Another Tax Day has come and gone, and most Americans believe they pay too much. One recent poll revealed that 56 percent say they pay more than their fair share. Unfortunately, I fear this is just the beginning considering the insane level of debt Washington policymakers have accumulated over the years. With this in mind, here are some important facts about our tax system that you might not know.

The payroll tax is the heaviest burden for most taxpaying Americans, but the income tax is more visible and painful to a lot of people. While we are accustomed to it—and while it affects some Americans' decisions about how much to work, invest, or save—the income tax didn't exist for most of our country's life.

In 1895, the Supreme Court ruled against a direct tax on the incomes of American citizens and corporations, something that had been included in the previous year's Wilson-Gorman Tariff Act. The court found that such a tax violated the constitutional requirement that tax apportionments among the states be based on population. It took a constitutional amendment—the 16th—to eventually change that and pave the way for the modern income tax.

The very first Internal Revenue Service Form 1040, introduced in 1913 after the ratification of the 16th Amendment, was remarkably straightforward compared to what we know today. It was only four pages long, including instructions, and the top tax rate was 7 percent on incomes above $500,000, which is over $15 million in today's dollars. Some people were horrified by a 7 percent tax and warned that it could put us on a slippery slope to higher rates—maybe even above 10 percent (!)—imposed on a vast majority of people. They were called crazy for fearing such a thing.

And yet, as predicted by a few realists, the income tax rate not only increased, but the threshold at which it's applied went down. During the 1950s and the Eisenhower administration, the top marginal tax rate on incomes reached 91 percent for individuals. This rate applied to incomes over $200,000 (about $2 million today) for single filers and $400,000 (about $4 million today) for married couples filing jointly. These high taxes were part of a broader policy to manage post-war fiscal adjustments and fund federal programs. These rates also failed to raise as much money as you would think due to many loopholes in the tax code.

While the top marginal rate is much lower today, the income tax code remains remarkably complicated. Will McBride, a scholar at the Tax Foundation, recently wrote that "as of 2021, the U.S. income tax code was 4.3 million words long and growing. That's much longer, and presumably much more complicated, than tax codes found in other countries." There are several reasons for this.

First, many welfare programs are administered through the tax code. In recent testimony before the Senate Budget Committee, the Cato Institute's Chris Edwards wrote, "The tax code is an increasing mess. The number of official tax expenditures has risen from 53 in 1970 to 205 today, making IRS administration and enforcement ever more difficult. We know from experience that complex tax expenditures, such as the low-income housing tax credit and earned income tax credit, generate substantial errors and abuse."

In addition, contrary to common belief, the U.S. income tax system is actually quite progressive. According to the Tax Foundation, "though the top 1 percent of taxpayers earn 19.7 percent of total adjusted gross income, they pay 37.3 percent of all income taxes. Just 3 percent of taxes are paid by the lowest half of income earners." Maintaining this progressivity through all kinds of tax provisions increases the complexity of the code.

This progressivity is generally ignored by those who argue that taxing the rich is the solution to reducing the burgeoning U.S. national debt. Soaking the rich, while perhaps appealing in its simplicity, misses the scale of the problem. Brian Riedl, a Manhattan Institute senior fellow, noted that if we were to confiscate 100 percent of the income of everyone making over $500,000 per year, it would fund the government for less than a year. This puts into perspective the enormity of the $34 trillion national debt versus the income of the rich.

Taxing the rich is a convenient distraction hiding the reality that if spending isn't cut, taxes will have to be raised on everyone, a lot. On this tax week, I suggest Congress starts cutting.

COPYRIGHT 2024 CREATORS.COM.

The post This Tax Week, Remember That the Federal Income Tax Is Relatively New appeared first on Reason.com.

The Republican chairman of the House Budget Committee made news recently by announcing that if his party is serious about changing the fiscal path we are on, they'll have to consider raising taxes. Politics is about compromise, so the chairman is right. Every side must give a little. However, "putting taxes on the table" is not as simple a fix to our debt problems as some think.

Looking at recent Congressional Budget Office reports, one can have no doubts about the fiscal mess. Annual deficits of $2 trillion will soon be the norm. Interest payments on the debt will exceed both defense and Medicare spending this year and become the government's largest budget item. With no extra revenue available, the Treasury will have to borrow money to cover these expenses. Meanwhile, we're speeding toward a Social-Security-and-Medicare fiscal cliff that we've known of for decades, and we'll reach it in only a few years.

Talking about the need for a fiscal commission to address Washington's mountain of debt, the committee chair, Rep. Jodey Arrington (R–Texas), told Semafor, "The last time there was a fix to Social Security that addressed the solvency for 75 years, it was Ronald Reagan and Tip O'Neill, and it was bipartisan. It had revenue measures and it had program reforms. That's just the reality." He made these comments after some people warned that a fiscal commission is a gateway only to raising taxes.

I understand the worry. That's what the most recent deficit reduction commission tried to do. And while I don't believe this is what Arrington is planning, I offer a warning to the chair and to the future commission: If the goal is truly to improve our fiscal situation, as defined by reducing the ratio of debt to gross domestic product (GDP) or reducing projected gaps between revenue and spending, increasing tax revenue should be limited to the minimum politically possible.

For one thing, our deficits are the result of excessive promises made to special interests—mostly seniors in the form of entitlement spending—without any real plans to pay. The problem is constantly growing spending, not the lack of revenue and taxes. The common talking point from the left that rich people don't pay their fair share of taxes is a distraction. Not only is our tax system remarkably progressive, but there are not enough rich people to fleece to significantly reduce our future deficits.

Furthermore, the work of the late Harvard economist Alberto Alesina has established that the best way to successfully reduce the debt-to-GDP ratio is to implement a fiscal-adjustment package based mostly on spending reforms. A reform mostly geared toward tax increases will backfire as the move will slow the economy in the short and longer terms, causing it to ultimately fail to raise enough revenue to reduce the debt relative to GDP. Legislators, unfortunately, have made this mistake many times without learning any lesson—at least until the deal that was cut in 1997.

As a 2011 New York Times column by Catherine Rampell reminded us, until then, all deficit-reduction deals were very tax-heavy. What the article didn't mention is that they failed to reduce the deficit. What distinguishes the 1997 deal is that it cut both spending and taxes. The result was the first budget surplus in decades helped by a fast-growing economy. Now, this lesson doesn't mean that a fiscal commission must cut taxes, but it does caution against attempting to reduce the debt largely by raising taxes.

Another risk looms in the idea of a tax-and-spending compromise; that the tax increases will be implemented while the spending cuts won't. We have many examples of this pattern, but I'll recount just one: In 1982, President Ronald Reagan made a deal with Congress (the Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act) which would have raised $1 in revenue for every $3 in spending cuts.

There were tax hikes, indeed. But instead of spending cuts, Reagan got lots of spending increases. Remembering the story years later in Commentary magazine, Steven Hayward wrote, "By one calculation, the 1982 budget deal actually resulted in $1.14 of new spending for each extra tax dollar."

The moral of this story is that putting revenue on the table to reduce the debt has a bad track record. As such, the chairman, who I believe is serious about putting the U.S. on a better fiscal path, will have to be careful about whatever deal is made.

COPYRIGHT 2024 CREATORS.COM.

The post A Bipartisan Tax Hike Won't Fix This Deficit appeared first on Reason.com.