Clicking on banner ads enables JWR to constantly improve
Jewish World Review June 7, 2001 / 17 Sivan, 5761

Amity Shlaes

Amity Shlaes
JWR's Pundits
World Editorial
Cartoon Showcase

Mallard Fillmore

Michael Barone
Mona Charen
Linda Chavez
Ann Coulter
Greg Crosby
Larry Elder
Don Feder
Suzanne Fields
James Glassman
Paul Greenberg
Bob Greene
Betsy Hart
Nat Hentoff
David Horowitz
Marianne Jennings
Michael Kelly
Mort Kondracke
Ch. Krauthammer
Lawrence Kudlow
Dr. Laura
David Limbaugh
Michelle Malkin
Jackie Mason
Chris Matthews
Michael Medved
Kathleen Parker
Wes Pruden
Sam Schulman
Roger Simon
Tony Snow
Thomas Sowell
Cal Thomas
Jonathan S. Tobin
Ben Wattenberg
George Will
Bruce Williams
Walter Williams
Mort Zuckerman

Consumer Reports

Whatever happened to simple? -- TAXES have their idealistic side, and two decades ago lawmakers in Washington got particularly excited about a single tax ideal: simplification.

Why should America have a tax code that was longer than 'War and Peace'? Close the loopholes, the politicians said. End those breaks for mink farmers. No man should enjoy tax benefits that another man doesn't. All men should be tax equals!

Hard as it is to recall, Democrats were among the most eloquent promoters of the new simplification ideal. The first time your author ever heard the phrase "flat tax" was from the mouth of a young Democratic congressman, Bill Bradley of New Jersey. Mr Bradley was calling on The New Republic magazine to argue that Democrats must be the ones to bear the flat tax banner. Representative Dick Gephardt of Missouri was likewise a simplicity enthusiast.

Republicans, too, warmed to the idea. "Bipartisan support", read the headlines. The ideal of simplicity was so important that both parties flung aside differences and wrote a giant tax simplification law, the 1986 reform. For the cause of simplicity and the advantage of lower rates, voters forwent important tax advantages: credit card interest payments, for example, ceased to be deductible. (This, in case you're wondering, explains the current and disturbing trend of abuse of the home equity loan; customers unwisely jeopardise their homes and overborrow because the home mortgage interest is about the only kind of interest that remains deductible for them).

Skip ahead to today. All the tax idealism is gone. The Democrats have veered hard to the left. In his recent campaign for the Democratic presidential nominee, Mr Bradley scarcely spoke of taxes, except to advocate narrow, targeted breaks. Mr Gephardt, now House majority leader, uses that post to preach progressivity. And the Republicans are not much better.

Indeed, when it comes to taxes, lawmakers of all political background sound more like accountants than anything else these days. They generally tend to fuss about "affordable this" or "stimulus that". If you hear a congressman talking about the beauty of simplicity today, you can be sure he's speaking of his new Shaker furniture, not fiscal matters. And both parties are busy pushing new breaks and loopholes like mad.

Take IRAs, the vehicles for retirement saving. These are currently available - to some people, some of the time. If you're right handed, and it's a Tuesday, you qualify for this or that IRA. But if you're left handed, and it's Wednesday - sorry.

IRAs are so complicated they can be downright dangerous. On my wall I have a 356-page book with the scary title "Avoiding the Tax Traps in Your IRA".

Complexity pervades the rest of the code too. It takes a law degree - or, at the least, a background in tax preparation - to claim the earned income credit, a break that is supposed to make the lives of lower earners easier. This year's new tax law just makes the complexity worse. In an ironic twist, the law's authors actually acknowledged this, by giving taxpayers the explicit right to exclude from income the cost of certain retirement planning services.

What happened? First, there was a cultural sea change. Lawmakers got addicted to giving out small tax gifts. As the federal budget moved away from deficit and toward surplus, they were free to become more generous. Soon, what used to be a collection of small favours had morphed into a huge goody bag, the kind kids count on getting after the cake is finished.

But the breaks also do a lot of damage. First of all, they require higher tax rates - somebody has to pay for the goody bag, and that somebody is another taxpayer. The top 28 per cent rate of the 1986 reform is today considered "too expensive", even though the 1980s were a deficit era and this is, on paper at least, a surplus one.

There are also civic costs. The breaks turn us against each other. Around refund time - now, for many of us - voters wonder, "maybe my neighbour is getting a better deal." And a complex 1040 is also an ambiguous 1040. We are never sure that we actually filled that return out right. Nobody is.

The ambiguity gives the IRS a frightening amount of discretion when it decides to audit. Everything is a "red flag". No wonder that when it comes to taxes, citizens suddenly feel victimised.

