Tipping And Taxes

Earlier this month, the Internal Revenue Service announced a new proposed program related to workers who receive a portion of their income through tips. The IRS describes the Service Industry Tip Compliance Program (“SITCA”) as a “voluntary tip reporting program between the IRS and employers in various service industries” that “is designed to take advantage of advancements in point-of-sale, time and attendance systems, and electronic payment settlement methods to improve tip reporting compliance.”

SITCA would replace no less than three existing tip-related IRS initiatives–the Tip Rate Determination Agreement (“TRDA”), the Tip Reporting Alternative Commitment )”TRAC”), and the Employer Designed TRAC (“EmTRAC”). (The IRS clearly like acronyms.) SITCA would have several important features, including “[t]he monitoring of employer compliance based on actual annual tip revenue and charge tip data from an employer’s point-of-sale system, and allowance for adjustments in tipping practices from year to year.” Participating employers can “demonstrate compliance with the program requirements by submitting an annual report after the close of the calendar year, which reduces the need for compliance reviews by the IRS” and “have flexibility to implement employee tip reporting policies that are best suited for their employees and their business model in accordance with the section of the tax law that requires employees to report tips to their employers.”

Tip income always has been a bit of a bugaboo for the IRS, as indicated by the fact that there are three existing service tip income programs that SITCA will be replacing–and that doesn’t count a fourth tip program, the Gaming Industry Tip Compliance Agreement (“GITCA”) program, which the IRS says won’t be affected if and when SITCA is adopted. In fact, the only person I know who was audited by the IRS had that experience when they worked as a waitperson and made much of their income through tips.

Tip income traditionally was a challenge for the IRS because tips were always paid in cash, and reporting was therefore entirely voluntary and difficult to monitor. With the advent of credit card receipts and tip prompt systems like the one shown above, that reality has shifted: now there are records that show who served who and how much was paid as a tip. For service industry workers who rely on tips for part of their income, technology is a game-changer. That’s part of the reason why SITCA is replacing TRDA, TRAC, and EmTRAC,

Taxing Remote Workers

Many of us have been working remotely since the coronavirus pandemic hit in earnest last March. If your place of work and place of residence are in the same state, there’s no problem. But what if you live in one state and would work in another state — that is, if you were still going into the office? Which state gets to share in the tax revenue on your income?

New Hampshire is asking the U.S. Supreme Court to directly answer that very question, in a challenge to a Massachusetts law that says Massachusetts may tax nonresidents who used to work in the state but now work from home instead. Other states are interested, too — some because they have tax laws similar to Massachusetts (like New York and five other states) and some because they are losing tax revenues as a result of such laws (like New Jersey and Connecticut).

The stakes are high, because the treatment of remote worker taxes can mean big bucks for state budgets. New Jersey, for example, estimates it will credit thousands of New Jersey residents who used to work in New York City, but now work remotely, for about $1.2 billion in income taxes paid to New York starting in March 2020. In an era where COVID shutdowns have cost countless jobs, and many state budgets are dealing with the lower tax revenues generated by the decreased economic activity, the treatment of taxes to remote workers could tip the balance between a balanced state budget and a budget that is in the red.

The Massachusetts law being challenged in the Supreme Court was adopted in April 2020; Massachusetts said the law just maintains the status quo income tax treatment of remote workers so Massachusetts won’t have to determine precisely where they are working during the pandemic. New Hampshire, which doesn’t have an income tax, says that by taxing New Hampshire residents who formerly commuted but now are actually working from home, Massachusetts is invading New Hampshire’s sovereignty and violating the due process and commerce clauses of the Constitution. New Hampshire has invoked the Supreme Court’s original jurisdiction, which allows one state to sue another state directly in the high court, without going through lower courts, if the Court gives them permission to do so. The Supreme Court has asked the Biden Administration to weigh in on whether it should take the case. There’s some urgency to this issue, both because of the budget crisis in many states and because tax season is just around the corner.

