […]
[…] The Internal Revenue Service […]
[…] Good tax policy should strive to solve the three major problems that plague today’s income tax. […]
[…] Good tax policy should strive to solve the three major problems that plague today’s income tax. […]
[…] I used the video as an opportunity to explain that both plans effectively rip up the current internal revenue code. And both would solve the major problems that plague today’s income tax. […]
[…] libertarians sometimes point out that thieves and tax bureaucracies have a lot in common. Both use the threat of force and punishment to take money from unwilling […]
[…] play games with other revenue sources (i.e., special VAT rates or differential tariff burdens), but the income tax stands apart because it is capable of generating large amounts of revenue while simultaneously […]
[…] play games with other revenue sources (i.e., special VAT rates or differential tariff burdens), but the income tax stands apart because it is capable of generating large amounts of revenue while simultaneously […]
[…] tax system is a dysfunctional mess, but you’ll notice that I mostly blamed politicians. After all, they are the ones who have […]
[…] tax was first imposed on just a tiny handful of very wealthy people, but it eventually morphed into a malignant tax code that now bedevils tens of millions of households with modest […]
[…] don’t think there are many people in the world who share my deep-seated hostility to the IRS and internal revenue […]
[…] providing value to willing consumers, the “company” is a federal government that uses a coercive tax system to provide unearned wealth to various interest […]
[…] The risk of a flat tax is that the system somehow will get compromised and degenerate back to the mess we have now. I like to think the American people, after finally being freed from today’s awful system, […]
[…] as I argued in the interview, let’s rip up the corrupt and destructive internal revenue code and copy the simple and fair flat tax that is used by Hong […]
[…] As a public finance economist, I normally focus on big-picture issues such as the economically debilitating effect of excessive government spending and punitive taxation. […]
[…] As a public finance economist, I normally focus on big-picture issues such as the economically debilitating effect of excessive government spending and punitive taxation. […]
I say get rid of the current tax code and replace it with a flat tax or a national sales tax.
[…] the largest Tax rip-off Is the interior revenue Code and the IRS … […]
[…] to reform the tax code is a recipe for gradual economic […]
[…] the perfect isn’t the enemy of the good. If we compare what he’s proposing to what we have now, the answer is easy. Trump’s plan is far better than the status […]
[…] I realize it’s tax week and I should be condemning our convoluted tax code and oppressive IRS. […]
Reblogged this on a political idealist..
So, yes, they can.
Those thugs have been democratically approved.
it seems ted Cruz wants to a flat tax..,., he wants to abolish the irs… repeal every word of the aca… and rand Paul agrees with most of what he says… [look for Paul’s announcement on the 7th of April…]
we might have a dog in this fight…………………..
“Transcript: Sen. Ted Cruz Announces Presidential Campaign”
http://www.nbcdfw.com/news/local/Transcript-Sen-Ted-Cruz-Announces-Presidential-Campaign-297267221.html?partner=nbcnews
I say scrapping the entirety of the current system is the ONLY real fix.
If “government” weren’t such the big behemoth it is today, there would be no need for such massive taxes.
Joke from Peter Peterson’s “Running on Empty”:
“What’s worse regarding knowledge of economics, ignorance or apathy?”
Answer: “I don’t know and I don’t care.”
Reblogged this on Brian By Experience.
In 2012, the IRS stated that tax related activities consumed 6.1 billion man hours. That translates to 3 million man years. If only half that time went into productive activities, it would improve the nation’s productivity by 1% (since there are 160 million workers).
It is true that a good portion of that time relates to “jobs”, such as tax accounting, tax lawyers, lobbyists, and tax shelter creators. These are not productive jobs, in that they are zero-sum activities.
In addition to the direct productivity boost, many sub-optimal decisions are made because of tax consequences or dis-incentives in the tax code.
[…] WAIT, THERE’S MORE… […]
[…] By Dan Mitchell […]