A certain set of political writers and politicians advocate for "tax simplification". The idea is that by eliminating tax exemptions we can reduce overall rates and this would be a good thing. This is often held up as the type of bipartisan reform that would happen if congress could get it's act together.
The problem is that nobody really believes the government should be neutral towards all activities. As Matt K. Lewis points out the tax code favors activities like having children and home ownership. The tax code also discourages activities like consuming tobacco and cigarettes. In order to raise revenue, federal, state, and local governments need to enact taxes. An ideal tax code would be one that focuses these taxes on activities with negatives externalities and reduces the tax burden on activities with positive externalities. This would not be a simple tax code.
The real arguments over taxes is whether and how much the government should redistribute wealth away from the wealthy towards the poor and which activities have negative (carbon? alcohol? gasoline consumption?) and positive (having children? building a church? charitable giving? building affordable housing? "green" technology development?) externalities. These are political arguments that reflect real disagreements between the right and the left.
There are definitely issues with the corporate tax code that reflect political economy problems and should be resolved through simplification but in general a simplified tax code isn't necessarily a good thing. And there are very few tax reforms that can be done in a nonpartisan way.
No comments:
Post a Comment