What’s the best measure of the tax burden on the U.S. economy?
Is it the amount of money that we’re forced to surrender to the knaves in Washington (i.e., the difference between our pre-tax income and post-tax consumption)?
Or is it the loss of economic output caused by high tax rates, distorting preferences, and pervasive double taxation (i.e., policies that reduce our pre-tax income)?
The answer is both.
But even that’s not sufficient. There’s another very big part of the tax burden, which is the complexity caused by a 75,000-page tax code that imposes very high compliance costs on taxpayers. In other words, the tax (as measured by time, resources, and energy) we pay for the ostensible privilege of paying taxes.
And this compliance tax is enormous according to new research from the Tax Foundation. The report starts with some very sobering numbers.
…In 1955, the Internal Revenue Code stood at 409,000 words. Since then, it has grown to a total of 2.4 million words: almost six times as long as it was in 1955 and almost twice as long as in 1985. However, the tax statutes passed by Congress are only the tip of the iceberg when it comes to tax complexity. There are roughly 7.7 million words of tax regulations, promulgated by the IRS over the last century, which clarify how the U.S. tax statutes work in practice. On top of that, there are almost 60,000 pages of tax-related case law, which are indispensable for accountants and tax lawyers trying to figure out how much their clients actually owe.
It then measures the burden of this convoluted system for taxpayers.
According to the latest estimates from the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Americans will spend more than 8.9 billion hours complying with IRS tax filing requirements in 2016. This is equal to nearly 4.3 million full-time workers doing nothing but tax return paperwork. …in dollar terms, the 8.9 billion hours needed to comply with the tax code computes to $409 billion each year in lost productivity, or greater than the gross product of 36 states… The cost of complying with U.S. business income taxes accounts for 36 percent of the total cost of the entire tax code, at $147 billion. Complying with the individual income tax costs another $99 billion annually.
The report provides data for 50 provisions of the tax code. In the interest of brevity, here are the 10-most expensive features of the internal revenue code.
The overall $147 billion compliance cost for businesses is enormous, particularly when you consider that corporate tax revenue for Uncle Sam this year is estimated to be $329 billion. So companies have a double-whammy of enduring the developed world’s highest corporate tax rate, and they have to spend lots of money for the pleasure of that punitive system.
Another part that grabbed my attention is “Form 4562” dealing with depreciation. If you care about good policy and stronger growth, businesses shouldn’t even have to depreciate. Instead, we should have a policy of “expensing,” which is simply the common-sense approach of recognizing costs in the year they occur. So firms are paying a $23 billion-plus tax for the privilege of a policy that already punishes them for investing. Amazing.
And don’t forget the death tax, which also makes the top-10 list. The Tax Foundation points out that the compliance cost basically doubles the burden of that horrible and unfair levy.
The estate and gift tax, which will only collect approximately $20 billion in federal revenues this year, has a compliance cost of $19.6 billion.
What a mess.
So what’s the answer?
Simply stated, we should rip up the entire internal revenue code and replace it with a simple and fair flat tax.
[…] When proponents say the IRS needs more money, they implicitly are arguing for the current, convoluted tax system. […]
[…] the real burden for the average household is actually higher than either number thanks to an absurdly complex tax […]
[…] the real burden for the average household is actually higher than either number thanks to an absurdly complex tax […]
[…] When proponents say the IRS needs more money, they implicitly are arguing for the current, convoluted tax system. […]
[…] Mind-boggling complexity […]
[…] When proponents say the IRS needs more money, they implicitly are arguing for the current, convoluted tax system. […]
[…] When proponents say the IRS needs more money, they implicitly are arguing for the current, convoluted tax system. […]
[…] When proponents say the IRS needs more money, they implicitly are arguing for the current, convoluted tax system. […]
[…] When proponents say the IRS needs more money, they implicitly are arguing for the current, convoluted tax system. […]
[…] When proponents say the IRS needs more money, they implicitly are arguing for the current, convoluted tax system. […]
[…] When proponents say the IRS needs more money, they implicitly are arguing for the current, convoluted tax system. […]
[…] tinkering with the tax code, or more handouts for […]
[…] Needless to say, I also object to the Harris scheme because it would make the tax code an even bigger mess. I realize it’s unlikely that I’ll ever see a simple and fair flat tax, but is it too […]
[…] are the real problem. They are the ones who created the tax system. They are the ones who make it more complex with each passing […]
Why not have a simple flat tax or a national sales tax?