Taxation of remote workers is just one of the many interesting legal issues that are going to be addressed as a result of the pandemic, the governmental shutdown orders, and the resulting disruption of what used to be normal practices — practices that now may be morphing into a “new normal” where remote work is much more commonplace. And you can be sure of one thing: when a legal issue raises the prospect of shifting billions of dollars of tax revenue, you can expect cash-hungry states with their eyes on their budgets to fight like cats and dogs for every cent.

Why A “Windfall”?

If you’ve been following the aftermath of the tax reduction legislation passed by Congress and signed into law by President Trump, you’ve seen stories about how some corporations have reacted to the new law by giving their employees bonuses or cutting their charges to consumers, and other, more critical stories noting that many of the companies are giving their employees one-off bonuses, rather than more permanent raises.

But while different articles about the tax cut legislation may make different points about how the tax cut legislation is affecting companies, workers, and the country at large, the coverage does seem to have one curious common theme and descriptive element:  the tax relief provided by the new law is typically said to have produced a “windfall” for companies and individuals alike.

It’s a very interesting choice of words — and one that conveys a deeper message, too.  The Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines “windfall” as “something (such as a tree or fruit) blown down by the wind” or as “an unexpected, unearned, or sudden gain or advantage.” The key underlying concept is that the “windfall” is a lucky gift and an unearned surprise — like an inheritance from your mother’s rich second cousin whom you’d never met.

“Windfall” is a telltale choice of words in this context because tax payments necessarily have been earned by whoever is making them; companies and individuals wouldn’t be paying taxes if they hadn’t sold the products or done the work or made the investments that generated the revenue in the first place.  By calling the proceeds of a tax cut in which individuals and companies pay less a “windfall” for them, you’re really suggesting that the taxpayers aren’t entitled to their own money, the government is — and taxpayers should consider themselves lucky that, for a time at least, they get to keep more of it.

Income earned as the fruit of labor or investment isn’t like fruit blown down from a stranger’s apple tree.  You can argue about whether the tax cut was good economic or social policy, but when taxpayers get to hold on to more of the money they’ve already earned it can’t reasonably be characterized a “windfall” for them.  The fact that so many news articles nevertheless present the issue in that way says a lot about how the news media, at least, views the respective entitlements of taxpayers, and government, to the money taxpayers earn.

When Taxpayers Hit The Road

The Wall Street Journal has an interesting piece on Connecticut — the state which for some time has had the highest per capita income of any state in the union.  Now Connecticut is running into problems with its budget.  The problem?  It has jacked up taxes to the point that its biggest taxpayers, both corporations and individuals, have decided that it just makes sense to move.

Aetna, a Connecticut institution since 1853 and one of the state’s largest employers, announced this week that it is moving.  General Electric has fled to Boston.  In May the state reduced its two-year revenue forecast by nearly $1.5 billion and has projected a 6 percent drop in income-tax revenue for 2017 and 2018.  Income-tax collections declined this year due to lower earnings at the top, as many high earners have moved to lower tax states.  Sales-tax revenue is forecast to fall by 9 percent, corporate-tax revenue is estimated to drop by 7 percent, and state pension contributions, which have doubled since 2010, will increase by a third over the next two years.  This confluence of bad news leaves Connecticut with a $5.1 billion deficit and three recent credit downgrades.

Is it a coincidence that all of that has happened after Connecticut raised its top individual income tax rate, payable by those who earn more than $500,000 a year, from 5% to 6.99%?  Is it a coincidence that, in the last five years, 27,400 residents have moved to no-income-tax Florida?  Their departures have depressed economic growth in Connecticut and, since high earners also tend to be high spenders, has also depressed home values and sales-tax revenues.

And here’s the kicker:  Connecticut is talking about issuing “revenue bonds,” backed by its shrinking income tax revenues, to try to reduce its borrowing costs and close its budget deficit.  In case you’re interested, that’s something Puerto Rico tried, too — and look where Puerto Rico ended up.

