Tax rates are at historic lows

Ben Peck of The American Prospect has a list of the “Top Ten Tax Facts.” The whole thing is worth reading — as is the source material Peck links to. Here are some highlights:

1. The government has collected less in taxes as a proportion of the economy in the past three years than it has in any three-year period since World War II, and tax rates are at historic lows.

… 4. Corporate income taxes for the past three years have hovered at just over 1 percent of GDP, lower than for any three-year period since World War II. The average for OECD countries is 3.5 percent.

… 10. Only two OECD nations collect less revenue as a percentage of GDP than the United States — Chile and Mexico.

So if you love lower taxes so much, just move to Mexico already.

If you prefer showing to telling, Chuck Marr of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities has the “Top Ten Federal Tax Charts.” Marr’s charts illustrate the facts in Peck’s list. Tax rates are at historic lows.

This is a fact. It is a true thing. You can look it up. But as with many facts these days, this fact is rejected by people who feel that facts are only factual if you “believe” in them.

Thus we have one of the stranger aspects of American politics just now: Millions of citizens angry with President Obama for raising their taxes despite the fact that he actually lowered them.

I know this isn’t simply perverse stupidity on the part of these citizens. These folks have been lied too aggressively by a powerful propaganda machine. And those with employer-provided health care might be confusing the bigger bite that premiums are taking out of their paychecks with a bigger bite from taxes.

But still, reality has to count for something. And the arithmetic here is not complicated.

So at some level it really is just stupid and perverse to blame Obama for higher taxes when he has lowered them. Thus at least part of the mandatory response to these folks is to point out — as nicely as possible, if they will allow nice as an option — that they need to shut up, wake up, and move back to reality. Spending your days seething with rage about something that is the opposite of true is not a recipe for personal happiness. (See also: Anti-tax anger directed at the ginormous tax-cut package of the stimulus-providing Recovery Act.)

* * * * * * * * *

Taxes are the one bill I have that I’m required to calculate myself. My Internet provider, my wireless carrier, my electric utility, my water company, my insurance company and the bank the holds my mortgage all just send me a bill. So does the township for our local taxes.

Yet the state and the federal government both require me to fill out a set of forms calculating my own bill. This seems superfluous, since both the state and the federal government will also be doing the same calculations in order to double-check that I’ve done this properly, threatening costly consequences if I get it wrong. So why can’t they just send me a bill?

Matt Yglesias explains why: We have to calculate our own tax bills because it’s more difficult and complicated that way. “Who Wants Taxes to Be More Complicated?” The short answer is that the tax preparation lobby does, and more importantly so do politicians who base their careers on railing against taxes:

Why don’t you just lie on your taxes? You don’t lie because you’re worried that the IRS will catch you. And why do you worry about that? Because all the various entities who’ve paid you over the course of the past year have to submit paperwork about your income. Your employer, your bank, your stock broker, etc. — record and transmit almost all relevant information about your money to the IRS, meaning that if you lie you’ll get caught.

But by the same token, the IRS could simply collect all this information and send you a tax bill. You could read it over, sign at the bottom, and either include a check or wait for your refund. It wouldn’t be fun, exactly, but it would sure be simple.

Needless to say, taxpayers should have the right to dispute the veracity of the IRS’s calculations and submit their own form. And some classes of people are going to routinely have unusually complicated tax finances. Journalists, for example, often have miscellaneous travel expenses related to freelance assignments. People running substantial small businesses will still need accountants.

But for the vast majority of the population, most of the pain of tax compliance could be eliminated by a few keystrokes at IRS headquarters. So why don’t we do it?

Two reasons. One is lobbying by the tax preparation industry to discourage states and the feds from developing easier tax-paying systems, as California recently did. The second is lobbying by anti-tax conservatives. When the Golden State implemented its ReadyReturn system, it did so over the objections of Grover Norquist and his anti-tax pressure group Americans for Tax Reform, which fears that if taxes become less annoying voters might be less unhappy about paying them. After all, if the government did something to make your life easier it would be harder to tout the difficulty of tax compliance as a reason to abolish the progressive rate structure.

"So, we've been talking a lot, or TRYING to talk a lot, about the concentration ..."

Sunday favorites
"With our family, friends, and others it is the 18-50 age group who are the ..."

Sunday favorites
"He's saying between the lines that it is all the fault of Obama and the ..."

Sunday favorites
"When you get so accustomed to lying, and so used to getting away with, that ..."

Sunday favorites

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!

What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • AnonymousSam

    o hai dere gliberatarian!

  • EllieMurasaki

    I prefer ‘fuckwit’, as it encompasses all the ignorances this person is displaying and has fewer syllables.

  • P J Evans

    He wants to live under the Articles of Confederation, where the  national government had to beg the states to pay the taxes they owed? Where the states were charging customs tariffs on goods fromother states, even if they were just being shipped through? Where ‘national’ anything was just an idea?

  • EllieMurasaki

    Anything to keep money piling up in his own coffer (or, much more likely, the coffers of those whose ranks he falsely assumes he will someday join) rather than having any part of it get spread about to help people even though those people include him.

  • I want to know just what it is about living in the United States of America that seems to so drastically increase the probability that someone like Micaiah will come along and rant about the evils of government while having absolutely no understanding that living in a technologically advanced society does not come out of nothing, but comes from a complex interplay of social and economic forces for which the government has to set ground rules to make sure people with relatively little economic power in comparison to others don’t get ripped off.

    Something as simple as the law that says a company has to tell you what it puts in your food means we eat, in general, more safely than we did, say, 200 years ago. Granted, 200 years ago most of us would be killing or growing our own food, so ingredient labelling wouldn’t be necessary, but say some of us became shop proprietors and started selling the stuff other people caught, killed, or grew.

    Well at that point if I’m the guy selling you a fish the trader from the next town over brought in, without knowing that trader personally I have no way to prove the fish is safe to eat. But if there was a law in the town that said nobody could sell food without a list of what went into the food, then at that point someone who buys a fish from a shop can get the sheriff to bust the trader or the shop proprietor for adulterating the fish if someone gets sick.

    Ok, I’m getting into tl;dr territory so I’ll stop there.

    The point is we’ve tried vigilante justice and it didn’t work out so well. So rather than me grabbing my gun and blowing the fish-adulterator’s head off, I get to have a judge hear me, hear the other person, and then decide if a civil tort has been commited, or the judge’ll hear the sheriff, me, and the fish-adulterator’s, and decide if a law has been broken.

    Criminal law. Regulation. Courts for civil cases. Legislatures.

    All the above is the necessary and proper function of government and they have to be paid for. That’s what taxes are meant to be – to pay for government!

  • EllieMurasaki

    Micaiah’s not the usual flavor of libertroll; Micaiah’s arguing against tax-funded national defense, which typical libertrolls are smart enough not to do. They might not want any other governmental function but they know national defense has to be funded and coordinated at the federal level.

  • Never let it be said that there was a person who couldn’t be found to hate government so much they don’t even want a “night watchman state“.