Not having enough on his plate, the President is going to fix the tax code:
President Barack Obama is putting
former Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker in charge of a tax-
code review aimed at closing loopholes, streamlining the law and
generating revenue, budget Director Peter Orszag said.
former Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker in charge of a tax-
code review aimed at closing loopholes, streamlining the law and
generating revenue, budget Director Peter Orszag said.
Hmmm. Three goals. Wonder which one will get the most attention.
Podcast RSS Feed
Full EconTalk Text
{ 20 comments }
I guess it really wouldn't have been credible to put Turbo tax in charge of taxes, even though its HIS agency.
I can't wait to see what a "loop-hole" is, my guess is this is all about revenue.
Russ,
Here's the tool anybody can use to design and test drive their own income tax plan for the U.S. As you'll find out, "C" might the goal, but darned if they can sustain it at the levels they want….
Well duh! Closing "loopholes" is a back door way of raising taxes on those 95% without actually "raising" taxes. It's all about having your George Orwell Magic Decoder Ring.
P.S. I would favor closing ALL loopholes and eliminating ALL deductions (not just the ones that one political party favors) in exchange for across the board rate cuts.
Surely an 81 year old retiree can't help.
How did Volcker's clean up at the UN work out?
At the UN he investigated waste and corruption among staff.
Oops. This time Paul is to find more taxes.
So "never mind".
Over the past 35 years just about every president has had a committee or commission to simplify/improve the tax code, and look where that got us.
Waste of time.
Republicans slash tax rates to generate more revenue in which to spend. Which leads me to believe that Democrats feign outrage in order to guilt Republicans into access to the revenue. The U.S. could really benefit from a strong third-party, limited government, platform which would force one of the two parties to move in that direction.
I agree with you, CRC. That was the deal struck to lower tax rates during the Reagan administration and it could have gone much further.
LCJoe, I think Sam tried to run for congress against Madame Pelosi on the libertarian ticket. I think he can explain better than most just how skewed the two parties have made the political process. It's virtually impossible for a third party to gain any ground.
As somebody who watches the US political scene much more than his own (ours is quite boring), it never fails to amaze me how big of a stink Americans get into when it comes to taxes. It's really quite perplexing to a Canadian (I won't speak for all, but I think *most* would agree).
I pay 13% sales tax. That's right, 13! And that's a decrease – it used to be 15%. Plus, I'm in the highest tax bracket up here, which means when all is said and done and I've paid my property tax, provincial tax, federal tax and sales tax, about 60% of my income is taxed.
And you know what? I'm fine with that because I can *see* what my tax dollars do. We have universal health care and I love it. I love knowing that my taxes help keep someone else healthy. That's the Canadian way. Our universities are subsidized to a great extent; there's no such thing as $30K tuition up in Canada.
I think the real problem with the US tax system isn't the amount being taxed, it's how it's spent. Until that changes, the ideologues will continue to argue over percentage points.
Let's see we are going to have attorneys and bankers writing the tax code. Any bets on who gets the most deductions?
"I think the real problem with the US tax system isn't the amount being taxed, it's how it's spent. Until that changes, the ideologues will continue to argue over percentage points.
Posted by: Curious Canadian | Mar 25, 2009 7:49:35 PM"
Actually my friend you were clumsily correct.
The real problem with the US tax system is how it is imposed and how it is collected; plus, how it is spent.
Quite a rosy picture you paint of Canadian life, particularly of your health care: I suggest that anyone who thinks you are remotely correct needs to check out the different articles listed on this page:
http://www.reason.com/search/results/?cx=000107342346889757597%3Ascm_knrboh8&cof=FORID%3A11&q=Canadian+health+care&sa=Search#1407
There is a bunch of linked articles to read.
God Bless your for having no problems with your taxation, may you continue to be blessed.
"I'm fine with that because I can *see* what my tax dollars do."
Have you ever stopped to consider those Canadians who DON'T want their money spent on those things? After all, they are effectively the only ones really being taxed.
You don't need a tax for those who agree. Taxes are only for those who disagree.
This is just Obama's way of kindly pushing Volcker completely out of the way of any policy-influencing position.
vikingvista,
"You don't need a tax for those who agree. Taxes are only for those who disagree."
Well said.
Hey Canadian:
You love your healthcare because it APPEARS free and you are too stupid to understand care delayed is care denied. Its too damn bad that South of Windsor wasn't Michigan, but the Rio Grand, so when your health really hits the skids, you didn't have the option of heading South.
If you love taxes so much, hey good for you. Send the Canadian treasury a freebie, I'm sure they'll accept it. Think of all the freebies you get because your security is guaranteed by proximity to the U.S.
Your politics isn't boring, its irrelevant.
Curious Canadian – questions about your wonderful universal health care:
* what are the conditions of the hospitals?
* is there rationing, or does everyone get Cadillac care?
"Our universities are subsidized to a great extent; there's no such thing as $30K tuition up in Canada."
Yet the best Canadian college students end up in the US and very few US students head up North.
I wonder why…
Yowsa, some strong backlash here. I'll try to reply to all of the comments above – politely.
First off, of course my comment generalized and didn't get too specific – this is a blog comment after all, not an essay. So yes, it seemed to candy-coat everything.
@Crusader – I'm not sure you can say "the best students go to the US". What are you basing that on? However, I agree, the best in the US (Yale, Stanford, Berkley, MIT etc.) are better than the best here. No argument there. But this isn't about being the best – it's about accessibility. It's not about how many kids get to go to Ivy League schools, it's about how many can go to university – period.
@Curious American – Ha, of course there are trade-offs to our system of care. No, people do not get the "Cadillac" treatment. You have to wait maybe 30-45 minutes to see your doctor, but again, it's a trade off. Do you want fantastic health care for some or good health care for all? It's just as simple as that. The best care in the US is better than the best care in Canada, I can't argue that. But how many in the US (say, Louisiana, Alabama, Oklahoma, Tennessee, South Carolina, Georgie etc.) have access to great health care?
@Randy – I never claimed our health care is free. In fact, the word "free" doesn't appear in my original comment. But the intent of my comment was this – Canadians pay a lot of tax, but we (I'm generalizing here) are OK with that because we get something for it. I think if Americans got a bit more bang for their buck, there wouldn't be such a clamouring for lower taxes by those on the "Right".
Hope that clarified things.
Nice debating with you folks.
MHodak’s closest: Volcker’s getting lip service from Obama, and this is his busywork du jour.
That, or Volcker’s getting ready to take over for Geithner.