Celebrating April 15th (17th)
When I first moved to the U.S. for graduate school (which was a long time ago), I was very intrigued by and excited about the tax system and tax day. I envisioned it as a matter of civic engagement, a yearly ritual where citizens reflected on their contribution to the common pool of resources—for better and for worse. I imagined that people would consider the benefits of taxes—being able to fund schools, build roads and bridges, care for the poorest members of the community, and fund the defense of the U.S.—while at the same time watching for wastefulness and protesting against it. And indeed this is how I looked at tax day for my first few years here.
Fast forward to when I finished graduate school and started making a real income, then I began to see April 15th the way most other people do. I realized that the tax code is so complex and aggravating that instead of making people consider values and social issues, their contribution to society, and government waste, it is mostly a season of shared grumbling and annoyance trying to get all your records together in time jittery off green coffee bean extract. With all of this complexity and ambiguity (is taking your sister for dinner while she’s in town and discussing work projects a legitimate business expense? What if she gives you a good idea that you later use?), the only bonding we have on tax day is over the tedium of figuring out how much we owe and over the continual worry of whether we have done things correctly or not. So instead of promoting civic mindedness, the way the U.S. tax system is structured now highlights the small details of filing taxes. As a result, all of our attention is directed toward ending the irritating procedure, and in the process trying to find as many loopholes in the tax code as possible in order to minimize how much we pay.
So how can we fix this problem? The first step is to simplify and clarify the tax code to make the process less confusing. The process of figuring and filling out tax forms is so exasperating it’s hard not to direct that feeling toward someone or something—and generally speaking, that something is the agency that seems responsible for your suffering, which in this case is the IRS. After all, it’s difficult to maintain a cheerfully civic-minded outlook, or even an even-keeled neutral outlook, in the face of such frustration.
Now imagine the simplest, least irritating approach to taxation. The least bothersome way of paying taxes is to have it done for you; for instance, in Israel, the government takes taxes out of people’s income before they even receive their salary. This means that in Israel, no one really knows their gross pay, but they do know their net pay, which makes them much more realistic about what they make. Generally speaking, the opposite is true in the U.S., where people know their gross but not net pay.
This is one idea, and it certainly would simplify things, but it would also nullify the idea of tax day as a day of citizenship and a time of reflection. So while we want to minimize the procedural pain of tax day, we don’t necessarily want to eliminate the possibility of thoughtful and critical participation in government that it provides. To make it a more beneficial experience, I think citizens should be asked how they want the government to spend their tax money. I don’t mean in the larger sense of voting for a political candidate and his or her economic ideology, nor do I mean the total amount that an individual pays in taxes; rather, I think there should be a section on tax forms that prompts the taxpayer to decide how to allocate 10% of his or her taxes. The choices could be among education, clean energy, health care, defense, roads and infrastructure, and so on. Not only would this give taxpayers a more apparent role in deciding where their money goes, it would avoid the problem of missing the forest for the trees.
With a less frustrating and more participatory tax system, it’s possible we could remake tax day into a more constructive and less arduous occasion. And maybe (maybe) we could get the government to be more responsible.
For now though, we should all look around at what our taxes pay for—the roads, the streetlamps, the police and fire stations—and remember that paying taxes is just part of life.
Happy tax day!

The Honest Truth About Dishonesty: How We Lie to Everyone - Especially Ourselves

Love the idea, might also make our politicians talk more about issues, rather than selling themselves…
Although, I find the 10% being allocated interesting, I think one potential problem would become; government would become slightly larger so those particular industries (that the 10% would go to) could lobby the citizen to spend their “10%” with their industry. Tax season (although, I cannot imagine it getting much worse) could potentially turn into a mini election campaign (commercials and advertising) in the months leading to it.
Now, with all that being said, it could be an interesting reform proposal.
