Posted on 09/17/2006 7:55:38 PM PDT by pigdog
Are you claiming that there's some stricture that only "an economist" may discuss things economical or of an economistical nature???"Economistical"?...Wait I know, like your table that isn't a table because you made it up and get to name it, you also get to define the word you made up too...Except regarding the Fairtax economics it should be spelled econo-mystical.
When one performs a 'study' on something, they should have some background on it. He can discuss anything he wants, and if his points have merits, fine. But if he manipulates numbers and really doesn't understand what he is doing, it is pointless to rely on his expertise.
Then it should be of interest to you that Payne's book is actually a reference work not a manipulation of numbers, a comprehensive review of studies done by economists. It does not claim to be a study on its own, but merely a reference work.
A point you have apparently missed, but a point that the authors and creators of The Flat Tax by Hall Rudid not miss in their use and reference of Payne's work in their own studies regarding their flat income tax proposal.
|
The Flat Tax Notes and References: *** A comprehensive review of all the studies that attempt to measure the costs associated with the federal income tax appears in James L. Payne, Costly Returns: The Burdens of the U.S. Tax System (San Francisco: Institute for Contemporary Studies Press, 1993). Payne summarizes the estimates of compliance costs that appear in the following studies: Joel Slemrod and Nikki Sorum, “The Compliance Cost of the U.S. Individual Income Tax System,” National Tax Journal 37 (December 1984): 462–65; Arthur D. Little, Inc., Development of Methodology for Estimating the Taxpayer Paperwork Burden (Washington, D.C.: Internal Revenue Service, 1988), pp. III–23; James T. Iocozzia and Garrick R. Shear, “Trends in Taxpayer Paperwork Burden,” in Internal Revenue Service, Trend Analyses and Related Statistics, 1989 Update (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1989), p. 56; Annual Reports of the commissioner of the Internal Revenue Service; and a variety of other IRS memoranda. |
From the link you provided:
The relative amount is our judgment about the relative dollar values of the allowances. By weighting each type of allowance by its relative weight, we calculate that there will be 204 million allowance units in 1995. Dividing this number into the total value of allowances from line 8 of table 1, we calculate that each allowance unit is $9,377. The calculations of the allowances for Form 1 are as follows:
It looks like Payne is doing some manipulating to me. Besides the basis for most of Payne's numbers are from Arthur D. Little which produced very questionable results using some gross assumptions. Payne's and Little's work seems to have grossly exagerate the time spent on taxes when compared from results of surveys of taxpayers.
Flat Tax as Seen by a Tax Preparer
by Vern Hove
not to mention the the additional economic burdens on business addressed in Payne's complilation.
The most your minimal reference covers in Payne's estimate is a small fraction of the total burden Payne discusses in his estimate of 65 cents added for each dollar of revenue collected.
Indeed, Payne is hardly the highest estimate of the total burdens on the economy, it is merely a central figure.
The "cost of compliance" estimate is just for processing the IRS paperwork and record keeping. It does not include costs of research, tax planning, legal fees & litigation of IRS suits and dealing with IRS inquiries, imposed fines fees etc by the IRS & courts, and a wide range of indirect costs imposed on business as a consequence of dealing with the tax code that the figures of James L. Payne addresses in his compilation.
Going onto TaxFoundation to look at what is stated there:
| http://www.taxfoundation.org/files/1a1107bfd77df6da80328f14adcc5c1a.pdf |
Overhead Compliance CostsThe complexity generated by the growth and constant change of the tax code creates two general types of economic cost: overhead and opportunity cost. Overhead can be divided into three principal activities: the economically sterile exercises of tax planning, compliance, and litigation, all of which act like tax surcharges on taxpayers. *** snip ***
The Burden of Compliance CostsAs shown in , and , the Tax Foundation estimates that in 2002 individuals, businesses and non-profits spent over 5.7 billion hours complying with the federal income tax. Using an hourly cost of $29.98 for individuals and $37.26 for businesses and non-profits, the estimated cost of compliance in 2002 is $194 billion (See Methodology section for details about how the hours and wages were determined)—Individuals bear a cost of $86.1 billion, businesses bear a cost of $102.5 billion and non-profits bear a cost of $5.4 billion. Therefore, the overall compliance cost surcharge alone amounts to nearly 20.4 cents for every $1 collected by the federal income tax. |
But only the beginning of the costs that are impinge businesses throughout the production chaing
American General Contractor's Association
http://www.agc.org/Legislative_Info/Members_Testify/testimony_04-10-00.aspTo this we must add the shear wastefulness of the colossal compliance costs of the current tax system. To administer the tax laws, the IRS directly employs about 112 thousand employees. The IRS budget is about $8 billion. However, direct expenses of the IRS are not the central compliance problem; rather, it is the expenses that are pushed forward on the taxpayer to be tax collector, tax accountant, and record-keeper.
