The petty politics of tax reform
Tax reform with lower rates and fewer loopholes would be good for America and popular with voters. But substantive reform won't come anytime soon.
To understand why, it's helpful to remember that America's political heritage did not begin in 1776 but on the streets of London in the 16th to 18th centuries. Those were the formative years for the political ideas embraced by our Founding Fathers. Similar to America today, those years in London saw a high level of tension between the general public and the elites.
Robert O. Bucholz and Joseph P. Ward describe a curious reality about how that played out in their book, “London: A Social and Cultural History, 1550-1750.” During those years, more and more crimes were made punishable by death, including housebreaking, shoplifting and pickpocketing. Yet while the list of capital crimes grew longer, there was a steady decline year after year in the number of people actually put to death.
This was a system that allowed the government to terrorize citizens into compliance with draconian laws while allowing the king and his court to appear merciful when those convicted were allowed to live. That's the underlying logic that guides political opposition to tax reform in this country.
Among the public, there is strong support for reform, and it is quite possible to craft a politically popular solution. Eighty percent say it's important to replace the existing tax code with something simpler. The idea of lower rates and fewer deductions is very popular. Still, when you get into the details, it's tough to take away deductions that benefit the middle class, like the home mortgage interest deduction.
One way to address this is to leave all the current deductions in place for lower- and middle-income Americans. Then phase out deductions for those who make more than $250,000 a year and completely eliminate them for those who make more than $400,000 annually. This approach is supported by 52 percent of voters and opposed by 30 percent. Those with higher incomes are more evenly divided.
At the other end of the income scale, 68 percent of voters think that the first $20,000 of income earned by everyone should be tax-free. Despite Republican grumbling about it during Election 2012, this concept should be part of any reform designed to win public support.
When it comes to tax rates, there is little or no support for a so-called flat tax. But there is a lot of support for something with just a few rates: perhaps 10 percent on the first $50,000 of income, 15 percent on income up to $250,000 and 20 percent above that. If the numbers worked out to be revenue neutral, voters would love it.
America's politicians and financial elites would hate it, however. Like the kings of England long ago, they benefit from a system with high rates and lots of deductions. They can assert a right to tax everyone heavily while displaying mercy with the gift of deductions. The ability to control deductions allows politicians to direct money into politically approved areas of the economy or to help the politically well connected. As a bonus, political leaders can extort donations from industries that want a little help from the government.
That's the challenge. Tax reform works for America but not for the political class.
Scott Rasmussen is founder and president of Rasmussen Reports.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- Burnett pitches well in farewell, but Pirates lose to Reds
- More employers adopt generous leave policies
- Pa. spends millions on death penalty cases that rarely end in execution
- Steelers cut Scobee, sign free agent kicker Boswell
- Steelers notebook: Safety Mitchell shrugs off Ravens WR’s comments
- Starting 9: How can the Pirates catch the Cardinals in the future?
- Pirates fans on edge as season again coming down to wild card
- Are Pirates better positioned to win it all this postseason?
- New book credits Nunn for Steelers’ 1970s success
- Pitt holds off Virginia Tech in ACC opener
- Steelers film study: Team finds success blitzing members of secondary