Taxpayer partial allocation, like almost every form of hypothecated taxation, is pointless: the free float bit will be allocated taking the fixed allocation into account thus negating it. Money just cannot be made unfungible. The only practical result of such a measure would be extra paperwork and confusion by giving official credence to a common fallacy.
Great comment cig – it’s like when my parents give me $100 at Christmas and want to know what I “spent it on,” and say, “Now, don’t just spend this on gas and groceries.”
I always try to “funge” that money to some new clothes or a pair of sneakers or some gadget that I can show them later.
Sometimes, I cheat and wait for them to say, “Hey! I really like that new x.”… “Yeah, I got that with that birthday check, isn’t it neat?”
Yep. Give me 100% control or continue to spend my money as you like. There’s no middle ground.
Taxes don’t fund government spending in our economic reality. We are a monopoly supplier of currency in a floating exchange-rate system. After money is spent into existence, federal taxes serve as a reserve drain and insure that our chosen currency remains in demand. The counterintuitive nature of our system is intended to obfuscate and confuse so that less educated citizens can be manipulated.
What an interesting post. As an American, my first thought on reading the first paragraph is, “This guy must be joking.” I guess that shows how different things can look from the outside.
If you really want to hear grumbling, find an American colleague who lives and works overseas. Yes, we do still have to pay and file US taxes, and the rules become *much* more complicated—and frankly punitive, as they seem to be primarily aimed at preventing the rich from sheltering income overseas.
Charles — that’s just the international version of the stupid US system. The US is one of few countries that taxes citizens working abroad…
In an ideal democracy: interesting idea to promote a sense of participation and choice.
The problem we face today (in Israel as well, Dan) are of a different kind. Today we have a tax-revolt in Chicago, as the Buffet rule has(predictably) been rejected. It’s about the super rich influence: making unjust tax laws, hence perpetuatin or increasing the gap between the super rich and the rest of the country. Until that changes, disenchntment prevails. As fo Israel, cheating the IRS (esp. on sales tax)is considered a normal practice.
The complexity of the tax code is in many ways the result of special interests and lobbying. Many deductions and credits are meant to help specific groups. When Steve Forbes proposed his flat tax, the housing industry complained about the loss of the mortgage interest deduction and many charitable organizations were worried about the loss of the charitable deduction. While we all talk about simplifying the tax code, it is an almost impossible task. There is a political constituency for many of these items. While I think the 10% idea is interesting, I also think it could lead to larger spending. For example, if a large portion of voters put their 10% in non-defense spending and left a shortfall for defense, we would need to make up the difference either with decreased spending or in increased revenue. Would the area that voters supported with their allocation be spared any cuts?
>>I think there should be a section on tax forms that prompts the taxpayer to decide how to allocate 10% of his or her taxes.
A very similar idea has been a law in Poland since 2004. Not 10%, but only 1%, and not towards any goal, but towards a public good organisation, for example Wikimedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_benefit_organization
>>[...] for instance, in Israel, the government takes taxes out of people’s income before they even receive their salary.
As far as I know, until the fall of communism in 1989 there were no personal income tax returns in Poland either, and even now, in simple cases, the employer can file the yearly return for the employee.
I’d be happy to may significantly more in taxes if they were just taken out of my earnings and I didn’t have to be involved in calculating them. At my wage rate the time I spend doing taxes is a significant cost.
However I’d like to see all charities and non-profits subsumed under a “Ministry of Good Works” that sent out simple forms every year in which I could say how much I wanted to contribute (taken automatically from my bank account) and the percentage I wanted to designate for various good causes (e.g. general poverty 20%, civil rights 70%, etc.) I’m appalled by the overhead charities incur in advertising and sending begging letters. And I can’t stand the sob stories of starving children–those alone are enough to make me stop contributing. I just want to decide my level of virtue and what causes interest me, and be done with it.
It’s the unfairness of the tax code that infuriates me every year. The poorer you are, the more you are going to overpay, because you lack access to expensive and sly accountants and tax lawyers. Taxes should not be onerous enough to prevent people from having adequate food, shelter, or access to health care and transportation. Taxes should be onerous enough, however, to prevent people from buying Supreme Court Justices, Congressmen, Senators, and Presidents.
