• Tag Archives income tax
  • Withheld Taxation is Theft, Even If It Doesn’t Feel Like It 

    A friend of mine, who has filed income taxes for the past 15 years, faced an unusual situation this year. Instead of getting a refund like 4 out of 5 taxpayers, she suddenly found herself among the 20% who have to pay more.

    She had to write a check. Money that might otherwise have gone toward fixing her car, repairing her home, or getting a new smartphone, she is forced to send to the federal government. To be sure, her check only made up a fraction of what she paid in taxes last year. That she was forced to do it at all was the issue.

    The key word here is forced. Of course all taxation is about forcing resources away from the way we want to use them and coercing us against our will to fund government instead. But in today’s world, this brutal reality is shrouded within an accounting smokescreen that uses the employer as subterfuge.

    When you have to pay taxes directly, it changes your outlook. Suddenly the slogan “taxation is theft” starts to make some sense. You start to ask yourself questions, like:

    • How do they get away with this?
    • What is government doing with my money anyway?
    • How could this be good for the economy to support a bunch of bureaucracies that serve special interests rather than real businesses that provide goods and services?
    • Who says that the government knows how best to use my money better than I do?

    These are reasonable questions. They are questions absolutely every taxpayer ought to be asking every year. The problem is that most people never have the questions occur to them.

    And there is one reason for this: the withholding tax. Instead of being collected directly from the payer, the government  collects them “at the source,” which is to say that they are collected from the institution that pays wages and salaries — on behalf of the taxpayer.

    As comedian Chris Rock said on stage, “You don’t even pay taxes. They take taxes. You get your check, money gone. That ain’t a payment, that’s a jack.”

    Yet somehow it makes people even less likely to think of a tax as a “jack.” Once tax time comes around, and all possible deductions are considered, most people end up getting money back. This provides incentive for people to file. Why leave money sitting on the table? The result is one of the most amazingly brilliant innovations of the modern state. This tinkering with the system — the creation of the institution called withholding — has created an illusion that paying taxes is really about getting free money!

    When the check arrives from the government a month or so later, the taxpayer is actually tempted to think: wow, this is really great!

    A pillaging has been spun to look like a gift.

    How did all this come about? It was wartime in 1943 and the government didn’t want to wait a year to obtain the revenue stream. The revenues were needed to fund the war effort now. (Nowadays, the Fed would just print it all.)

    A young and smart Milton Friedman was the driver of an idea that he later came to regret. Taxes would be collected from the employer, that is, withheld from the paycheck.

    “At the time,” wrote Friedman late in life, “we concentrated single-mindedly on promoting the war effort. We gave next to no consideration to any longer-run consequences. It never occurred to me at the time that I was helping to develop machinery that would make possible a government that I would come to criticize severely as too large, too intrusive, too destructive of freedom. Yet, that was precisely what I was doing.”

    Robert Higgs has all the grim historical details.

    This emergency measure did not go away after the war. It was too convenient, too brilliant from the government’s point of view. Why not continue to disguise from the worker that he or she was being robbed at an ever increasing rate? The politicians could increase taxes in a way that the average person didn’t even feel! And not just income taxes: the payroll tax (which takes a bigger bit from the average person) could be withheld too.

    Mind Games

    Withholding dramatically changed the psychology of paying taxes. It almost feels like you aren’t paying any at all. The worker gets used to how much after-tax income she makes and adapts to it quickly. Then when tax time arrives, there is no more to pay. Instead you file and find yourself on the receiving end of what seems like an unexpected gift of a check from government. Yet in reality your refund is nothing more than the belated return of a zero-interest loan you were forced to provide the government.

    If we really wanted to make a wonderful change in favor of transparency and decency, one that would mark a shift in people’s perceptions of the costs of government, the withholding tax could just be repealed completely. In principle this should change little about the revenue expectations of the federal government. The difference is that every taxpayer would be the full amount owed to the government every April 15 and otherwise receive full compensation the rest of the year.

    Such a seemingly small change would have a dramatic effect on public perceptions of taxation and government. Even from the age of 16, every citizen would have a more pungent reminder of the costs of government. We would no longer live the illusion that we can all get something for nothing and that government isn’t really expensive after all.

    Such a change would mean that we would pay for government in the same way we pay for rent, clothing, food, and groceries. We pay the full cost of what we consume. It would also feel more like a “jack” if it was us, and not our employer, who had to cough up the money on pain of imprisonment.

    That alone might inspire a different attitude. Even a revolution.

    Source: Withheld Taxation is Theft, Even If It Doesn’t Feel Like It | Foundation for Economic Education


  • Income Tax is Immoral and Unconstitutional – and Not (Just) for the Reason You Think

    I have just paid my biggest bill of the year. The invoice was for a cool 9% of my entire annual income – or my “Adjusted Gross Income” (AGI) as it appears on my tax returns, which have just been filed. And that invoice was from my accountant who just filed them for me.

    I have a pretty modest income – so modest, in fact, that my AGI is of the order of a half of the median household income across the United States – the kind of income that triggers significant subsidies under the Affordable Care Act. Even the “top line” of my income falls short of that median: so it’s not as if I’m earning loads and deducting huge amounts.