According to the non-partisan Tax Foundation in 1997 Americans spent no less than $225 billion complying with the income tax. The most recent projections made by the IRS of tax returns to be filed in Calendar Year (CY) 1999 indicate that the grand total, or sum of all major tax return filings, will be 228.2 million. This number is then expected to grow at 1.24 percent annually until CY 2005, when the grand total return count is expected to reach 245.2 million. This does not include the 1 billion information returns that will be filed. In addition, more than 8 billion forms and instructions are sent to taxpayers each year, enough to encircle the globe several times.
Paperwork is the most visible compliance cost, but it is clearly not the only, and perhaps not the largest compliance costs. Return processing, determining liability, recordkeeping and other burdens are an estimated 19 to 33 % of the total revenue raised by the income tax system and 2.0 to 3.5% of the Gross Domestic Product (GDP)[an additional 3% of GDP1999 = $279Billion]. We waste money each year on seeking to avoid taxes, avoid trouble with the IRS, interpret the laws or determining the best course of actions with the laws.
Who pays these compliance costs? You do. The hardest hit segments of our economy are middle income wage earners and business owner. Small corporations in particular endure compliance costs estimated to be several multiples of the tax actually collected. Although duly included in the National Income Product Accounts (NIPA), payments made to tax lawyers, accountants, IRS agents and other tax professionals do not really improve our collective standard of living. These compliance costs are wasteful expenditures, which absorb so much time and energy of American people that they roughly approximate in costs the assets of the entire building industry. None of this is necessary.
Adding to the costs and to unfairness, our tax laws are so complicated not even the common tax lawyer can understand them. There are a number of ways of measuring complexity; one of which is the number of penalties issued and then abated for reasonable cause. There are more than 34 million civil penalties issued each year; more than a third of all small firms receive payroll tax-related penalties alone. More than 50 percent are abated.
The tax system is now so monstrously complex that it is beyond the ability of any one person to understand it. Understanding the system is certainly beyond the reach of most mere tax lawyers, accountants and tax administrators. A system that is so complex must be administered in an arbitrary and unfair way. If no one really understands what the law is, it is impossible to administer fairly and uniformly - and of course, it is not so administered.
Our government embroiled its citizens in more than 35,000 litigation actions. Taxpayers sustained more than 3 million levies. As long as we insist upon an income tax system, the system needs to be complex. The system needs to be enforced with a heavy hand. The system needs to have all of the 34 million in civil penalties. The system needs to be intrusive. It is the price we have to pay for an income tax system.
Perhaps most troublesome, we have gotten little in return for this payment because our current tax system has inspired an increasingly lower level of compliance. Despite the costs of enforcing and maintaining our system, tax evasion is at an all time high. Today's income tax system has invited massive noncompliance. According to the IRS own statistics, only about 80 percent of taxes owed are voluntarily paid -- $200 billion are not. In 1992, the tax gap was estimated to be $127 billion. Taxes evaded continue to be in the range of 22 to 23% of income taxes collected. These IRS figures did not include taxes lost on illegal sources of income. Evaded taxes increased by 67% in the decade between 1982 and 1992. As a percentage of Gross Domestic Product (GDP), tax evasion has reached 2.0% compared to 1.6 % in 1991.
Our current system is also problematic because much of the burden of the current system is hidden from the American taxpayers. Most taxpayers have been taught that an amorphous entity - business -- must pay its fair share. However, they do not understand that businesses are merely a collection of individuals engaged in a productive enterprise. When businesses are taxed, the taxes result in fewer businesses, lower wages or higher priced goods and services if the taxes can be pushed forward. In some businesses, taxes cannot be pushed forward and the owner must endure these taxes. Businesses don't pay taxes, people do; however, the corporate income tax and the employer share of payroll taxes perpetuate this myth.