It’s a pretty simple lesson:  while people may not always be rational economic actors, if states keep raising taxes and taking large chunks of your income year after year, at some point taxpayers are going to go to a place where they get to hold on to more of what they earn.  Connecticut is now learning that lesson the hard way, and no-tax states, like Florida, are reaping the benefits.

Tax Torn

Well, it’s Tax Day — April 15, the due date for most federal and state income tax filings.  The butt of jokes by comedians for decades.  The annual source of angst for millions of American taxpayers.  A rallying cry for conservative anti-taxers ever since the Sixteenth Amendment was ratified in 1913 and allowed the federal income tax in the first place.

My feelings about Tax Day are decidedly ambivalent.  I recognize that taxes are the price we pay for living in a free society, and I pay them willingly.  A modern military with modern weaponry, a welfare state system that tries to help the poor and elderly, and a government that shoulders far-reaching tasks like disease control or preventing alien species from invading the Great Lakes can’t be funded by the system of duties and tariffs that supported a much more limited government during the colonial era.  I also think it’s ridiculous for people like Ted Cruz to talk about abolishing the Internal Revenue Service.  If you accept that taxes must be paid, as I do, there must be an entity that collects the tax.

At the same time, it’s hard for me to feel warm and fuzzy about our tax system or the IRS.  Last night Kish and I watched the latest Last Week Tonight with John Oliver, and it tried to make viewers feel sorry for the IRS, because IRS jobs are boring, the Internal Revenue Code is constantly being changed by Congress, and IRS funding has been cut.  Good luck with that effort!  The IRS may be necessary, but don’t expect me to give it a hug, okay?  And when I sign my forms and send in my payments, don’t think I’m a nut if I wonder about the presence of unfairness in our tax code and abuse and favoritism in the highly political process by which tax exemptions are determined and tax rates are imposed.

Every year, as I look at the forms and the complicated instructions, I wonder if there isn’t a simpler, fairer way to do it.  Say what you will about the sales tax, but it’s a straightforward percentage that anybody can calculate, and it targets consumption rather than work.  If you want to soak the idle rich, wouldn’t a tax when they buy ridiculously appointed $200,000 SUVs be a good idea?  And user fees that are triggered when a specific federal service is used — say, for use of ports and customs, for airline security, or for drug or vehicle testing to ensure compliance with safety standards — also seems fair.  Couple that with an income tax and withholding system that involves fewer exemptions, exclusions, deductions, tax rate levels, and schedules, and maybe you’ve got a workable system that won’t cause so many Americans to take the IRS’s name in vain come every April 15.

Taxes, Forms, Worksheets, And Instructions

It’s April 15 — Tax Day.  For many Americans, it’s an angst-filled day, as they rush to complete their taxes and get their forms filed before the midnight deadline.  Even for those of us who are already filed, it’s not a day to celebrate.

Every year, the process of completing tax forms seems to become more complicated and more overwhelming.  Taxpayers juggle federal, state, and local forms, labor through increasingly lengthy instructions, and strive mightily to interpret myriad weird descriptions of deductions, credits and “adjustments to income” to determine whether they have any application to our lives.  This year, the on-line IRS instruction booklet for the 2012 Form 1040 comes in a PDF that is a mind-boggling 214 pages long.  And if you don’t think you need to read every instruction because common sense answers most of the questions, consider this:  according to the instruction at page R-1 of the Form 1040 booklet, for purposes of the credit for the elderly, the IRS considers you to be 65 the day before your 65th birthday!  Somewhere, there is an sober bureaucrat who will give you an earnest explanation of why that approach makes perfect sense.