Intriguing ideas. Adding that bit of control (through the allocation of 10%) could make things more palatable. Simplifying the tax code would go a long way toward “leveling” or at least “equitabilizing (is that a word?!) the playing field.
Why not get rid of the income tax all together and move to a consumption tax though? Not only would it be simple, it would also curb some of the conspicuous consumption and runaway spending.
A sales or consumption tax collected at the point of sale has always been the best plan. And by making groceries and basic necessities/toiletries exempt for everyone it would help address the concern that such a system would hurt low income families most.
Frankly, it seems to be the most fair way to collect tax revenue. Filing would be dramatically simplified. Focus would shift from what we owe, to what we are owed (if taxpayers are allowed to file deductions/credits at year’s end). We’d do away with penalties for not paying on time or not paying at all.
Tax preparers, attorneys, IRS agents, and other tax professionals and those who support them may not like the idea because it would likely put many of them out of work. As with any other industry affected by streamlining, they’ll simply have to pursue new career paths.
I doubt it’ll curb consumption. Perhaps initially, but we Americans love to complain while we continue to behave in ways that exacerbate the very issues about which we complain. Driving habits and the cost of fuel come to mind.
Hear, hear! I think relative position matters more than absolute position. As long as relative position is preserved we can put a stop to the runaway arms race that otherwise ensues.
I think it is interesting to talk about what is “fair.” The other day in my public policy class, I asked the students to define what they meant by the word fair. Then we discussed a progressive income tax and a flat tax because the proponents of both describe their plan as fair and the other as unfair. The point being that the meaning of the word fair is open to interpretation.
John, we are not perfectly rational and logical machines capable of making decisions in an emotional vacuum. Thankfully we’re human.
Experience has taught me that an abstract discussion in a classroom isn’t nearly as helpful as finding a way to put a face to the topic. Find ways to expose your students to the very treatments they believe to be fair. Only then might they discover that fairness (within a specific culture at least) is not as open to interpretation as some would have them believe.
Because that will transfer power from the lechers to the consumers and reduce corruption. Two unacceptable outcomes.
Sorry lads — it’s real property taxes you want, for a progressive tax with low overhead.
http://www.aguanomics.com/2009/08/optimal-taxes-property-tax.html
One issue that everyone talks about in the US is the low saving rate, another is taxes. I wonder if we can tackle both by going from an income based tax system to a consumption based tax system. Where companies and individuals are taxed not on what they earn, but on what they buy/consume, with certain core consumption for individuals being exempt, like most state sales tax on food and clothing (and we will have to add rent).
It would cause people to reduce consumption, and reward savings. But I have no idea what the cascading affect would be, such as how it might increase the black/grey market transactions and other types of gaming, not to mention how to implement it beyond a VAT like model.
The US tax system will never be simplified, because there is an entire industry based upon it. That industry consists of tax lawyers and accountants, and they have a strong vested interest in keeping the system complex. Many members of congress were previously lawyers and accountants.
I rest my case.
Ellen, I totally agree. One small thing that can help with that is the Volunteer Income Tax Assistance (VITA) program – households with income under $50,00 can get their taxes prepared completely for free around the country. Find out more at http://www.irs.gov/individuals/article/0,,id=107626,00.html. (I am a VITA volunteer but not otherwise affiliated with the IRS or any accounting firms.)
A lot of people think they want a flat tax, or at least a less progressive tax, because they believe that it will be a lower percentage than they are paying now – these are the same people who don’t understand that the top tax bracket they incur doesn’t apply to their whole income.
http://money.howstuffworks.com/personal-finance/personal-income-taxes/tax-brackets.htm/printable
Just remember that in the current system of deductions and credits, it’s possible to incentivise desired behaviors through the tax code. It’s one good reason why my wife drives a hybrid and there’s a 5 KW solar array on our roof.
