Economic Policy Institute
EPI home
EPI home
Search
Navigation tips
Bookstore
Publications archive
Newsroom
Calendar
About EPI
Economists
Contact EPI
Web features
Job postings
Sign up
Support EPI
WEB FEATURES
Datazone
Economic Indicators
Issue Guides
Online calculators
Snapshots
Viewpoints
Audio/video archive

Email this pageEmail this page

Print this pagePrint this page    Email this pageEmail this page



Opinion pieces and speeches by EPI staff and associates.

THIS PIECE ORIGINALLY APPEARED IN THE USA TODAY ON MARCH 20, 2002.

Be Careful Where You Trim
by Max Sawicky

On its face, tax simplification is unassailable, like Mom and apple pie. But sometimes you have to watch out for Mom. Just ask Tony Soprano. The Internal Revenue Service does not have a warm and fuzzy public image, but the agency's national taxpayer advocate is doing a valuable public service. Lest we forget, the source of tax complexity is Congress.

One of the advocate's most important ideas is to adopt a simpler, consistent definition of "qualifying child" for taxpayers who use dependent exemptions, the Child Tax Credit, the Additional Child Credit or the Earned Income Tax Credit.
This would be a good step forward, providing, as the saying goes, we "leave no child behind."

But the advocate's non-partisan posture prevents the advocate from taking the next logical step. Instead of keeping multiple different benefits for families with children, why not unify them into a single tax credit? Among other virtues, such
a move could provide tax relief to the millions of working families who were excluded from last year's tax cut.

Along with the good tax simplification, there is the bad and the ugly. For example, the so-called "flat tax" would enable an individual with a zillion dollars of interest, dividends and capital gains to pay exactly zero tax. Proposals to abolish the alternative minimum tax on corporations would relieve some of our largest, most profitable corporations from any tax liability. President Bush's Treasury secretary advocates the abolition of the entire corporate income tax.

Who wouldn't like their own taxes "simplified" like this? The inescapable reality is that many people and business firms have very complicated finances. To cope, tax law must have complicated rules.

The foundational principle of our system is taxing according to the ability to pay, and income is how we gauge that ability. Defining income for tax purposes can be tricky, so we are beset with simplification proposals that solve this problem by allowing income to escape tax altogether. This is like reducing the crime rate by legalizing bank robbery.

The moral of the story: Beware simplistic proposals for tax simplification.

Max Sawicky is an economist at the Economic Policy Institute.

[ POSTED TO VIEWPOINTS ON MARCH 20, 2002 ]



Did you find this publication helpful? Support EPI's work today!

Copyright © 2008 by The Economic Policy Institute. All rights reserved.

Readers may redistribute this material to other individuals for noncommercial use, provided that the text, data, and all HTML code remain intact and unaltered in any way. This article may not be resold, reprinted, or redistributed for compensation of any kind without prior written permission. If you have any questions about permissions, please contact EPI at publications@epi.org. Other questions or concerns about this Web site can be directed to webmaster@epi.org.

EPI home