Although we make the most fun of the federal forms and instructions, for many of us the state and local forms and instructions are just as bad.  This year I had the good fortune to review the New York forms and instructions.  The basic New York personal income tax form, the IT-201, is four pages long and includes 19 separate line items for federal income and adjustments, 5 line items for “New York additions,” 9 line items for “New York subtractions,” 4 line items for deductions, 9 line items for “tax computation, credits, and other taxes,” 13 line items for “New York City and Yonkers taxes, credits, and tax surcharges,” and 14 line items for “payments and refundable credits.”  The on-line instructions for the form comes in a PDF that is a hefty 72 pages long.

Of course, those are just the forms for personal income tax.  I can’t even begin to imagine the complexity and pain involved in filing tax returns for a small business.

With the multiplicity of forms and the confusing instructions, it’s not surprising that many people turn to tax preparation services for help.  According to estimates, about 60 percent of taxpayers seek professional help, and some 800,000 people are employed in helping us prepare our tax returns.  If you add in the various people employed by the IRS and state and local tax agencies to receive, process, and audit our forms, more than 1 million Americans likely earn their living through some tax-related job.  That’s why some people say that “flat tax” proposals that would eliminate all of the deductions, adjustments, additions, surcharges, and other confusing entries are job killers.

I’m sorry if simplifying the tax form completion process would cost some people their jobs, but it simply makes no sense to have Americans fight through these ludicrous forms and instructions every year.  Congress, state legislatures, and local governments should roll up their sleeves, get rid of the special interest exclusions, deductions, and adjustments, and get us to a tax system that is simple and straightforward.  If you want people to pay their taxes — and we should want people to pay their taxes — make the process easy to understand and therefore easy to comply with.

Hey Harry, Mitt Paid Taxes!

Today Mitt Romney released his 2011 tax returns.  They show that the Republican nominee earned more than $13.5 million — mostly from investments — and paid $1.9 million in taxes.  He has his wife also gave generously to charities.

In addition, Romney also released a summary of his taxes going back to 1990.  The summary reported that, during the period from 1990 to 2009, the Romneys paid taxes every year, with an average annual effective federal tax rate of 20.2 percent.  Romney has now provided information about 23 years of tax returns, including releasing the tax returns themselves for 2010 and 2011.

Let’s not forget that the abominable Harry Reid claimed back in August that an anonymous source had told him that Mitt Romney had not paid taxes for 10 years.  It was appalling that the Senate Majority Leader would rely on an unnamed source to launch such serious and slanderous accusations, which have now been shown to be false.  Do you think there is any chance that Harry Reid will apologize to Mitt Romney for making such reckless and unfounded accusations?  That’s what any decent person would do.  Unfortunately, any person of character would never have made the unsupported accusations in the first place, so I wouldn’t bet on old Harry doing the decent thing.  Instead, he’ll just endure another blow to whatever shreds of credibility he might still possess.

I hope Romney’s release of his tax returns takes that silly issue off the table, and lets the candidates and the American public focus on the big issues in the race — like who is better equipped to get our economy going, and how we can get people back to work and bring this unending recession to a long-overdue end.

Who Is This Guy? (The Revenue Side)

The next part of President Obama’s approach to the budget deficit, outlined in his April 13 speech, addressed what he called “tax expenditures” and “spending in the tax code.”   At the outset, he said he regretted agreeing to extend “tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans” only a few months ago, but explained that he did so “because it was the only way I could prevent a tax hike on middle-class Americans.”  He added that “we cannot afford $1 trillion worth of tax cuts for every millionaire and billionaire in our society” and declared:  “I refuse to renew them again.”

The President next said the tax code is “loaded up with spending on things like itemized deductions.”  He agrees with “the goals of many of these deductions, from homeownership to charitable giving,” but “we can’t ignore the fact that they provide millionaires an average tax break of $75,000 but do nothing for the typical middle-class family that doesn’t itemize.”  He then called for “limiting itemized deductions for the wealthiest 2 percent of Americans.”