It’s a lot harder to implement (or enforce) high-value incentives at the point of purchase.
I’m s-o-o-o not in the 1%, but I’m more than willing to pay more taxes if the money will be allocated wisely. The late motivational speaker Jim Rohn calls paying taxes “feeding the goose that lays the golden eggs.” His take is pretty simplistic, but if you remember that he’s a speaker, not a writer, there’s some pretty good philosophy in this short blurb:
http://www.jimrohn.com/index.php?main_page=page&id=1245&kbid=5800
I want a sales/consumption tax solely for the sake of simplicity and fairness. No personal capital gains tax or income tax. Sales tax would likely differ for different types of goods and services just as it does today.
I don’t care which source of income a consumer uses to make purchases (e.g. capital gains, salary, rent, self-employment, etc). Buy something…pay a tax on it. We cannot get any less complicated than that, can we?
In my opinion, the primary reason some people oppose moving to consumption-based taxation is the absence of loopholes for them to exploit for their own benefit at the expense of everyone else. They don’t like it because it’s unavoidable. Too bad.
Chris, I have to ask what makes you think that the government cannot provide the same types of incentives that it does today? Consumers would still be able to file for end of year “rebates” as a reward for more responsible consumption.
josephmartins: “In my opinion, the primary reason some people oppose moving to consumption-based taxation is the absence of loopholes for them to exploit.”
Really? I would think it would be much easier to exploit. If I were to sell something on ebay, would I collect taxes from the buyer? Do I get a refund for the taxes that I paid when I bought that item?
What if I just sell something to my neighbor? Are there consumption taxes involved? What if I just loan it to them?
What if I sell a company that I founded? Is a corporation a consumable? Or can I buy and sell them at will, making millions of dollars, without ever having to pay taxes? What if I buy a share in a co-op, so that I own a portion of that company’s products? Do I have to pay taxes on that? I own part of the company, so I’m not actually buying anything.
Fleury, you can either provide endless what-if scenarios or you can offer suggestions about how a consumption tax might be implemented successfully.
Regarding your what-ifs…
If you sell something on eBay, even now, you’re obligated to collect sales tax from residents living in a state in which you have a place of business. Soon, the government may require you to collect it from all buyers.
It is reasonable to assume that the government could implement year end refunds/incentives/rewards for certain types of purchases just as it offers a system of deductions today.
Your neighbor example is absolutely no different than what occurs when one works under the table and/or barters. You’re supposed to pay income tax on the earnings are you not? Po-tay-to, po-tah-to.
Go ahead and sell your company. Are you planning to hoard all the funds indefinitely? Of course not. You’ll eventually spend and when you do, you’ll pay up.
Buying into a co-op? Which type? Worker, consumer, producer, purchasing or housing? For profit, or not-for-profit? You pay the sales-tax piper eventually…unless you’re planning to create some sort of self-sustaining off-the-grid co-op commune that never purchases good or services from outside itself. Good luck with that.
Patrick, taxing what you refer to as negative externalities can backfire (at least as a method to curb behavior). How? History tells us that financial penalties don’t necessarily curb undesirable behavior. Instead, they simply shift us from social norms to business norms as Ariely describes in PI. In the context of taxes I suppose that is great news. Tax them and they’ll keep coming back for more.
Regarding tax on property…absolutely. Tax the buyer at the point of sale.
It should be pretty obvious that sales tax could become extremely difficult to avoid once most businesses are required to collect it from their customers. As with anything else there will always be exceptions, however I stand by my original statement that it’s more fair and simple than what we have today.
I’ve yet to read PI, so perhaps you could elaborate on that argument for me?
I’m not really familiar with the research but I remember reading that increasing the price of cigarettes has been found to reduce cigarette consumption.
Regarding the behaviour of corporations, well, I don’t expect them to be motivated by social norms, when CEOs can lose their jobs for acting against the financial interest of their shareholders. They’re businesses, already motivated by business norms…?
