Republican vice presidential nominee J.D. Vance has been in the news for an old clip of him talking about how the tax code should punish adults without kids. While Vance's proposal probably aims to address demographic concerns, it represents a misguided approach that contradicts fundamental principles of economic freedom and fairness.

And you know what? That's precisely what our tax code already does, in this case and many others.

Using the tax code to "reward" parents and "punish" nonparents is at odds with the idea of a neutral, efficient tax system. In an ideal and fair world, the tax base would be broad but taxed at a low rate. People making the same income should be paying the same level of taxes no matter how they choose to live their lives.

Unfortunately, the tax code is neither fair nor neutral. It punishes and rewards all sorts of behaviors based on what government officials decide is good or bad.

For instance, the tax code does, in fact, treat people with kids more favorably than it treats those who do not have kids.* There's the child tax credit, of course. Then there's the earned income tax credit, which is more generous for families with children than those without. And there is no shortage of other provisions, such as a very significant deduction for heads of households and another for dependent care, which do the same thing.

It's hard to know what Vance's proposal really entails. Does he want another surtax on childless parents? Does he want to expand the child tax credit and make it a universal basic income like many conservatives and progressives want? It's also unclear whether he is simply failing to see that our tax code already delivers on his wishes and punishes childless adults. Either way, I assume he is well intentioned and that he is rightfully concerned about the decline in fertility we are witnessing not just in this country but across the world.

Unfortunately, punishing childless parents with additional taxes wouldn't boost fertility. For one thing, we've had a child tax credit since the 1990s, and the tax break has been regularly extended. That hasn't encouraged people to have more kids.

That's not unique to the child tax credit. Lots of evidence exists showing that government programs of all sorts meant to encourage, reward, or stimulate the supply of babies usually fail. One of the most dramatic examples is South Korea. The country has spent over $200 billion on such policies over the past 16 years, and fertility rates are still falling.

There isn't any doubt that more people, and hence more babies, are a boon for our lives and our economy. But that alone isn't a good reason for government subsidies. And while raising kids is expensive, that's no justification for a government tax break, either.

Besides, careful studies have shown the cost of raising a child in America has been decreasing for six decades. In the end, rather than rewarding families with lesser taxes at the expense of childless adults, I would encourage advocates to focus on removing existing government barriers—like overzealous policies that make child care more expensive without making kids measurably safer—that make life more complicated for families.

Ultimately, these are only secondary aspects of a much bigger debate. Our tax code is incredibly unfair. It's not just childless adults that face a surcharge compared to parents. Tax breaks for homeowners mean that renters pay more money for the same amount of housing. Households which include a college student pay less in taxes. People who can afford an electric vehicle can secure a tax break that others cannot.

These tax breaks for some are not just unfair to the taxpayers who don't get them—they also turn our tax code into a complicated mess that requires many millions of collective hours to comply with. Instead of adding more complexity and bias, we should be moving in the opposite direction—toward a simpler, flatter, and more neutral code that treats all taxpayers equally.

Using the tax code as a tool for social engineering is misguided. It leads to economic inefficiencies and infringes on individual liberty. Rather than doubling down on the problematic aspects of our current system, we should be working toward comprehensive reform. Only then can we hope to see taxes as something that truly serves the interests of all Americans, regardless of their personal choices.

COPYRIGHT 2024 CREATORS.COM

*CORRECTION: The original version of this article misstated in part who benefits more from the current tax code.

The post J.D. Vance Wants To Control You With Taxes appeared first on Reason.com.

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.

Luxury electric automaker Rivian made several big announcements this week related to its expanding product line. At the same time, though, the company announced that it would pause construction on a factory in Georgia that received some of the most generous taxpayer-funded incentives in state history.

On Thursday, Rivian unveiled three new vehicles that will be available in the coming years. The company already offers the R1T and R1S, a luxury truck and SUV, respectively, which start at $70,000–$75,000 and can cost $100,000 or more. CEO R.J. Scaringe announced the R2, a smaller and more modest SUV that would be available in 2026 with prices starting at $45,000, as well as the R3 and R3X crossovers, also expected to be less expensive than the R1 series.

As Reason has documented, Rivian went public in November 2021, promising luxury electric vehicles that would be both stylish and rugged. The following month, the company—which only had a single factory in Illinois—struck a deal to build its second factory in Georgia: Rivian would spend $5 billion on the factory, and in exchange, Georgia state and local governments authorized up to $1.5 billion in tax credits and incentives.

In the years since, however, the company has struggled. In May 2023, Bloomberg reported that the company had lost 93 percent of its share value, and its market cap reflected "almost no value beyond the company's cash hoard." In the fourth quarter of 2023, the company lost $43,372 on each vehicle sold, up from a $30,648 per-vehicle loss in the third quarter.

Branching out into the more affordable R2 and R3 models is key to Rivian's long-term survival, opening up its product line to appeal to more than just those who can pay over $75,000 for a luxury vehicle. And to do this, it had to make some adjustments.

"To enable R2 to be launched earlier and with a considerable reduction in the capital required for its launch, Rivian plans to start production of R2 in its existing Normal, Illinois manufacturing facility," the company announced. It is also pausing construction in Georgia: "Rivian's Georgia plant remains an extremely important part of its strategy to scale production of R2 and R3. The timing for resuming construction is expected to be later to focus its teams on the capital-efficient launch of R2 in Normal, Illinois."

The move is expected to save the company $2.25 billion "as compared to the original forecast of launching the first line of R2 production at Rivian's Georgia site."

In October, the company announced that the Georgia site was "95 percent graded" and "nearly ready for construction to begin." Notably, under the incentive agreement, Georgia officials paid over $32 million for "clearing and grading" the site.

One year ago, almost to the day, Scaringe reaffirmed the company's dedication to the Georgia project, telling The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, "We're committed to this state and this project," adding that "the future of our company in terms of scaling and growing really relies on the future of this project. There's not another option. We're not planning an alternative. This must work."

The electric vehicle market, while growing, is in flux, due to softening consumer demand and persistently high interest rates. Just last month, Apple—the first company in history to ever record a $3 trillion valuation—canceled its decade-long quest to develop an electric car. General Motors and Ford have also rolled back pledged investments in electric vehicles.

In that sense, Rivian's pivot would be perfectly reasonable—companies must be free to adapt to changing circumstances in a way that benefits both their customers and their shareholders. But as with any central planning scheme, state economic incentives don't tend to allow for those sorts of dynamic pivots. In this case, Georgia officials mortgaged a large amount of taxpayer money on a plan that foresaw the company continuing on a path that no longer seems financially feasible.

The post Rivian Pauses Construction at Factory That Costs Georgia Taxpayers $1.5 Billion appeared first on Reason.com.