Finally, he said “we should go further,” and Congress should “reform our individual tax code so that it is fair and simple — so that the amount of taxes you pay isn’t determined by what kind of accountant you can afford.”  The White House fact sheet that UJ linked to recently phrases the issue more bluntly — it says: ” the President is calling for individual tax reform that closes loopholes and produces a system which is simpler, fairer and not rigged in favor of those who can afford lawyers and accountants to game it.” (The emphasis is in the fact sheet itself.)

These remarks are, commendably, more specific than the President’s remarks on spending and health care.  He wants to raise the current tax rates on high income earners (by not “extending” those rates) and he wants to “limit” deductions for the wealthiest 2 percent of Americans.  It is interesting that the President now regrets a decision he made only a few months ago, but it is even more interesting that he seems to equate “income” with “wealth.”  The federal income tax only addresses “wealth” if the wealth produces taxable income.  The notion that individuals who are taxed at the highest tax brackets are all “millionaires and billionaires,” as the President suggested, is preposterous.  Instead, many of those people are simply productive workers in two-income families — small business owners, professionals, and so forth — who are reaching the peaks of their earnings potential while at the same time they are putting their kids through college and trying to save for retirement.  The notion that such people are “the wealthiest Americans” who have somehow gamed the system is ludicrous.

I’m all for making the tax code simpler and fairer — but does anyone really think President Obama is well positioned to do so?  His health care legislation is already producing volumes of regulations that are of breathtaking complexity.  And this is not a President who has shied away from advocating tax breaks and incentives for causes that he agrees with — like green energy.  A better course, I think, would be to get away from deductions altogether.  I’d like to see an end to special tax treatment of donations to charitable and religious organizations and the non-profit political groups, right and left, whose vile advertising makes TV watching during the election season so revolting.  Our tax policy should not encourage such groups.

And consider the intemperate language of the White House fact sheet quoted above.  It actually suggests that our federal tax system is “rigged in favor of those who can afford lawyers and accountants to game it.”  Does the President honestly believe that the federal tax system that he has presided over for two years is “rigged” and “gamed” by “lawyers and accountants”?  If so, why hasn’t he done something about it before now?

Who Is This Guy?  (The Health Care Side)

Who Is This Guy?  (The Defense Side)

Who Is This Guy?  (The Spending Side)

Illinois Ups The Ante

Last week Illinois passed legislation to significantly increase its income taxes in order to help solve its dismal budget deficit problems.   Personal income tax rates in Illinois will go from 3 percent to 5 percent — a 66 percent (!) increase — for the next four years.  Corporate taxes also will increase.  Legislators passed the bill only hours before a new legislature was sworn in, and coupled the tax increases with a promise that, during the four-year period, spending increases would be limited to 2 percent a year.  Given that Illinois has a $25 billion annual budget, the “strict limits on spending increases” means the Illinois legislature will have to scrimp by on only $500 million in new spending every year.

The actions of the Illinois legislature and Governor are precisely why “tea party” candidates were successful in the 2010 election and will be probably continue to be successful so long as government spending is out of control.  It will always be easier for politicians to defer hard choices on spending, so as to avoid upsetting any constituency, and then seek tax increases imposed by lame-duck lawmakers who are leaving office and, perhaps, seeking jobs with the same constituencies who are trying to avoid spending reductions.  I’m sure, however, that Illinois residents will appreciate the brave actions of their elected representatives and will be happy about paying even more taxes in a down economy where families have already engaged in significant belt-tightening.

I’m hoping that Governor Kasich and the Ohio General Assembly don’t follow the lead of the Illinois legislature.  The path to a balanced budget lies in spending cuts, not tax increases imposed on struggling citizens and businesses that are expected to produce jobs.  And if the Ohio government can resist the urge to raise taxes, it may find that Illinois residents and businesses may look favorably on Ohio as a more tax-friendly place where they can relocate and leave corrupt, spending-addicted Illinois politics behind.

Working On A Deal

President Obama announced yesterday that he had worked out a deal with Republican leaders in Congress on taxes and unemployment compensation.  The deal would extend all of the Bush-era income tax rates for two years, provide extended unemployment compensation for another 13 months, and reduce payroll taxes for a year, among other components.