[…] Byzantine tax code is an example. Many of us probably unintentionally violate the law because of needless complexity. […]
“Do economists generally agree that free time has some sort of monetary value??”
Yes, it is called opportunity cost.
[…] incentive to focus on earning money and less incentive to utilize corrupt tax breaks? That would be a win-win outcome for the American […]
[…] Insiders with connections can get special favors in a convoluted 75,000-page tax code. […]
[…] Insiders with connections can get special favors in a convoluted 75,000-page tax code. […]
[…] Insiders with connections can get special favors in a convoluted 75,000-page tax code. […]
[…] should resist tax policies based on envy and resentment since the net result is a tax code that is needless complex and pointlessly […]
Why does our tax code need to be so complex?
Reblogged this on Elementary Politics News.
Any discussion of compliance cost is incomplete without recognition that we are discussing only the Federal portion of tax compliance. States have no obligation to coordinate with the Federal tax changes and may muck up the works by continuing with current tax policy.
In fact, they may even go in the other direction. Because the Flat Tax is not progressive and the FairTax has no individual taxes, a progressive State may decide to heavily “tax the rich” on incomes.
Nedlandp and Chip Spradely, high tax rates don’t really bother me. The problem is with some of the wasteful spending.
Chip
Most of the compliance savings under either FairTax or Flat Tax will benefit individuals, not businesses. The business portion of the compliance savings will be well short of the 15% you mentioned.
Chip Spradely, I also support the Fair Tax. However, flat tax advocates have their share of good ideas.
Chip
That last comment was in reaction to yours.
The compliance cost savings would be the same for a true Flat Tax, collected on ever dollar earned, since you could eliminate reporting by employees and all tax reporting would devolve to businesses, broadly defined.
Any compliance savings from the FairTax will be overwhelmed the cost increases when employees begin receiving gross pay rather than net, because the total tax burden must be added on a much higher cost base.
Currently the majority of taxes are embedded in gross salaries. When you eliminate those taxes in effect you give everyone a raise. You cannot give everyone a raise then collect the same dollar tax revenue and expect that prices will not have to rise substantially.
The cost to business for complying with the tax code(about $400 Billion per year) plus the taxes a business pays is passed right to the customer. The Fairtax eliminates this huge cost added to the product/service. The complying cost alone would reduce the price of products/services by a realistic 15%. The Fairtax is the answer. We just need to educate people.
Nedlandp, you are not technically required to respond to me specifically, however, when I told you to give me hard facts to prove me wrong about some other post or to not waste my time, that was harsh on my part. So I will apologize for that. My initial irritation was because we did not seem to be communicating our differing views in ways we could both understand.
Tim:
Good thoughts, but to clarify: Taxes are collected on salaries, profits, and sales, but as you mentioned taxes are paid by the consumer in the final price paid for the product or service.
If you eliminate corporate taxes, you must raise tax rates on salaries or sales, to maintain the same tax revenues. Top managers will reduce salaries in order to increase untaxed profits in which they share, requiring a further bump in taxes on salaries and/or sales. To eliminate such games, salaries and corporate profits must be taxed at the same rate.
Also, if you eliminate taxes on corporate profits, you must retain taxes on dividends and capital gains, which is much more inefficient than taxing at the source. Double taxation of profits reduces investment. If you make the US the world’s best tax shelter for investors, corporations won’t mind taxes on profits, assuming that corporate taxes are collected on territorial sales only.
Just to complete the thought, in theory the FairTax eliminates taxes on salaries and corporate profits and lays it all on sales. In practice, taxes on corporate profits can be exchanged for taxes on sales, however, if you eliminate taxes on salaries, the corporate FICA could be moved to sales, but income tax and individual FICA payments are embedded in gross incomes. When you eliminate the tax you do not eliminate the cost to the business, and because the tax must be collected on top of increased costs prices must go up.
Zorba, I hope that the “value” of satisfying your envy is a joke.
