Let's give Obama administration officials the benefit of the doubt. Let's just say for argument's sake that several of them had trouble understanding the tax code.
Isn't this supposed to be the smartest president and administration in U.S. history? If they can't figure out what they owe in taxes, what are the unwashed masses expected to do?
Indeed, television talk show host Glenn Beck had folks on his set try to print out the entire federal tax code this week and try to get it done by today. Someone on the set fainted.
Well, he wasn't one of the people printing it out, but you get the idea.
The federal tax code is ridiculously long. How ridiculous? Nina E. Olson says, "The tax code has grown so long that it's challenging even to figure out its length."
Nina E. Olson, should you be wondering, is the national taxpayer advocate at the Internal Revenue Service.
She says the tax code is about 3.7 million words, as far as she can tell. Others put it at 6.7 million words.
They can't even agree on the words, much less the numbers!
Compliance with the income tax, Ms. Olson says, costs Americans about $193 billion a year -- about 14 percent of the income taxes the government receives.
Preparing tax returns strikes fear into many filers' hearts -- and they are made to feel like criminals when they make honest mistakes, even as the wily filer finds loopholes others don't.
Study after study after study has shown that neither the IRS nor professional tax preparers can agree on what the tax code says. Audits of the IRS's Tax Assistance Centers show the agency representatives give out wrong answers up to 35 percent of the time. Meanwhile, Money magazine's annual group of 50 tax professionals have never come up with the same numbers.
These aren't stupid people, and you can't blame the IRS even: They're given a superfund to clean up in the form of our tax code.
President Obama has formed a tax reform commission to study the situation and recommend changes by year's end. We hope the group is broad-minded, but we suspect the real agenda is simply to close loopholes and try to suck more money out of those who have it.
That's not reform, that's class envy.
Instead, we hope the commission looks at scrapping the entire tax code in favor of a simplified system -- or, better yet, the Fair Tax or some other form of consumption tax that would stop punishing earners.
And one that would stop confusing everyone, including our leaders in Washington.
Comments
ACES, "that's class envy." When will you print, "that's wealth envy?" These are just two of the newest labels conservatives have adopted when wishing to belittle any person that disagrees with their side of an issue. They've worn out "communist," and they are quickly wearing out "socialist," (and the crudest of the bunch have overworked "idiot" long ago). Falsely labeling folks backfired on "communist hunter" Sen. Joe McCarthy in the '50's. Why not learn from his mistakes? GGpap
Once again with feeling -- the FAIR TAX is a TAX INCREASE! Nothing in the world would stop that from being true. At least the supporters of the Fair Tax could be honest enough to admit that. But, if they do admit that, then some of the people who are currently for it will oppose it, just like Bush, Obama and the common sense Americans are already opposed. So, Fair Tax supporters rely on deceit and trickery in order to gain support for this massive tax hike on the middle class.
GGAP, I'll call it what it is...wealth envy. How else do you explain O and his supporters calling for a "redistribution of wealth?" And WILLISTON, how about a national sales tax? That is a tax that hits everyone equally. Seems fair to me. How's that for feeling?
Willi, the fact that an uninformed fool like you dislikes the Fair Tax is the best endorsement it could get. Since I've seen you post you've been 100% wrong 100% of the time, as you are on this subject. The Fair Tax is the answer.
CH, the FairTax is anything BUT FAIR! As someone pointed out in an LTE that was published in The (Columbia) State newspaper on Tuesday, any sales tax increase -- FairTax included, UNFAIRLY hits the middle class AND poor people who need basic necessities to live. The rich would spend the money while the middle class people would quit spending their money altogether. We need to quit relying on the sales tax -- the surest way to keep our taxes from going up is to eliminate EVERY SINGLE TAX in the book, starting with the sales tax and going on down the line. Now, THAT would abolish the IRS.
I'm with you GGpap, those ole meanies call water wet and fire hot. How stupid of them, and tiresome. We all know that water is dry and fire is cool and small is large and large is small. Those socialist hating and communist hating folks are just silly. Thank you for setting us straight.
And pat, I am NOT uninformed. I have plenty of sources, including one Ali Velshi, who reinforced my fierce opposition to the FairTax one and a quarter years ago.
Saxby TARP Chambliss(Socialist, Ga) was going to get the fair tax passes, guess he was too busy taking care of the LOBBYIST that are giving him money and golf trips. Same old same old, promice the voters and deliver for the LOBBYIST.
You're right Ga Values. The tax issue isn't partisan. With the sheeple, it's some form of security blanket and with the politicians, it's a source of income and power. Both parties and almost 100% of elected officials. D.C. needs a flush. See you at the TEA party.
fair tax,will be great for everyone,oh yea read the books before you open your mouth.
The unFair tax will be great if 1. you're very poor, 2. You're very rich. Another scam to shift more taxation to the already struggling middle class. I read the first book. It told me all I need to know. They have a set of pat answers to every question that consists solely of "beause we say so".
The tax code isn't re-written by a new President, but good try, ed-board. In fact, in a President's first year in office, most of his BUDGET reflects the past 12-months - not the NEXT 12 months. *sigh* This right-lean writing is so old, no wonder your circulation keeps slipping. But for the sake of argument, is it not a concern that the gap between the wages of the upper 1% and the lower 50% of wage-earners (NOTE: WAGE-earners) has grown disproportionately the last 10 years? Guess not. Or how about the income tax rate ON that upper 1%? It was at 50% under the greaty all-mighty Reagan; it was at 42% under Clinton and Obama (aka the 'socialist') wants to hammer-and-sickle it up to a GALLING 39%. For that, you call him a socialist. Where was this talk when Reagan was in office? Nice try, ed-board. Nice try. You do have your kool-aid drinkers, but fortunately the numbers attending your 'kool aid party' keep diminishing.
