HOME
WHAT'S HERE
  America Was Tax-free
The Banking System
The Income Tax Is By Far The Most Controversial
Experts In Taxes And The Budget Process
The Supercommittee Failed To Produce
The Underlying Causes Of The Financial Crisis
Internal Revenue Service
The IRS Scandal
Pork-barrel Earmark Spending
Taxes And Related Receipts
Government Waste
American Families Have Watched Every Penny
SHOP THE
ONLINE STORE
  A Little Help Finding Your Way Around
Contact Us
Parting Shots | Google Search
INFORMATION
  Oneliners, Stories, etc.
Who We Are
AFFILIATES






 
HOME

Modern Public Finance

Economics Drinking My Way To Lower Tax Bracket

Taxation is the central part of modern public finance. Its significance arises not only from the fact that it is by far the most important of all revenues but also because of the gravity of the problems created by the present day tax burden. The main objective of taxation is raising revenue.

A high level of taxation is necessary in a welfare State to fulfill its obligations. Taxation is used as an instrument of attaining certain social objectives i.e. as a means of redistribution of wealth and thereby reducing inequalities. Taxation in a modern Government is thus needed not merely to raise the revenue required to meet its ever-growing expenditure on administration and social services but also to reduce the inequalities of income and wealth. Taxation is also needed to draw away money that would otherwise go into consumption and cause inflation to rise.

A tax is a financial charge or other levy imposed on an individual or a legal entity by a state or a functional equivalent of a state (for example, tribes, secessionist movements or revolutionary movements). Taxes could also be imposed by a subnational entity.

Taxes consist of direct tax or indirect tax, and may be paid in money or as corvée labor. A tax may be defined as a "pecuniary burden laid upon individuals or property to support the government [ . . .] a payment exacted by legislative authority." A tax "is not a voluntary payment or donation, but an enforced contribution, exacted pursuant to legislative authority" and is "any contribution imposed by government [ . . .] whether under the name of toll, tribute, tallage, gabel, impost, duty, custom, excise, subsidy, aid, supply, or other name."

Whether the "millionaires and billionaires" are actually paying their fair share of taxes is a matter for the electorate to decide. After all, fairness is hardly an objective standard. Before the modern era, however, the federal tax system was manifestly unfair by any reasonable standard, grossly biased in favor of the well off. Ironically, attempting to fix that unfairness is what has brought us to the present moment, with a federal tax system that is grotesquely complex, often arbitrary, and corrupted by mutual back-scratching between members of Congress and influential lobbyists. One original sin was the separation of the corporate and personal tax, giving lawyers, accountants and the wealthy a chance to game the system.

After the Civil War, nearly all the wartime taxes—including the nation's first income tax—were repealed and the federal government relied mostly on the tariff for revenues. It provided the government with more than ample peacetime income. In 1882, the government had revenues of $403 million, but expenses were only $257 million, a staggering budget surplus of nearly 36%. The reason the tariff was so high was, ostensibly, to protect America's burgeoning industries from foreign competition.

Of course, the owners of those burgeoning industries—i.e., the rich—were greatly helped by the protection, which enabled them to charge higher prices and make greater profits than if they had had to face unbridled foreign competition. But the tariff is a consumption tax, which is simply added to the price of the goods sold. And consumption taxes are inherently regressive. The poor, by definition, must spend all of their income on necessities and thus pay consumption taxes on all of their income. The rich, while living in luxury, bank most of their income and largely escape these types of taxes.

Tax crimes

Tax crimes are no laughing matter, but occasionally there's a development that seems downright funny.

The TurboTax defense was funny, especially from the mouth of a hopeful Treasury Secretary Tim Geitner as he was primping for the top tax job. Geithner's statement was among the better "oops" tax excuses of the last few years. TurboTax Made Me Do It, more or less, was the excuse from Timothy Geithner when his enemies were making him out to be just another common criminal.

Tax chiseling is a $345 billion business, but the Treasury Secretary's case has some mitigating factors. The software he was using to do his returns didn't, among other things, force him to make the proper distinction between tax-favored summer camps and the other kind.

In a disclosure that first hit in May of 2010 and continues today, long-time New York Democratic Congressman Charlie Rangel got called on his failure to disclose income. Failures that, if true, had the former House Ways and Means Committee Chairman-the nation's top tax policy writer-hiding apartment rent he received, forgetting to disclose another $75,000 or so in rent from a house in the Dominican Republic, and making $2 million in solicitations for the Charles Rangel School of Public Service at City College of New York on congressional letterhead.

During Rangel's 40 years in Congress, he rose to head the world's most powerful tax-writing authority, architected Harlem's renaissance from one of America's worst ghettos and convinced former President Clinton to move to the neighborhood once out of office.

Responsibility is expensive. But it's a bargain compared with irresponsibility. The crash reminds me of king Pyrrhus of Epirus' victory over the Romans at Asculum in 279 BC, where the win cost the lives of nearly his entire army-the birth of the phrase "pyrrhic victory." The costs of the lessons were extremely high, New York voters lost their most powerful voice in Congress and decades of investment in an icon.

As the vast surpluses piled up in the Treasury, the political pressure to institute an income tax on the rich grew steadily. In 1894, with Democrat Grover Cleveland in the White House and Democratic majorities in both houses of Congress, a federal income tax became law.

The new tax, however, was very different from the Civil War income tax, which had exempted only the poor. The new one hit only the rich, imposing a 2% tax on incomes above $4,000. Less than 1% of American households in 1894 met that income threshold.