The Bush-era tax cuts expire on December 31, so the deal needs to make it through Congress promptly.  There is some question about whether the “grand compromise” will be sufficiently well received — particularly among President Obama’s liberal base — to be passed in the lame duck Congress.  The concept of extending “tax cuts for the rich” is anathema to them, and they feel like President Obama weakly gave up far more to Republicans than he got in return.

It would not be at all surprising if there were many Democratic defections when votes are taken on the legislation needed to implement the proposed deal.  I know that Richard, for one, is so infuriated by the concept of extending the current tax rates for individuals earning more than $250,000 that he didn’t even want to talk about it at the dinner table last night.  I’m confident that many liberal Democrats share his disgust — and, more and more, the disgust is directed at the President.  If the deal does pass, we will see a significantly different political dynamic in 2011 than existed in 2010.  Not only will conservative Republicans control the House of Representatives, liberal Democrats will be increasingly likely to criticize President Obama as a sell-out who cannot play hardball with Republicans.

That Infuriating Washington, D.C. Feeling Of Entitlement

One issue to be addressed in the upcoming “lame duck” Congress is whether the Bush-era tax cuts should be extended.  Republicans say that the current tax rates should be extended because it makes no sense to raise taxes during a recession.  The position of many, but not all, Democrats is that some of the tax cuts should be extended, but the tax cuts on Americans who earn the most income should expire — thereby increasing their taxes.

So much of the political discussion in Washington, D.C. is vacuous jousting about language!  In this case, is the extension of tax rates that are about to expire a “tax cut,” or is allowing those rates to expire a “tax increase”?  (I think most Americans would conclude, reasonably, that if tax rates should go from 35% on December 31, 2010 to 39% on January 1, 2011, a “tax increase” has occurred.)  Even more exasperating are the arguments by President Obama and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, among others, that if an across-the-board extension occurs, the federal government would have to “borrow” money to “pay” for “tax cuts” for those Americans who earn the most.

It is worth deconstructing such statements, because they reveal a lot about the attitude of many leading Democrats.  In effect, they believe that the federal government is entitled to the money earned by every taxpayer.  If the government decides to let us keep some of it we should be grateful, because the government has to “pay” for that generosity.  In my view, this infuriating sense of entitlement is one reason that voters voted against so many Democratic candidates earlier this month.  If the government believes that it has a right to every penny we earn, it will never learn to live within its means — and that is what voters want.  If our government cannot get by on tax receipts that already exceed $2 trillion, the problem is spending, not taxes.

Two Worlds, Two Sets Of Rules

The Washington Post has done some good reporting on the amount of taxes owed by Capitol Hill staffers, White House aides, and other government employees.  All told, federal employees owe $1 billion and Capitol Hill employees owe $9.3 million.  In the Obama Administration White House, 41 aides owe $831,000 — or about $20,000 per person.

I recognize that there are lots of Americans who owe taxes — but they aren’t getting paid by other taxpayers, nor do they have a hand in establishing and enforcing federal law.  The Post story linked above notes that a Republican Congressman has proposed legislation requiring that any federal employees who owe back taxes be fired unless they enter into a payment plan (and presumably comply with it).  Surprisingly, only eight Republicans have co-sponsored the bill, and no Democrats have done so.  Why not?  Is it really so unreasonable to insist that employees who get paid from the federal till meet their obligations to pay their taxes to the federal government?

This is the kind of story that drives the average American crazy.  We hear so many politicians talk about raising taxes, or expanding the number of IRS agents to increase tax collections, and then we learn that congressional staffers and other federal employees are ignoring their own obligations.  Before Washington looks to us for more money, let’s collect the $1 billion owed by the folks drawing a federal paycheck.

Tough Times On Labor Day

Times are tough on this Labor Day.  You can’t pick up a newspaper or visit a news website without seeing discouraging reports on employment, manufacturing, housing, and other economic indicators.  Labor Day marks the traditional end of summer and beginning of autumn — which means that the “Recovery Summer” has come and gone, with nary a recovery in sight.