Ron: I say it to the right, and I'll say iy to you: lay off the kool aid comments. I don't find references to a mass murder at Jonestown approprate.
And I find it inappropriate that some political hacks, floundering in their lack of election day success, have hijackd a great moment in revolutionary American history and turned it into a photo op. Touche.
Ron: O'reilly evidently thought it was funny when he started the kool aid comment. I don't like it, never have, never will. I have asked those on the right and left to stop using it. Jonestown was a tragic event and I don't find it humorous. Just use different terminology. That being said, I agree that all their trying to do is have a photo op. Trample on the Constitution and they're all in favor of it, but spend money and they get their panties in a wad. Of couse they were mysteriously silent when the Repubs were in charge and W seemed to have lost the veto pen. Hypocrisy at its finest.
Well, I do not know if the FAIR TAX is fair or not but it seems fairer than what we have today. I certainly do not believe that the progressive tax is FAIR. I do not believe that using the tax code to target smokers, or SUV drivers, or people that put gas in their car, or whatever other group is socially unpopular at the moment is FAIR. I do believe that people who make more money usually consume more and consequently would pay more tax than middle and lower income people. That seems FAIR. Lower income poeple generally consume less than people who make more money and would pay less tax and that seems FAIR. I guess no tax system is perfect but what we have now is certainly not FAIR and lends itself to being used as a weapon against whatever group of people happens to be unpopular at the moment. Witness the 5 day hanging of people who got legal, legitimate bonuses a few weeks ago. That is NOT FAIR. Maybe the idea of those folks getting bonuses was unpopular, but they were not illegal and our govenment knew they were getting them. But they still used the tax code to punish them and appease the masses. NOT FAIR. We need a flat tax that Congress cannot dork with and the IRS abolished.
No tax is going to ever truly be fair. It's what the Fair Tax will accomplish that makes it great. Massive underground economies (illegal drugs, prostitution, tax loopholes, etc) will lose their ability to avoid taxes. Everybody spends money! The best part to me is that America would instantly become the single best tax environment in the world for business. Multi-nationals would come flooding to this country and bring countless jobs with them. Why do you think jobs have been outsourced for years? Businesses will act in their own interests and seek to lower costs and tax burdens. Stop attacking them for being capitalist and make them WANT to have all their jobs in America!
southernguy08, you must really be uninformed, huh? The FairTax is the biggest economy-killing proposal to have been thought of in a long, long time. It PUNISHES the hard-working middle class and rewards the lazy fat cats who are ALREADY reaping the rewards of the Bush tax cuts. i.will.help had three excellent posts about the FairTax the last time this was discussed.
So you think the Fairtax is fair? Think about a retired couple living on a $30,000 spending budget based on Social Security income of $1000/month each plus $6,000 income from their $200,000 nest egg earning 3%. This typical retired couple pays no income tax and no payroll tax.
Under the Fairtax, they would get a $4754 annual prebate which would give them a spendable budget of $28754 without drawing down their nest egg. Sales taxes paid would be $6613 assuming they spent it all on taxable goods and services. $6600 in taxes versus zero? Hmmm?
Under current law, their purchasing power would be $30,000. Under the Fairtax, assuming a 17% retail price increase, their purchasing power would be $23,000. $23,000 versus $30,000? Why on earth would this family support the Fairtax?
The Fairtax taxes wealth as well as income, and that is unfair for those that have after tax savings set aside for their retired years. It is clearly double taxation!Fair? I don't think so!
dutchman
I clearly said that no tax is fair and that yes, it is double taxation for those with high net worths. But it is leaps and bounds more fair than our current system.
As to your typical retired income, they (and all consumers) are paying massive imbedded taxes in everything they buy. Corporations don't pay taxes. They pass costs along to consumers. All the costs along the supply chain will go down, negating your supposed 17% retail price increase.
southernguy08, it is an economy-killer because people will NOT spend money if the sales taxes are too high. It's Economics 101. I am not an economist and will never claim to be one. People are dying of hunger and starvation HERE in AMERICA as I type. The last thing needy families need is a crushing tax hike -- be it from the FairTax or anything else.
John Galt,
Either you don't understand what the embedded costs of the Income tax system consist of, or you are one of the few that believe that under the Fairtax, your current net pay will become your future gross pay. Which is it?
The 1998 Jorgenson study concluded that the embedded costs were 22% of sales. After adding compliance costs of 3% of sales, which Jorgenson didn't address, total embedded costs are 25% of sales. 60% of those embedded costs are employee payroll and income tax withholding. Most of us now believe that employees will get to keep their gross pay, so that leaves 40% of 25%, or 10% in employer embedded costs that can be removed by eliminating the income/Payroll taxes. After adding the 30% retail sales tax, the average retail price increase across 20 million businesses would be 17%. (1.00 x .9 x 1.30 = 1.17)
Also, you mistakenly believe that percentage cost savings cascade up through the various levels of production Those percentages are not cumulative It doesn't matter if there is one level or ten, the percentage cost savings remain the same. This is true because the cost savings at each level only apply to the value added at that stage.
The Augusta Chronicle ©2012. All Rights Reserved.