Taxes don’t make people happy, since no-one is happy with tax. Even those who don’t pay any tax aren’t happy, as they think others should be paying more so that they can have more spent on them. The few who pay the majority of tax feel they are being exploited, and just about everybody else think the rich are paying too little. Those in the middle worry about how much they will have to pay if they succeed or die.
Hardly a happy picture.
There are good economic and well as moral reasons for at least some tax to exist – externalities for example – but there is no need whatsoever for complex tax systems. Nor is there any need for corporate tax whatsoever – it is paid by staff and customers, not businesses (which are simply assets).
The whole system needs to be rethought.
Zorba
While it is true that those receiving distributed tax money are happier, the money comes from investments and purchases not made in the free market.
Some redistribution has merit. We certainly don’t want people destitute. However, excess distribution leads to disincentives and the slowing growth you have long decried.
Henry
That means I get a 30% discount on costs government should be helping me to avoid. And as an added bonus I only lose 70% of the revenues I might have earned if I wasn’t wasting my time on taxes.
It’s not free time if you are forced to do it. Doing my taxes is not on the top of my list along with tennis and golf, it doesn’t even come close to doing needle point.
I wonder does that cost account for the physical and intellectual energy spent strictly on tax filing, or does it include all tax maneuvering energy. For example, for the small affected minority of greedy bastards, state tax planning is a lifetime endeavor, I imagine.
There is though an alternative way to look at it. Taxes, their existence, and redistribution in itself makes many people happy — and thus taxation has prosperity value in and of itself. GDP may not increase but we get the intangible and standard of living improving effect of satisfying our envy.
Henry: Charity energy that gets spent on filing taxes for seniors is charity energy that is wasted in redistribution. It is charity energy that does not go towards driving seniors to hospitals, reminding them of their pills, helping them with the leaky plumbing, housecleaning, cocking end all the other things nature demands from them which they are less able to do on their own. These are natural needs — and thus mostly inevitable. The tax compliance costs on the other hand are the artificial inefficiency costs that we force on them via redistribution.
Nedlandp, I get your point but please tell me–aren’t business tax costs deductable, whereas personal prep costs are notso
What I was complaining about in the TF report was the idea that personal income tax prep time was valued at $37/hour. That bit of nonsense is why the total cost numbers got so high and unrealistic. Do economists generally agree that free time has some sort of monetary value??
Your graph is in trillions while the text shows billions. Which is it?
As I have written in the past, a true flat tax on all earned income would be the simplest. Employers could accurately withhold the correct amount and file for each employee. Businesses obviously file their own taxes, so the IRS would only be involved with businesses, broadly defined.
However, a flat tax is a political loser, if the effective rates are not progressive. A standard deduction can make rates progressive, however businesses would no longer file accurate returns. Instead, a UBI allows for the separation of tax collection from the distribution of UBI funds. No matter how many jobs the individual takes, collection by the employer(s) will be accurate.
People mistake the UBI for welfare. It could be that but it can also be a replacement for all tax deductions, and it provides the political carrot to get a flat tax passed.
Henry:
With all due respect, the costs of doing taxes for many of us far exceeds $37/hr.
This year, I was forced to convert from a Sole Proprietor to an S Corp. Legal cost $375. I needed special accounting services to make sure the transfer was handled appropriately, $875. Along with cost of QuickBooks, which I can’t charge to taxes because I need it to run my business, I needed to buy my annual TurboTax for $90. Separate from the tax accountant will be a charge estimated at $2,300, for an accounting clerk, when all is said and done. I expect 3-4 days of my time will be required, which I normally bill at $60/hr.
There may be many who don’t spend much time on taxes, but I’m certainly not one of them. I can no longer do my own taxes, even though I do a lot of blogging on tax policy and have an MBA from Wharton, for God’s sake.
Dan, with all due respect, this Tax Foundation report is garbage. Does anyone really believe that the time we spend filling out tax forms on the weekend is worth $37/hour? And there is never a mention of the millions of free tax returns done by thousands of our senior citizens on behalf of an AARP sponsored program. In addition, computers do most of the “stubby pencil” work at great savings these days. Thanks for providing the data, but it should be taken with a grain of salt! Perhaps the whole salt mine???
Great
Sent from my iPhone
>