It is not a harmless myth. The hidden cost of our tax system ensures that Americans remain ever ignorant of the increasing proportion of federal taxes they pay. Taxes are now more than 20 percent of Gross Domestic Product, and despite the claims of tax cuts, Americans pay more now than we have in the history of our nation, including the height of World War II. Upstream taxes only ensure that taxpayers cannot see the true cost of our government, raise the costs of goods and services and ensure more taxes in the future.
There is another problem with hidden taxes. Apart from ensuring the system lacks integrity, hidden taxes buried in goods and services reduce exports, and result in lower profits, lost productivity and a competitive advantage to foreign commodities.
Broader estimates for example like that of Daniel Pilla:
Killing the IRS, By Daniel J. Pilla, Reason Magazine July 1995
"There is little about a flat-tax system that will trim the staggering cost of tax law compliance. At present, this burden is estimated at $700 billion annually. Much of the cost is associated with recordkeeping and tax law enforcement, neither of which is reduced by a flat tax. A flat tax certainly involves a simpler tax return, but return preparation is the smallest component of tax law compliance.
The solution to our tax problem is to adopt a national retail sales tax in place of the personal and corporate income tax. Only a sales tax can eliminate the invasiveness of the IRS, since one's income and lifestyle are irrelevant."
Not to mention the even greater losses on the economy that result from depessed sales(deadweight losses) as a concequence of tax system inflated prices much of which would be relieved by removing the more direct tax related business costs accounted for above.
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Taxes/hl565.cfm
An American Economic Review study found that every dollar of taxes could impose as much as $4 of lost output on the economy, with the probable harm ranging between $1.32 and $1.47
Edgar K. Browning, "On the Marginal Welfare Cost of Taxation," American Economic Review, Vol. 77, No. 1 (March 1987), pp. 11-23."Another study in the Journal of Political Economy estimated that the corporate income tax costs more in lost output than it raises for the government."
Jane G. Gravelle and Laurence J. Kotlikoff, "The Incidence and Efficiency Costs of Corporate Taxation When Corporate and Noncorporate Firms Produce the Same Good," Journal of Political Economy, Vol. 97, No. 4 (1989), pp. 749-780.
Chief Executive, The New directions in tax reform -
May 1995.Tax expert Ernest Christian Jr., a partner with Washington's Patton, Boggs & Blow, reckons these are low estimates or at best incomplete. Citing a U.S. Treasury study which indicates that 6 billion man-hours are consumed each year just in the record keeping for income and payroll tax returns alone, Christian says the true burden on the U.S. economy is probably closer to $1 trillion. For example, Jane Gravelle of the Congressional Research Service estimates that economic loss from the corporate income tax is equal to about 97 percent of the corporate tax revenue collected.
STATEMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE DICK ARMEY
HEARING ON THE IMPACT ON
INDIVIDUALS AND FAMILIES OF REPLACING THE FEDERAL INCOME TAX
Committee on Ways and Means, Full Committee, 4-15-97 Testimony
Hinders Economic Opportunity
According to a study by Jane Gravelle, an economist with the Congressional Research Service, and Larry Kotlikoff, an economist at Boston University, the corporate income tax costs the economy more in lost production than it raises in revenue for the Treasury. Dale Jorgenson, the chairman of the Economics Department at Harvard University, found that each extra dollar the government raises in revenue through the current system costs the economy $1.39.
Economic Burden of Taxation
William A. Niskanen
Presented October 2003
Friedman Conference
Federal Reserve Bank Dallas page 6.
www.dallasfed.org/news/research/2003/03ftc_niskanen.pdf"Given that the elasticity c implicit in recent U.S. fiscal conditions is about 0.8 and the average tax rate is about 0.3, the marginal cost of government spending and taxes in the United States may be about $2.75 per additional dollar of tax revenue. One wonders whether there are any government programs for which the marginal value is that high. Given the estimate of the long-term elasticity c from the U.S. time-series data, the marginal cost of government spending and taxes may be as high as $4.50 at the current average tax rate. "
I believe I did refer to Dr. Payne's work as a "study" once and I thank your for the correction. I assure you that I know what he did and will endeavor not to make that same mistake again in the future.
Compare the tax alternatives bttt
Ping
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.