I am sitting
at my desk reading all the articles about the latest proposal for tax change in
the US. What a mess. Despite it being morning, it makes me want to reach for the extra-large
bottle of JD. Have you ever tried JD on Honey Monster Puffs? Wow.
So I scratched
my head hoping for some sort of stimulation in brain activity and decided it
was time to start at ground zero with a lesson on taxes. Imagine us regular folks
trying to decide the best route to Mars. I could begin by wondering about rocket fuel, sun spots, and
billboards. And that might lead to discussions with neighbors and perhaps
heated arguments, but the truth is that we amateurs might never converge on a realistic answer
about the best way to get to Mars. There are so many issues! Better to argue
about landscape issues.
So how does
any of the above relate to taxes and recent tax proposals? The answer is that
while the main idea of a tax is pretty simple, it is the use of taxes that
makes the topic so complex. What is a tax? A tax is a way
for the government to raise money so it can buy its citizens things. We take
for granted that cities, states, and the nation should provide things to their citizens.
Our Bloomington mayor wanted some shiny, new trash collection trucks so he
added a new tax for that purpose. He already gets lots of our money for silly
things like fire and police protection but he needed a wee bit more for these
pretty new trucks. Each house got equally attractive new garbage cans that come in
three sizes so it all made sense and none of us complained.
I think I
already got off track. The main idea so far is that governments provide for their citizens, and they need money to do so. So they tax us. Taxes come in all shapes and
sizes. In the USA, the main taxes the federal government collects are based on
our incomes. State and local governments tend to tax incomes as well as goods
we buy. Regardless of the source, these governments use the proceeds to take
care of their citizens. That seems pretty simple. If the government wants to
spend more, it has to tax more. So why are
our friends in Washington, DC, so wild and crazy about the recent tax proposals?
Have they been watching too many Steve Martin reruns?
I can see at
least three reasons beyond Steve Martin why the tax proposal generates so much
commotion. First, the Federal government is allowed to go in debt. So we have
a choice when we want to spend more. We can raise taxes or we can incur more
debt or we can have a little more of both. Second, we not only raise most tax
revenues based on income but we have a progressive tax system that charges higher
rates on higher incomes. Third, the tax system is “holier” than Swiss cheese. No
offense to Roger Federer implied. These holes are there for a purpose. Most of
us are the recipients of at least one tiny little hole. For example, realtors
love it when people can write-off the interest they pay when they borrow to buy
their new tiny house. It makes it a lot easier to sell a house when the buyer
is being subsidized. The same goes for electric cars and pain pills. Geez, how many of these so-called loopholes or deductions
are there? Please don’t count them all up – you have better things to do today.
So what have we learned? Taxes are pretty simple in principle
but in practice they are more complicated than a mission to Mars. It is not
simply a matter of government raising taxes so it can buy us shiny new garbage
trucks. It becomes a series of questions about how every single person – dare I
saw every voter – will react to any given specific way to raise those taxes.
Tax increase or debt increase?
Tax high-income people or low-income
people?
Tax young people or old people?
Tax workers or retired people?
Tax savers or spenders?
Tax students or professors?
Impact housing industry or stockbrokers?
Tax heirs or new children?
Tax sexy persons or economists?
Should I go on?
If you answered
yes to the last question, then you need help. If you thought the above stuff
was fun, keep reading. It gets even more complicated. We blandly assumed that
the tax increase is about raising the resources to spend more. But that is
never the whole truth. We use the tax system to cure everything
from male impotency to invasive Asian carp.
Think of all
the hidden tunnels in our discussions today. Some of us want to use the tax
change legislation to reform the tax code so it will create more growth. Others
want to use it to address the distribution of income. Still others want to use
it for short run stabilization of national spending. While all these goals are
laudable, a tax change that improves growth might not immediately improve the
distribution of income. A tax program that favors more short-term spending
might damage sustainable economic growth. And of course, many of us worry about
how these tax changes will affect the price of JD.
I am getting
close to my word limit so I better sum up. I can do that with two words –
Tower of Babel. Okay, that’s three words. That’s not many words compared to the
number you will see and hear in the next days about tax reform. And I bet you
this: Few if any of the authors of those words will explain what taxes are and
what they should be used to accomplish. Each of these selfish people will take
the easy road and will loudly point out how one group is to be favored over
another. Having a realistic and thoughtful approach to taxes is beyond them.
They would rather achieve star status by fussing about the low hanging fruit.
Inasmuch, it is difficult to see any proposal that would have any beneficial
impacts passed by the mental institution we call Congress. No one wants to be a loser, and no one will admit what goals they hope to accomplish.
Even if a proposal is passed into law, we will accomplish no national goals, and we will end up pointing more fingers at each other after the tax change than we did before it.
Even if a proposal is passed into law, we will accomplish no national goals, and we will end up pointing more fingers at each other after the tax change than we did before it.
Dear LSD. Yer kerrict about the impending tax legislation—it’ll not accomplish much ‘cept continuing the finger-point’n and not advance practical goals. Given the latest Senate musings should legislation reach DJT’s desk he could veto it if it doesn’t contain the stuff he wants—but I doubt that’ll happen. To-date, both House and Senate versions complicate the tax code—not simplify it—and neither attempt to do anything about spending and the national debt. Today Alan Greenspan reiterated his observation that entitlements cannot continue to increase and that the debt will limit GDP to less than 3%--and that the 4th qtr. also will be under 3%. A talking head said the tax proposals simply rearrange the deck chairs.
ReplyDeleteYer kerrict ‘bout the tax issue, but I don’t think it’ll affect the price of JD. Don’t worry; be happy.