tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2135788133426971614.post5883152284217068626..comments2024-03-28T01:09:48.303-07:00Comments on 21st Century Taxation: Taxing the richProfessor Nellenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03288632402197167948noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2135788133426971614.post-6808699809060132242012-04-16T13:09:42.008-07:002012-04-16T13:09:42.008-07:00Restoring the 35% and 39.6% brackets doesn’t seem ...Restoring the 35% and 39.6% brackets doesn’t seem like the best way to make the current complex tax system more efficient, as it would only raise small amount of GDP. But the limitations on itemized deductions and personal exemptions that mostly bring advantages to top income earners seem like a sound policy. Because those deductions and exemptions often encourage people to act in certain ways such as taking out big mortgages, the limitations on certain deductions and exemptions would hinder a change of behavior, meeting the goal of neutrality tax policy to focus on raising revenues. <br /><br /><br /><br />There should be a simplification of tax code to bring simplicity and certainty as to exactly what one’s average and marginal tax rate would be. It seems as if any top income earner who is advised on how to create tax avoidance could easily avoid paying tax on 35% and 39.6% brackets, given that many exemptions are currently used in the tax code. Simplifying the tax code would not only repeal many exemptions that benefit the rich and reduce tax rates, but it would let people to know how much each taxpayer contributes in a transparent tax system. <br /><br /><br /><br />Vertical equity is best achieved when tax burdens are base on the taxpayer’s ability to pay. Merely raising tax rates would make high taxpayers to move to a different tax jurisdiction where state tax rates are small. Simple tax code with the limitations on some deductions and exemptions would prevent loopholes and cause better economic efficiency and economy in collection to help the economy. <br /><br /><br /><br /><br />URL:<br />http://www.economist.com/node/21543165Jiung Jeongnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2135788133426971614.post-38926362130201162842012-02-22T22:03:58.410-08:002012-02-22T22:03:58.410-08:00Great pointers but it would be hard to get the ric...Great pointers but it would be hard to get the rich, most of them with ties to the government to approve such things.estate taxes njhttp://www.uandacpas.com/distribution_of_assets.htmlnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2135788133426971614.post-81074297402505557262012-02-21T21:13:00.945-08:002012-02-21T21:13:00.945-08:00Professor Nellen,
Given that filling out tax form...Professor Nellen,<br /><br />Given that filling out tax forms is a multi weekend process for most individuals using a 1040 (and much longer for companies), headlines that compare a couple of numbers in a tax form are certainly simplifying a complex reality.<br /><br />One of the economic stimulus measures enacted was to provide "bonus depreciation" to companies that made investments into the economy.<br /><br />Yet now, when the effects of that bonus depreciation come into play, the headlines malign these same companies for earning income without paying much tax (since depreciation offsets the earnings).<br /><br />Is this a case of unintended consequences? Or a press in search of a headline?<br /><br />While we might all envy those who make a lot, until we walk a mile in someone elses mocassins we might be missing an important part of the picture.david k waltzhttp://treasurycafe.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.com