So what's the solution? It's not just saying "time to take away the goody bag" like some crabby teacher. It's working toward a tax code that is truly even-handed. Conventional wisdom says that's impossible, now that Democrats once again control the Senate. But the new Senate majority leader, Tom Daschle said just this week he wanted to work on making law from the "centre". It's worth recalling that it was the centre that once set tax simplification as one of its most cherished goals.

JWR contributor Amity Shlaes is a columnist for Financial Times . Her latest book is The Greedy Hand: How Taxes Drive Americans Crazy and What to Do About It. Send your comments by clicking here.


06/04/01: When the relationship between companies becomes as close as a marriage, the eventual break-up is often very painful
06/01/01: Loving and hating the Bush tax bill
05/30/01: Will Grisham soon be unemployed? In America's courts these days, there's no room left over for legal fiction
05/22/01: Republicans sample the rhetoric of confidence
05/16/01: Boeing has been promised $60m to site its headquarters in Illinois. The deal looks a poor one for taxpayers
05/14/01: Adam Smith in love
05/09/01: Those rotten Russian capitalists
05/07/01: Why tax havens provide shelter for everyone
05/04/01: Middle classes pay for get-the-rich folly
05/01/01: Money can't buy happiness? Think again.
04/26/01: Calling America's rogues and entrepreneurs
04/19/01: High earners right to feel lonely at the top
04/11/01: The right must learn the comfort of strangers
04/04/01: When domestic law arrives by the back door
03/30/01: A Lexus tax cut suits the jalopy driver
03/27/01: The unchallenged dominance of King Dollar
03/20/01: Natural selection of an intellectual aristocracy
03/16/01: The hidden danger of a regulatory recession
03/14/01: Is the American condition that boring? Why so many Oscar nominated movies aren't set in America
03/07/01: Trampling on the theory of path dependence
03/05/01: Fighting the good fight
03/01/01: It is time for Fannie and Freddie to grow up
02/27/01: IT's important
02/22/01: The guilty conscience of America's millionaires
02/14/01: The benefits of helping the 'rich'
02/09/01: The Danger and Promise of the Bush Schools Plan
02/05/01: Crack and Compassion
01/31/01: Debt is good
01/29/01: Clueless
01/24/01: A gloomy end for a half-hearted undertaking
01/17/01: The challenge of an ally with its own mind
01/15/01: An unexpected American family portrait
01/10/01: A fitting legacy for America's beloved dictator
01/08/01: The trick of tax 'convenience'
01/03/01: Time to stop blaming Greenspan over taxes
12/11/00: So smart they're dumb
12/06/00: How economic bad news came good for Bush
12/04/00: The Boies factor
11/30/00: "The inevitable demands for recounts erupted like acne…"
11/28/00: Fair play and the rules of the electoral game
11/23/00: The shining prospect beyond a cloudy election
11/21/00: Try the Cleveland model
11/16/00: A surprising winner emerges in the US election
11/09/00: Those powerful expats
11/07/00: What's right for America versus what works
11/02/00: Time to turn off big government's autopilot
10/30/00: Canada beating America in financial sensibility
10/26/00: When progressiveness leads to backwardness
10/24/00: The most accurate poll
10/19/00: The Middle East tells us the hawks were right
10/17/00: The split personalities of America's super rich
10/10/00: 'Equity Rights' or Wake up and Smell the Starbucks
10/04/00: Trapped in the basement of global capitalism
09/21/00: The final act of a grand presidential tragedy
09/21/00: Europeans strike back at the fuel tax monster. Should Americans follow?
09/18/00: First steps to success
09/13/00: America rejects the human rights transplant
09/07/00: Minimum wage, maximum cost
09/05/00: Prudent Al Gore plans some serious spending
08/31/00: A revolution fails to bring power to the people
08/28/00: A reali$tic poll
08/21/00: "I Goofed"
08/16/00: Part of the union, but not part of the party
08/09/00: Silicon Alley Secrets
08/02/00: Radical Republicans warm up for Philadelphia
07/31/00: I'll Cry if I Want To
07/27/00: Cold warrior of the new world
07/25/00: The Estate Tax will drop dead
07/18/00: Shooting down the anti-missile defence myths
07/14/00: A convenient punchbag for America's leaders
07/07/00: How to destroy the pharmaceutical industry
07/05/00: Patriots and bleeding hearts
06/30/00: Candidates beware: New Washington consensus on robust growth stands the old wisdom on its head
06/28/00: White America's flight to educational quality
06/26/00: How Hillary inspired the feminist infobabes

© 2001, Financial Times