Given a choice between cutting spending and reforming our tax system, the President and Congress have taken the easy road of spending cuts. Yet poll after poll reveals that the American people want programs targeted for cuts such as Head Start, Medicare and aid to the elderly. The real problem is our tax system is antiquated and unfair - allowing giant corporations such as GE and Google to make enormous profits and pay few if any taxes - and thus overall revenues fall short of what they should be.
The U.S. needs a major tax reform that can simultaneously lower taxes overall, produce more revenues and enable fewer if any program cuts - as happened in 1986 during the Reagan administration.
If that is to happen, Congress and the Obama administration need first to agree on the principles that should guide such reform.
In testimony before the Senate Committee on Finance in 2006, David Walker, then comptroller general of the United States, identified five basic principles that should guide any business tax reform. They are equally applicable to any broader change in America's tax system. The first principle is that "any new system should raise sufficient revenue to fund America's current and future expected expenditures." Simply put, we need to return to a pay-as-we-go system, which the U.S. traditionally used for more than 200 years.
Walker's second principle is that "the tax base should be as broad as possible, which helps to minimize overall tax rates."
The third principle is that the proposed system "should improve compliance rates by reducing tax preferences and complexity and increasing transparency." In other words, no loopholes and more enforcement of the tax laws.
The fourth principle is a bit more complex, "To the extent that other goals, such as equity and simplicity, allow, the tax system should aim for neutrality by not favoring some business activities over others." The present tax code favors the rich over the middle-class, which widens the disparity in wealth and income and reduces the overall standard of living.
Wisely, Walker imposed a non-traditional fifth principle, that "transition rules must be an integral part of any reform proposal." Transition rules that establish interim steps, instead of one giant leap, will ease that shift and help educate the public about whatever approach is used.
There should be a sixth principle that "any new tax system be trade compatible."
The idea behind the sixth principle is little understood in the United States because this nation does not use a value-added tax (VAT), even though 153 other nations do. Because the United States is the only industrial country that does not have a VAT, other countries "game" global tax treaties by employing their VAT to subsidize their exports into the United States, simultaneously (and purposely) pricing U.S. imports out of the other countries' markets. They rebate VAT taxes on exports and impose an equivalent tax on all imports from the United States.
A VAT is a very simple consumption tax system. It greatly encourages savings by not taxing money saved or the interest generated. At each stage in the production and sale of a good or service, the business pays a tax on the value it adds, no more.
In practice, firms in most countries either pay the tax instantly or accrue the amounts owed and pay the government monthly or quarterly. The system is simple, perfect for modern computerized accounting, and allows taxpayers to know their tax liability and the government to better anticipate revenues. Cheating is difficult with a VAT, easily spotted, and thus limited. Best of all, taxpayers have no compliance burdens. None. There are no IRS penalties. The VAT is paid automatically when someone buys something. Business does the paperwork. There is no April 15 tax day.
Today, the federal tax on business is set at a 35 percent rate, the highest of any other nation. If a five percent VAT were created and the U.S. corporate business tax totally eliminated, the U.S. would get the same amount of revenues. Such a change, moreover, would meet all of Walker's five principles, plus be trade compatible.
Changing the U.S. tax system presents an historic opportunity to eliminate this discriminatory foreign VAT treatment, thereby helping reduce the huge U.S. trade deficit, recapturing millions of American jobs, increasing revenues, cutting taxes for most Americans and ensuring that corporations pay their fair share.
This may seem almost too good to be true. But it is. Ronald Reagan did it. So, too, can this President and Congress.
Sen. Fritz Hollings: The Vat Is Necessary
To address the core issue, the solution is to shift corporate taxes to the shareholder level through a dividends-paid deduction, which would be revenue positive, would make America the best place to locate high-value operations and high-paying jobs rather than the worst (as it is today), and would favor the middle class while addressing the other issues discussed in the article. See http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/7942051/the_tax_reform_hearings_are_missing.html and http://www.sharedeconomicgrowth.org for more information and the proposal specifics. It is quite feasible, but the politicians don't want to talk about it because their rich campaign contributors would not be enthusiastic.