Yeah, I think you’ll need to explain what you mean by this distinction as I don’t really get the argument you’re making
Patrick, the example I referred to from PI described the efforts of a daycare center to curb parents’ tardiness when picking up their children. The center decided to fine parents who arrived late thinking it might motivate them to arrive on time. Call it a tardy “tax”. The plan failed. Parents could then choose to arrive late and pay the fine with a guilt-free conscience. Late pickups increased. The daycare center eventually eliminated the fine. However, the damage was already done and a larger number of parents continued to pick up their children late.
In contrast, some research supports what you’ve written (e.g. Chaloupka’s “How Effective are Taxes in Reducing Tobacco Consumption?”). Though Chaloupka admits we do not yet fully understand the impact of “compensating behavior” (i.e. buying lower tax alternatives, shopping across the border in lower tax states, or even switching to a different undesirable behavior).
I’m not sure where you were going with your point about corporations and social norms…was that in response to something I wrote?
Ah yep, thanks for that.
Yeah, you stated that there’s a risk for actors to respond to monetary disincentives by switching from a social norm to a business norm.
My point was that this isn’t necessarily going to happen every time – and it appears that that’s borne out by the research on smoking. It’s an interesting cognitive process worth considering, for sure, but it certainly doesn’t proscribe ever using tax disincentives. It depends on the context of the tax in question, IMO.
The fact that in this context we’re talking about the actions of businesses, which are generally run by groups, and many of which are arguably engines for deindividualization, diffusion of responsibility, and group polarization suggests that we should be careful (though not outright dismissive by any means) about drawing conclusions about the behaviour of organizations from research that looks at the behaviour of individuals.
Further, arguably the current reward structure for businesses disincentivizes social norms as an intrinsic motivator. For-profit businesses exist.. for profit. This strongly suggests to me that we’re looking at a situation where business norms already operate. They are businesses, after all! Therefore I don’t think there’s likely to be a shift *to* business norms, per se; or at least, if there is, it’s not clear to me how we know that.
As a tax payer, if one forced to pay to one of these charitable organizations would one not assume they are already doing enough in the name of charity. Hence they would stop/reduce donating itself? Hence reducing overall charity donations.
you really are naive aren’t you? if the tax code was simple how could anyone find ways of tax evasion? Those that benefit most from such a complex system have enough money that it doesn’t bother them at all, in fact they probably enjoy the complexity for all of the loopholes it provides.
While I admire your idealism nothing will change until people realize they have the power to change it themselves. Are you capable of organizing the masses?
Is this possibly based on the concept of Maaser?
Japan has a similar system to Israel where taxes are withheld by employers. I like this system but I doubt Americans would go for it. I do think that people who move here from other countries with a withholding tax system would be quite exasperated with our complicated filing system, as well as find it harder to accept, seeing as they may not be used to paying back money they have already received in salary. The gross income system in effect can seem unfair…it does make the “paying the government” factor much more obvious. American like transparency (so they say) , so it would be hard to follow the net income system. By the way, the highest tax rate in Japan is 40 percent…so “The Buffet Rule”, though not in name but in practice, exists there.
It is also likely that consumers would benefit by a consumption tax that is already included in the price, but again the idea of transparency is lost. It does function fine enough in other countries…but I find after a long time of living abroad and then returning here to the US, that Many Americans have a problem with adopting any ‘foreign’ ideas… Sometimes just because they have come from abroad.
If they simplified the tax system a lot of “creative” accountants, financial consultants and politicians would be out of a job.
“The least bothersome way of paying taxes is to have it done for you; for instance, in Israel, the government takes taxes out of people’s income before they even receive their salary.”
How is this different than withholding that most of us experience? I pay taxes in every paycheck. April 15 is paying tax so much as balancing your tax debt with the government. Sometimes you owe more to balance. Sometimes you get some back to balance.