What does it all mean?  Different observers are reaching fundamentally different conclusions.  This writer thinks our economic problems are attributable to the fact that American workers are not as unionized as their European counterparts and are powerless to stop capitalist employers from taking advantage of a bad job market.  This writer thinks we need to cut taxes and cut regulations that may be hindering small business growth and job creation.  Others say we need to cut government spending before the American economy becomes permanently crippled by unsustainable levels of government debt.  In direct contrast, still others, like this columnist, urge the government to engage in even more stimulus spending.

It seems that the only thing everyone can agree on this Labor Day 2010 is that there is no consensus on how to proceed.  This may be a good thing, however.  We have an election coming up, and Americans will be presented with political choices that reflect different economic philosophies.  With no “expert” consensus to bludgeon them, I think the average American will fall back on their common sense and be guided by their own experiences in deciding how to vote.  The collective decision-making of average Americans, acting on their own common sense and practical experience, have tended to serve America well in the past.

Should The Bush Tax Cuts Be Extended?

Beginning on January 1, 2011, the tax cuts enacted under President Bush will expire and significant tax increases — affecting Americans of different income brackets and many American businesses, and involving income taxes, estate taxes, capital gains taxes, and other forms of federal taxes — will automatically take effect as a result.  The Springfield News-Sun has published a helpful chart showing the changes in income tax rates that will occur if the Bush tax cuts are not extended.

Now Republicans and some Democrats are raising questions about whether raising taxes in the midst of a recession makes much sense.  The Obama Administration, through Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, says the tax cuts on the highest-income Americans should be allowed to expire, and they should pay an even larger portion of their income to the federal government.  As the Springfield News-Sun chart indicates, higher earning Americans already pay a significantly higher percentage in income taxes to the federal government.

Treasury Secretary Geithner refers to the higher-income earners as “the most fortunate” — as if the income they earn was the result of dumb luck, rather than hard work, opening their own businesses, developing a successful new product, intelligent investment risk-taking, or other activities that are rewarded in a capitalist economy.  That sort of bureaucratic attitude is infuriating, but typical.  If you’ve never held a job in the private sector where your hard work is rewarded, you tend to think that being successful in business is the result of happenstance as opposed to thoughtful effort.  That same attitude underlies the notion that, if the tax cuts expire, the highest-earning Americans will heedlessly continue to act as they have before and just pay more in taxes — as opposed to modifying their behavior in recognition of the fact that their hard work will put less money in their pocket.

In reality, of course, individuals and businesses do modify their behavior in response to tax rates.  That is why so many Members of Congress, and Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke, think that extending the Bush tax cuts would be helpful for our struggling economy, and that ending those tax cuts could potentially shove the economy into a deeper recession. Americans will have less to spend, and therefore the consumer spending that is one of the foundations of our economy will be weaker.  Businesses, too, may stay their hand on hiring or other activities because the tax burden is too great.

The battle over how to deal with the expiring tax cuts will be interesting, because it will play directly into the standard themes of the parties, with the Democrats saying that the Republican Party is interested only in business and the wealthiest Americans and Republicans saying that the Democratic Party is interested only in economic redistribution.  In the meantime, Americans will again be caught in the middle, wondering whether they should expect a significantly higher tax bill come January — and how they should plan their affairs given the continuing uncertainty.

Tax Day/Birthday

For many people, April 15th is a crappy day.  No one likes to pay taxes (except for UJ, apparently) and most people dislike filling out the forms, too.  If you are self-employed and have to write a check — as opposed to trying to get a refund of money that was withheld by the government long ago — April 15 is an even more difficult day.

Fortunately, in our family, April 15 gives us a reason to celebrate, because it is Russell’s birthday.  So, Happy Birthday, Russell!  (And pass the 1040 form, will you?)