Healthcare reform was not only partisan but sacrificed healthcare cost containment at the alter of coverage by pandering to House Dems. Washington (on both sides) is a toxic soup of self-serving politicians that seek any advantage to get re-elected always with the mantra of change when they are in charge. Sadly, the art of kicking the problem down the street has been perfected in the beltway.
In short, a reform modeled on that proposed by the Deficit Reduction Commission. That same proposal would give the top 1% an average cut of $7,000. Like it or not, tax reform won't go solve anything if the top marginal rates aren't raised.
VAT is a consumption tax, applied at the point of consumption. Hence, countries can't apply it to exports, as the point of consumption is outside of their tax jurisdiction & apply it to imports(equally with local products) as the point of consumption is within their jurisdiction. This isn't 'gaming' anything.
eg.
Company Germany produces a widget for $10. In Germany, it sells for $10 + 15% VAT = $11.50
Company US produces a widget for $10. In Germany, it sells for $10 + 15% VAT = $11.50
The same companies sell their product in New York:
Company Germany $10 + 9% Sales Tax = $10.90
Company US $10 + 9% Sales Tax - $10.90
VAT doesn't alter the costs of the producer or offer any tax advantage over imported products. US State based Sales Taxes are very similar in operation to VAT's. Does Choate think that New York based companies should pay New York sales tax on products they export?
Its not a rebate either - its taxing the exported good or provision of the international service at zero. Thus ensuring that such exports are not burdened by a domestic consumption tax when they are exported and making them competitive in world markets. I would think that US consumers would think it unjust and unfair to pay Australian GST at 10% when they are buying all that quality Cockatoo Ridge + 2buck chuck. But Australia and most other VAT / GST countries also impose the tax on goods imported into the country. Thus, creating a level playing field by ensuring that goods imported from overseas are subject to the same VAT / GST as domestically produced goods.
Pat - its not a rebate, thus its not a subsidy.
All Obama has to do is get them to pass a bill that treats capital gains the same as any other form of income and tax everyon for all income taxes as income taxes.
This would mean that Billionaires like T boone Pickens who got away with paying his income taxes at the low rate of a measley 5% would have to pay 33%, while most of the super wealthy would see their taxes go from 15% up to 33%.
This one change alone would be easier and more effective than anything you have proposed.
The main reason the economy is in the tank right now is that the wealthy few have gotten hold of too much of a piece of the pie and then they effectively shoved it under a matress. Increasing taxes so they have to pay their fair share is necessary as a means to overcoming this problem.
The current system is one where middle class americans are forced to take all the risks and then bear the brunt when things do not work out while the rich gain all the benefits when there are benefits. Its heads I win, tails you lose.
35% is a fair rate, in my opinion
When the big crash came, the Irish government (since defeated) bailed out their banker and property developer friends (donors) and shifted all of this $100B+ burden onto the Irish population. Not really a tax issue as I see it.
First of all, "In spite of" doesn't mean "because of." I didn't attribute Ireland's economic collapse to its low corporate tax rate or VAT. You are right that Ireland's economy tanked because of the 2008 financial crisis;however, its 12.5% corporate tax rate and VAT haven't stimulated job growth or increased revenues since the crash.
My question is why do you want the US to emulate a country with a 14.6% unemployment rate?
Ronald Reagan also signed legislation that doubled payroll taxes, raised gas taxes, closed corporate tax loopholes ,and raised excise taxes.
In 1982, a year after the Kemp Roth Tax Cut, he signed a deficit reduction bill that was the biggest tax increase since the 1930s:The TEFRA of 1982. Would you agree that we should enact something similar?
Finally, if I recall, the 1986 Tax Reform Bill resulted in the hiring of over 5000 new IRS Agents. I think giving the IRS the manpower and the resources to enforce existing tax laws would help to bring in more revenue.