by | BLOG
The recent exposé from Pro Publica which published sensitive tax information from wealthy Americans has caused quite a stir. Their justification to disclose “the tax details of the richest Americans” was based on the belief that “the public interest in an informed debate outweighs privacy considerations.” This is simply outrageous. Keeping individual taxpayer data private is the fundamental pillar under which the IRS can even ask individual’s for their personal information. The assertion that the ethics of collectivism is more important than rights of the individual — that others can come along and decide that they have more rights to your private affairs than you do – is just nonsense.
In a similar way, people need to understand just how egregious this breach of data is. Pro Publica “obtained the information from an anonymous source who provided us with large amounts of information on the ultrawealthy, everything from the taxes they paid to the income they reported to the profits from their stock trades.” Now, it is a fundamental principle of the IRS that any information given by a taxpayer to the IRS is absolutely confidential to the highest degree. Anyone who peeks at a tax return that is not under their purview typically results in being instantly fired. This is why people typically go after lawyers, accountants, banks, etc., to get copies of someone else’s return — because the IRS will never divulge taxpayer information.
It is outrageous therefore, that this trove of data was leaked, and it is even more outrageous if the source is actually from within the IRS. It is equally bad if the IRS was hacked. No one (except possibly Pro Publica) knows how this information was released. No one person working at the IRS should have had access to this volume of information. The IRS is conducting its own external and internal investigations because it takes taxpayer privacy extremely seriously. If it turns out that the anonymous sources originated within the IRS, this exposé becomes a breach of contract with all American taxpayers.
What’s even more outrageous is that some members of Congress didn’t immediately condemn this publishing of private tax data. Instead, Sen. Elizabeth Warren took the occasion to push her agenda, saying that “ Our tax system is rigged for billionaires who don’t make their fortunes through income, like working families do.″ Likewise, Sen. Ron Wyden, head of the tax-writing Senate Finance Committee, remarked that the information “reveals that the country’s wealthiest, who have profited immensely during the pandemic, have not been paying their fair share of taxes.”
These comments are not only economically and fiscally ignorant, but show an incredible misunderstanding of the basic principles that form our tax system. Elizabeth Warren’s ignorance is legendary. But Wyden, as head of Senate Finance, should be ashamed of himself. The crux of Pro Publica’s argument, that the rich aren’t paying their fair share (gullibly accepted by Warren and Wyden) factor in a statistical fallacy that somehow the calculations of an effective tax rate should factor in the fair market value (FMV) of all assets owned by an individual. This is reckless stupidity.
The fact that the initial response of these Senators was not full of outrage over the exposure of personal tax information is disgusting. They have no respect for their responsibility to protect the American taxpayer. Couple that with their economic ignorance and it is clear that they should resign immediately and disappear from the public square.
by | BLOG
The Tax Cuts and Job Act of 2017 was an important law that made some positive changes to the tax code. It reformed and reduced many regulations, thereby spurring economic growth, and got people to understand the importance of reducing marginal rates. On the corporate side, the large rate reduction (from 35% to 21%), move to territorial taxation, and expensing of equipment were terrific. However, on the individual side, Congress allowed politics to get in the way of real reform, and that is inexcusable.
Without any discussion, Congress eliminated the deduction for miscellaneous itemized deductions. This is truly the only legitimate deduction, and it is absolutely necessary to maintain the integrity of the tax code. It gives people the chance to write off expenses incurred to allow them to earn the income they are taxed on. For instance, under current tax law, a person who earns $100K in a venture but had to pay $30K for legal fees to get it, would be able to pay taxes on only the $70K net that was actually made. With the new change now removing the miscellaneous itemized deduction, the person will have to pay taxes on the full $100K!
Another deduction Congress removed summarily is the moving deduction. Similar to the miscellaneous itemized deduction, this is a real and actual expense that is incurred when moving to get a new job (in order to earn the income that will be taxed.) It was removed from the tax code without discussion, and should not have been.
The casualty loss deduction was also eliminated. This enabled you to deduct a loss that was due to a sudden, unexpected event, such as a fire, hurricane, or robbery. Now, if your house burns down, you can no longer write it off. The exception to this change is if your loss is in a federally-declared disaster area. So if your house burns down, you get no deduction. But if it burns down in a large wildfire that was declared a disaster, you can claim the deduction. This is egregious; the effect on the individual — the loss of a house — is absolutely the same. This deduction elimination is unacceptable.
Furthermore, the alimony deduction was thrown out. The alimony deduction is a mechanism that prevents an inequitable tax burden to be created when a married family unit is split into two. It is inequitable and mean-spirited to create a targeted tax burden on people who suffered a family breakup.
While eliminating these important and equitable donations, Congress left in place a number of purely political, social engineering deductions and credits. Congress left in a substantial part of the mortgage deduction, which is really nothing more than a government subsidy to the real estate industry. They left in energy credits, rehabilitation and low income housing credits, and the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT). It’s disappointing to see Congress talk about simplicity, efficiency, and equitability, and then remove good provisions from the tax code while leaving in parts that are merely political.
by | ARTICLES, BLOG, GOVERNMENT, LAW, TAXES
A good tax system is built on four principles: simplicity, transparency, neutrality, and stability. Serious minded professionals and statesmen have known and pushed for these principles for generations. These principles should be the basis for tax policies created by lawmakers so that our tax system is organized and understandable.
The first principle is simplicity. By this concept, both taxpayers and the IRS deserve to have policies and a system that makes tax compliance and tax enforcement easy and understandable. No one should be obligated to wade through a system that doesn’t make obvious sense.
Next is transparency. A transparent system is one that clearly explains the tax in question, the steps needed to pay it, and the dates by which the tax is due. This should go without saying.
The third concept is neutrality. Neutrality means that no one industry is preferred over another nor any personal behavior given favor. Picking winners and losers in business or activities should not be the function of the tax system.
Finally, stability is key. Consistent tax laws without sunsets or changes from year to year provide predictability and help promote long term planning for taxpayers. If a tax system is fair and equitable, taxpayers should be able to count on it and plan for it into the future, without worrying that politicking and partisanship will create an unfair trap.
I had a recent conversation with Congresswoman Claudia Tenney (NY) on these concepts. At the end of our discussion she had a brilliant realization: that these four principles: simplicity, transparency, neutrality, and stability, not only make for a good tax system, but should be part of ANY legislation. Imagine Congress using these concepts to form the basis of all policies when considering the content of legislation?
