Tax Alternatives: The Negative Income Tax
Nothing gets people more riled up than a discussion of taxes, but what alternatives are there to the current system? The negative income tax is one such possibility.
Tax Alternatives: The Negative Income Tax
The current tax system in the United States is an unmitigated disaster. Nobody really denies this fact, one of the few issues that seem to unite republicans and democrats in our country. The tax code is so big, nobody has a grasp of it and that includes the IRS. While you and I may groan once a year when it is time to file our personal tax returns, larger corporations don’t have it much better. One well known corporation reported that they file the equivalent of one tax document with the IRS every 3 minutes! While the may or may not pay their share, the pure burden of filing taxes for them and us is crazy.
Given the nature of the mess, one would think we would do something. The age old question, however, has been what functional alternative is there to the current mess? One proposal that has been around for some time is the negative income tax method.
The negative income tax was originally proposed in the 1960s by Milton Friedman, a fairly famous economist. His idea was not to just address the collection of taxes, but to create a system that would do away with welfare, food stamps and all types of government entitlement programs.
The basic idea at the core of the negative income tax rate system was a flat tax with a twist. The twist gets a bit complicated, but it involves tax deductions and negative income. A flat tax rate of say twenty five percent would be established on all income earned. You would then be able to take certain deductions against the tax for things like dependents [kids]. If your deductions totaled more than the total income you earned during the year, the government would then owe you all the taxes you paid in during the year and a percentage of your “negative income”. At this point, an example will probably help.
To make things simple, let’s assume we have a family of five with total earnings being $30,000. Further assume the total deductions that can be claimed equate to $40,000. The head of household has negative $10,000 under our system. The government would then owe the family all the money they paid in during the year in taxes from paychecks and a percentage of the $10,000 of negative income. Not bad, eh?
The negative income tax rate approach never really caught on with advocates. The system is ripe for attack because taxpayers have a major temptation to tweak their financial numbers to show negative income. Frankly, the criticisms were probably justified, but that should not distract us from the idea that the current tax mess can be dealt with. There is an answer to the mess, but it will require thinking outside of the box as Milton Friedman tried to do.
|
Richard A. Chapo is with BusinessTaxRecovery.com - providing information on taxes. |
Tags: deductions, flat tax, friedman, income, negative income tax, nit, taxes, tax
Related Posts
- Fair Value with Negative Growth
- 5 Tips for Buying Your First Home
- Option ARMs: "The Sky is Falling-The Sky Is Falling" So Say The Chicken Littles Of The World
- How To Grow Your Mental Power and Let Your Brain Make You Rich
- Don’t Just Pick Any Dividend
Related Blogs
By contrast, the bottom 40% of income earners as a group pay negative 3.8% of all income taxes. That means instead of paying taxes into the system, on net they draw payments out of the income tax system equal to 3.8% of all federal ...
For instance if there are industries that provide goods or services where the consumer demand is very elastic, then a rise in corporate taxes (passed on to the consumer) won't have any negative effect on the economy but instead would ...
Someone who makes 85K would be paying 30% of their pre-tax income for the loan alone. You through in property tax (400 a month), insurance ($100 a month) or possibly HOA 300 a month. So that bumps you up to 38% of your pretax income. ...
Massive job losses and concerns about job losses will further dampen current and expected income, and further contract consumption. 13. Tax rebates of over $100 billion failed to stimulate real consumption earlier in 2008. ...
Economists including Nobel Prize winner Joseph Stiglitz agree that state tax increases have a less negative economic impact than cuts in spending:. [T]ax increases on higher-income families are the least damaging mechanism for closing ...