Needless to say, the tax was attacked in court, in a 1895 test case called Pollack v. Farmers' Loan & Trust. The case turned on the definition of a "direct tax," which the Constitution requires to be apportioned equally among the states according to population, something obviously impossible with an income tax.

The court split 4-4 as to whether the new income tax was constitutional. One member of the court, Justice Howell Jackson of Tennessee, was absent because of illness (and died less than three months later). But with the case drawing enormous public attention, the court agreed to reargue it and Justice Jackson rose from his deathbed to hear it.

Jackson was known to favor the income tax and it was assumed that it would now be upheld 5-4. But one of the other justices switched his vote (the opinion is unsigned and we don't know by whom or why) and it was voted down 5-4. The income tax was dead. But the pressure to tax the incomes of the largely untaxed rich only increased, especially as the Progressive wing of the Republican Party grew in strength under Theodore Roosevelt.

By the time of the administration of President William Howard Taft (1909-13) the pressure was becoming overwhelming. One representative suggested simply repassing the 1894 tax bill and daring the Supreme Court to overturn it a second time.

That idea horrified Taft, who revered the court. He feared that it would weaken its position as the final arbiter of the Constitution. He came up with a brilliant, very lawyerly, alternative: He proposed a constitutional amendment to legalize a personal income tax, while meanwhile imposing a tax on corporate profits. In the early 20th century such a tax was, in effect, a tax on the rich. As the corporate income tax is technically an excise tax, there was no constitutional problem. Taft's solution was implemented and in 1913 the 16th Amendment was declared ratified, just as Taft was leaving office.

The new president, Woodrow Wilson, and the strongly Democratic Congress promptly passed a personal income tax. It kicked in at 1% on incomes above $3,000 (a comfortable upper middle-class income at the time) and reached 7% on incomes over $500,000. But there were many deductions, bringing the effective tax rates down sharply from the marginal ones—a feature of the tax system ever since.

Unfortunately the corporate income tax, originally intended as only a stopgap measure, was left in place unchanged. As a result, for the last 98 years we have had two completely separate and uncoordinated income taxes. It's a bit as if corporations were owned by Martians, otherwise untaxed, instead of by their very earthly—and taxed—stockholders. This has had two deeply pernicious effects. One, it allowed the very rich to avoid taxes by playing the two systems against each other. When the top personal income tax rate soared to 75% in World War I, for instance, thousands of the rich simply incorporated their holdings in order to pay the much lower corporate tax rate.

There has since been a sort of evolutionary arms race, as tax lawyers and accountants came up with ever new ways to game the system, and Congress endlessly added to the tax code to forbid or regulate the new strategies. The income tax act of 1913 had been 14 pages long. The Revenue Act of 1942 was 208 pages long, 78% of them devoted to closing or defining loopholes. It has only gotten worse.

The other pernicious consequence of the separate corporate and personal income taxes has been a field day for demagogues and the misguided to claim that the rich are not paying their "fair share." Warren Buffett recently claimed that he had paid only $6.9 million in taxes last year. But Berkshire Hathaway, of which Mr. Buffett owns 30%, paid $5.6 billion in corporate income taxes. Were Berkshire Hathaway a Subchapter S corporation and exempt from corporate income taxes, Mr. Buffett's personal tax bill would have been 231 times higher, at $1.6 billion.

Fiscal policy is the use of government expenditure and revenue collection (taxation) to influence the economy. Monetary policy is the process by which the monetary authority of a country controls the supply of money, often targeting a rate of interest for the purpose of promoting economic growth and stability. Monetary policy differs from fiscal policy, which refers to taxation, government spending, and associated borrowing.

John Steele Gordon. A Short History of the Income Tax. The Wall Street Journal. September 27, 2011.


top of page
back a page
 
 
  More:
America Was Tax-free | The Banking System | The Income Tax Is By Far The Most Controversial | Experts In Taxes And The Budget Process | The Supercommittee Failed To Produce | The Underlying Causes Of The Financial Crisis | Internal Revenue Service | The IRS Scandal | Pork-barrel Earmark Spending | Taxes And Related Receipts | Government Waste | American Families Have Watched Every Penny
  Take Me To:
Life, Liberty And The Pursuit Of Happiness [Home]
Modern Public Finance | A Highly Complex Industrial Economy | Judiciary Powers | American Politics | The American Population | The Presidency: An Institution | Office Of President | Presidents of the United States | Prestigious Presidents | Prevue Of Things To Come | Pay Any Price | Judeo-Christian Biblical Principles | Second Term Problems | To Serve And Protect | Self-interest And The Public Interest | Religion-free Zone? | A Constitutional Republic | Actually Running The United States Government? | The Founding Fathers' Sacred Honor | Common Sense | Every Nation Has Sought It | Symbols Of The Entire United States | Greatest Threat To Our Liberties
Questions? Anything Not Work? Not Look Right? My Policy Is To Blame The Computer.
Oneliners, Stories, etc. | About By The People, For The People | Site Navigation | Parting Shots | Google Search
My Other Sites: Cruisin' - A Little Drag Racin', Nostalgia And My Favorite Rides | The Eerie Side Of Things | It's An Enigma | That"s Entertainment | Just For The Fun Of It | Gender Wars | Golf And Other Non-Contact Sports | JCS Group, Inc., A little business... A little fun... | John Wayne: American, The Movies And The Old West | Something About Everything Military | The Spell Of The West | Once Upon A Time | By The People, For The People | Something About Everything Racin' | Baseball and Other Contact Sports | The St. Louis Blues At The Arena | What? Strange? Peculiar? Maybe.