Friday, October 14, 2011

The "My God We're Overtaxed" and "My God the Tax Code is Too Complicated" Canard

I usually bite my tongue when it comes to the political debate because I have an extreme amount of contempt for both  parties.  The Republicans are literally off the rails on a variety of topics -- economics, global warming, family planning etc...  I mean, these people now live in a hermetically sealed world where data free points of view are espoused as if backed by noble laureates, lack of evidenced be damned.  On the other hand, the Democrats can't lead.  Even with a super-majority, they stumbled and bumbled their way for two years.  When you're running a country, that lack of leadership capability is stunningly bad.

All that being said, I have yet to see a Republican candidate put out anything beyond standard Republican dogma.  To listen to them, you'd think we were the most overtaxed country on the planet earth.  Let's cut through their two lines of argument as quickly as possible.

Taxes are in fact near historic lows:
Amid complaints about high taxes and calls for a smaller government, Americans paid their lowest level of taxes last year since Harry Truman's presidency, a USA TODAY analysis of federal data found.

Some conservative political movements such as the "Tea Party" have criticized federal spending as being out of control. While spending is up, taxes have fallen to exceptionally low levels.

Federal, state and local income taxes consumed 9.2% of all personal income in 2009, the lowest rate since 1950, the Bureau of Economic Analysis reports. That rate is far below the historic average of 12% for the last half-century. The overall tax burden hit bottom in December at 8.8.% of income before rising slightly in the first three months of 2010.
Then there is this chart from Reuters:


Regarding the tax code and its"complexity," let me add my professional .02 cents (inflation adjusted).  First, I have a masters in domestic and international taxation from the Thomas Jefferson School of Law where I graduated Magna Cum Laude and am currently a doctoral candidate.  I am author of the leading book in the area of Captive Insurance Law.  Tax law is the area of law in which I practice every day, so let me offer some evidence from someone who actually does this for a living:

1.) The tax code is not that complicated for the vast majority of Americans.  It's just not.  If you make below, say, $100,000 and you use a standard tax preparation software, you're not missing any deductions.  Really -- you're not.  I realize the time involved with putting together your taxes is a pain, but, frankly, the do-it-yourself software is actually pretty good.

2.) If you're a high net worth individual, you can afford the services of a professional.  That's part of the joy of being a high net worth individual -- discretionary income.

I'm actually one of the few individuals who has read the vast majority of the tax code and the accompanying regulations.  While it took me several years to do so (that's what graduate school is for), that's also the case with vast swaths of the law.  Have you ever looked at the property code in a North East state that also has 300+ years of legal precedent to research?  Length of legal code is one of the side effects of a common law legal system.  Deal with it.

That being said, the tax code is long for two primary reasons.  First, is special interest giveaways.  There are entire chunks of the code that are sops to special interests.  For example -- anything related to natural resources was written by and for the oil and timber industry.  Second, there are anti-avoidance statutes.  These are laws that were put in place because someone tried to find their way around a nice, plainly worded statute.  For example, about 2/3 of the corporate tax code   (Subchapter C) is anti-avoidance in nature.  The vast majority of the estate code falls under this guise as does the CFC (controlled foreign corporations) act.  In short, people getting cute is a primary reason for the code being complicated.  Also note -- the sections I've just cited probably won't have an impact on the vast majority of US taxpayers.  In short, about 50%-60% of the code deals with special interest giveaways and anti-deferral rules that were written to plug holes in the code.

In short, the "we're being taxed to death" and "the tax code is too complicated" arguments just don't stack up.  First, taxes are near historic lows.  That means we're not being taxed to death.  Second, for most individuals, the tax code's complexity has absolutely no effect on their tax computations: that which was a deduction last year is a deduction this year.  Now, if you're terrible at keeping records and scramble every year near tax time, maybe you need to change your financial organization habits. Finally, if you're a high net worth individual, you can afford a professional help. And finally, the basic tax code -- gross income, deductions, taxable income etc... -- are pretty standard.  You run into complexity issues on special interest giveaways and plugging of loop-holes -- and, again, this is an area that most taxpayers (as in 95%+) won't even see.

 









17 comments:

Anonymous said...

Another great post on the blog! Too bad the people that need to read and understand it won't do either!

Anonymous said...

I'm sorry, I love your blog and follow it religously, however you miss the point on this one I fear. You are right, the tax code is not that complicated if you don't mind paying taxes and everyone pays them fairly. I for one apparently fall into your high networth since I make well above $100k, but I don't feel I can afford these tax specialists who work for the truely rich (millionaires) and setup tax shelters and investments to avoid paying the 18%-28% true tax rate on their income. This is what makes it complicated, so I end up writing a check every year for thousands of dollars, and they have the nerve to penalize me because I supposedly should know how much I'm going to make every year and should be withholding more... sorry, I digress. It's not the fact its "complicated" to file a basic tax return, its complicated to file a tax return where you don't pay taxes...

Anonymous said...

If you have to use software to do your taxes its too complicated.

And you leave out state and local taxes.

Corey said...

I really want to believe that my woes are solved by hiring a professional tax preparer or accountant, but as I've experienced in the past they're about as clueless as anybody else. I got penalized by the IRS for about a year after I hired an accounting firm to do my books and submit my tax paperwork; each time they found something else wrong that led to my tax burden being miscalculated I owed more money, with interest, and a penalty fee.

I make a good living and I'm a pretty smart guy, but I feel trapped between a rock and a hard place when it comes to taxes.