    My financial life last year was pretty simple: my earnings derived from a modest real estate portfolio and some freelance/consulting work. My income is earned through my small business, which, for those who know about these things, is an S-corporation. I have no employees. I do no payroll.

    Yet, I have just paid my accountant more than a month’s worth of income to complete my tax returns.

    How many pages of tax returns do you think that I, a single individual, and my S-corporation (a small business) had to file, bearing in mind the small amount of income in question?

    Frankly, there’s no good reason the answer is not one or two. But you already know the answer is more than that, don’t you?

    Ten? Try again.

    Twenty? Keep going.

    Surely not 50?

    You’re still not close.

    Did I hear you say 100 – you’re going for three digits now? Wow.

    Still not there.

    The answer, my fellow American tax victims, is 149.

    Just take a moment to absorb that. A sub median-earning American taxpayer, engaged in simple business activities, has a 149 page tax return. And if he doesn’t get it right, his error is punishable. Of that 149, about 100 go to the Feds.

    Completing 149 pages of tax forms/schedules/supporting statements is a lot of work. And I know exactly how much it is, because of that big invoice from the accountant that I already mentioned.

    It’s $2000 of work – my aforementioned largest bill of the year. And it’s $2000 of work I in no way could have done myself.

    I’m no high school drop-out. I have a first class degree in physics from one of the best universities in the world. I like numbers. I like logic. I like intellectual rigor. I even have a nerdy love of spreadsheets (which tells me, for example, exactly how much I spent on groceries this month five years ago ($173.41, as it happens. I’m low-maintenance)).

    But I could not reverse engineer those 149 pages of tax returns if my life depended on it. And I would defy anyone without a CPA qualification to be able to do so.

    via Income Tax is Immoral and Unconstitutional – and Not (Just) for the Reason You Think.


  • The Income Tax: A Century Is Enough

    Alexander Hamilton won in the end. As Treasury Secretary in the 1790s he championed an array of “internal” taxes to supplement federal revenues from import tariffs. Thomas Jefferson despised Hamilton’s internal taxes as assault on liberty, and when elected in 1800 he made sure that they were abolished.

    The Jeffersonian view held sway for decades, but by the late 19th century the growth in government and concerns about high tariffs led to calls for new revenue sources. The first income tax was imposed to fund the Civil War and lasted until 1872. Another income tax was imposed in 1894, but it was struck down by the Supreme Court as unconstitutional.

    At the turn of the 20th century, the rise of Progressivism and the Democratic opposition to high tariffs generated support for an income tax. President William Howard Taft proposed a Constitutional amendment for an income tax in 1909. It was passed by the House and Senate, and then ratified by the states in early 1913. Congress got to work on legislation, and the modern income tax was signed into law by President Woodrow Wilson exactly 100 years ago today, October 3, 1913.

    That’s when the problems started. The 16th Amendment allowed for “taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived,” but it did not define how “income” should be measured. It turned out that defining “income” is a tricky matter, and liberal and conservative economists and policymakers have never agreed on how to do it. The many economic interest groups affected by the tax have different views as well. The result of all the disagreement is that we’ve had a constantly changing and increasingly complex tax code.

    The number of pages of federal tax rules soared from 400 in 1913 to 73,954 today, according to CCH Inc. Unlike a product in the marketplace that improves over time — like the century-old automobile — the government’s income tax has become ever more inefficient and damaging. After 100 years, it is a bigger challenge than ever to create a simple, pro-growth structure for federal taxation.

    The key problem is that liberals have favored an expansive definition of income that is anti-growth and punishing to savers and investors. The liberal “Haig-Simons” income has been the starting point for our income tax, and it includes all labor income, capital income, and even various non-cash items such as the implicit rent from owning a home. It also includes the accrued value of all capital gains, whether the gains are realized or not.

    That is a very impractical base for taxation. Taxpayers with little cash-flow, for example, cannot afford to pay an annual capital gains tax on their accrued, but not realized, gains. As a result of such impracticalities, policymakers have adopted a plethora of ad hoc rules to fix the Haig-Simons income tax base, which further increases complexity.

    Another problem with the Haig-Simons income tax is that it penalizes frugal people and rewards the spendthrift. That’s because earnings are taxed a second time when saved, but immediate consumption does not face a further tax. This makes no sense because savers are the chief benefactors of economic growth because their money flows to the nation’s new and expanding businesses.

    Fiscal conservatives have fought back over the decades with an alternative view of the proper federal tax base. In the early years of the income tax, economist Irving Fisher argued that “income” is best measured by the flow of services consumed from existing capital. Thus it should not include changes in the value of capital (capital gains) nor additions to capital (savings). Fisher argued that Haig-Simons income erroneously mixed current income with additions to capital, creating a complex and distorted mess of the tax code.

    Fisher was right. In recent decades conservatives and libertarians have championed consumption-based taxation, which is basically the tax structure that Fisher envisioned. The Steve Forbes and Dick Armey flat taxes, for example, have consumption bases. Under such a base, savings and investment would not be double-taxed, and thus economic growth would be maximized.

    Full article: http://www.cato.org/ … e-tax-century-enough