It sounds like the main difference is that there’s no balancing in Israel. It is what it is.
How does Israel tax the self-employed or those who receive compenstation via tips?
Sales taxes are appealing but they do have flaws that need addressing if they’re to be relied upon. They’re not a golden bullet, by any means. For instance, what gets excluded? If a nation wants to exclude, say, fresh fruit from this tax, should they include all fruit products, fresh fruit only, or fresh fruit and some fruit products? Whatever decision you make, it will affect the market, and products near that line you draw will suddenly find themselves either very competitive or very uncompetitive. It’s perhaps not an impossible problem to solve but I don’t think it’s simple.
Secondly, without capital gains tax, are you suggesting no tax on property? Obviously that would mean that a subset of “sales” aren’t being taxed, a subset that is disproportionately the domain of the rich. I can’t see how it’s obvious that that’s fair.
I think that as much as possible, the taxing of negative externalities should be relied upon to generate tax revenue (I guess this is a special kind of sales tax). pollution (including carbon) taxes, royalties paid for natural resources (including oil), extra sales taxes on products, such as tobacco and alcohol that create a burden on the health system (for countries that have a health system, at least), etc etc. Even if you grant the dubious assumption that people are econs, taxing negative externalities has two closely interrelated benefits (I think it’s the same benefit described on two different levels): it penalizes undesirable behavior and it makes the market more efficient by internalizing an externality (the cost of the commodity is increased in order to better reflect the actual cost that society as a whole pays for its consumption).
That said, I guess most countries are taxing most of those things already. Carbon taxes are a glaring exception to that in many cases, though clearly they’re not going to raise enough revenue to negate the need for other taxes – just mitigate that need somewhat. Does anybody have the numbers to quantify this and put it into perspective?
I don’t mind paying taxes but I DO mind that a large portion of our income tax is supposedly is used to pay federal reserve debt. Does anyone know if this is true?
Deane – how else would we pay the debt?
Dear Congress,
Just do something instead of perpetuate the current system.
Thanks.
Why does an institutional entity that owns a great many large printing presses for printing unlimited amounts of money need to take my money from me at gunpoint?
Because printing money doesn’t create more money – it simply reduces the value of the money that is already in circulation, causing hyperinflation. That’s the difference between fiat money and money pegged to a reserve standard like gold, redeemable on demand. It’s also the problem with “quantitative easing.”
Let’s hope that for you it won’t come down to gunpoint.
The inflationary problem only exists because of precedent. If the normal practice was for a government to print a limited amount of currency to provide for itself, instead of taking from citizens, then there would be no inflationary pressure. In any event, the value of a dollar is largely a psychological function, rather than anything external to the mind.
I feel a strong connection with your opening point. I just filed my taxes in Canada for my fourth year since moving here from the US, and I do still feel a strong sense of civic engagement as well as, to be honest, moral righteousness, that my money is going to fund health care and not weapons to kill innocent people overseas. I still have to file with the US govt every year, but since Canadian taxes are higher and I can deduct foreign taxes, I pay the US war machine virtually nothing. By the way, if you pay capital gains, you will have noticed this year that the US IRS moved backwards regarding simplification this year, having added a new form in addition to Schedule D to report what last year we needed only Schedule D for. Take a look at the Canadian T1 form and weep, 1040 filers!
What an interesting post. As an American, my first thought on reading the first paragraph is, “This guy must be joking.” I guess that shows how different things can look from the outside.
Great job
i like your blog
very nice
Hey! I know this is kind of off topic but I was wondering if you knew where I could find a captcha plugin for my comment form? I’m using the same blog platform as yours and I’m having difficulty finding one? Thanks a lot!|
Hey There. I found your blog using msn. This is an extremely well written article. I’ll make sure to bookmark it and come back to read more of your useful info. Thanks for the post. I’ll certainly return.|
Many thanks for writing this exceptional publish..Loved your articles or blog posts. You should do continue to keep writing