Anonymous said...

Your all-around bet for highly competent retail tax prep and representation is an IRS Enrolled Agent (EA). They work for the taxpayer, NOT the IRS (http://www.naea.org/memberportal/Resources/ForTaxpayers/whatis_EA.htm).

They are often more tax-savvy than CPAs, although CPAs are loathe to admit it. They can provide the advice on the tax implications of financial decisions that financial advisers refuse to give.

Some EAs charge exorbitantly, but many are very reasonable, sometimes charging less than HR Block (for example). They are one of America's best-kept secrets.

Members of NAEA are listed on the website. EAs who work for HR Block are often not listed because they have not purchased a membership because annual dues and CPE costs are extremely high.

I thought every EA was listed on the IRS website, but I have been rooting around and I haven't found the directory. Maybe someone knows if or where it is.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous, sounds like you may be hiring the wrong accountant(s) to do your taxes. Also, you can't get it both ways -- you either hire an accountant who stretches and includes deductions that ordinarily might not be considered (thus reducing your taxes but increasing the risk for IRS penalties), or you want a conservative accountant. In addition, aren't tax prep fees "deductible?"

Anonymous said...

Anonymous and Corey, if you are reading the Bonddad blog, I assume you are adept at reading and analysis. Sounds like you need to spend a tiny bit of time reading and asking questions about taxes as they apply to your situation. It's not rocket science. If you give ANY professional 100% carte blanche authority -- including doctors, lawyers, accountants, financial consultants, real estate professionals, auto mechanics -- you will learn an unpleasant lesson at some point in your life. It's not the tax code causing you penalties.

The Grouch said...

Let's just be done with all this foolishness and the special interest shenanigans, and abolish the income tax in favor of a national sales tax. We could get rid of most of the IRS, a lot of the tax lawyers and accounts, and focus that brain power on doing something productive. A wonderful side-effect of this would be taking power and influence away from politicians.

Anonymous said...

@ The Grouch:

Any such sales tax would ave to exempt tings like food and medication, and other expenses that the poor spend most of their income one to avoid being regressive in nature, and may not be able to fulfill out national revenue requirements

Jim said...

@ Grouch, National sales tax is highly regressive and will lead to the rich getting even more. That is an awful idea. Flat tax is at least marginally more fair.

@ Anonymous, my accountant costs me <$1000 a year and my taxes are pretty complicated. Not sure how you can't afford that.

@Bonddad, great post -- as always.

Odysseus said...

Bonddad, you also leave out an important statistic: 64% of filers do not itemize at all. It's hard to say that the tax code is too onerous when you don't even itemize.

http://www.irs.gov/taxstats/article/0,,id=102886,00.html
Percent that claim standard deductions (TY 2008) [3] 64.4%

Anonymous said...

Love the blog and so I read the post. It read like a strong, unintentional endorsement of eliminating the tax code.

"I have a masters in domestic and international taxation" ... assuming you never grew up dreaming of this, couldn't we put your considerable mental powers to better efforts?

"There are entire chunks of the code that are sops to special interests" ... please eliminate.

"if you're terrible at keeping records and scramble every year near tax time" ... but that's lots of people because they are doing the daily work / family scramble. Most things we admire try to adapt to people versus the other way around.

IL JimP said...

Anon @ 11:26

"Your all-around bet for highly competent retail tax prep and representation is an IRS Enrolled Agent (EA). They work for the taxpayer, NOT the IRS (http://www.naea.org/memberportal/Resources/ForTaxpayers/whatis_EA.htm)."

Who do you think the IRS works for?

Anonymous said...

1) Compare the current tax code to the Fair Tax, and the current tax code is an abomination.

2) Just because current tax levels aren't high in relative GDP terms doesn't mean they shouldn't be lower. We need less taxes and less government. We need lower taxes and fewer entitlements.

3) The liberals pander to the crowd that wants handouts, freebies, and something for nothing. Stop protesting Wall Street and go start a business. Stop asking what the government can do for you, and do something creative that generates value and jobs.

IL JimP said...

@Anon 5:32

anymore right wing talking points you'd like to throw out there?

I think there are few left

southern Beale said...

I agree Democrats can't lead, but one point of order: Democrats never had a true super majority. They had Lieberman of the Lieberman Party putting his foot down every time it looked like he wouldn't be important. We had Ben Nelson demanding someone pay attention to him because it's fucking Nebraska and who cares about them? And there were long spells when we had our people out with illness or death (Byrd, Kennedy) or in the case of Al Franken, unseated for 8 month as Norm Coleman challenged the election.

Democrats had a filibuster proof majority for six weeks: from July 8 2009 to August 25 2009, when Ted Kennedy died. It was the first time since 1958 when that was the case. The Senate was on summer recess at the time.

In November 2009 Scott Brown won that seat and he was sworn in on Feb. 4 2010.

So, technically Democrats had a super majority for 6 months (July 8 2009-Feb. 4 2010) but the Senate was on recess for a big chunk of that time. In that period, we got healthcare reform passed, something that we'd been trying to do for decades. While it didn't have the public option and a lot of things folks on the left wanted, it was still a massive achievement that would never have happened otherwise.

John said...

@Southern Beale: All good arguments that rarely reach the lips of the MSM. Considering the limited time they had a supermajority in the Senate, and the fact that Republicans effectively declared war on the Obama Administration (e.g., the "Waterloo" metaphore), the Dems actually led pretty well.

I miss Nancy Pelosi.