He has a book that tackles the 'benefits and the burdens' of tax reform. I bought it on Amazon and am now reading it in the Amazon cloud player. It is an excellent book, very much worth the read for anyone interested in the tax system and where it should go next.
http://www.amazon.com/Benefit-Burden-Reform-Why-Need-What/dp/1451646194/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1373670300&sr=1-1&keywords=bruce+bartlett
His book is well named because I must admit that I've never really been sure that I see the benefits in tax reform. As a liberal I tend to think that Jared Bernstein was right recently when he suggested that liberals shouldn't even bother with 'tax reform' unless it makes the tax code more progressive. At a minimum they shouldn't buy into the ideology of revenue neutrality.
http://diaryofarepublicanhater.blogspot.com/2013/07/tax-reform-1986-and-better-mousetrap.html
Still Bartlett's book is a must read. For one thing if anyone can build a compelling case for tax reform it's him. I am reading this with a good deal of suspense: I'm eager to see the best arguments for tax reform. His book first and foremost provides a very good history of U.S. taxation as well as defining the various elements of the tax code-'expenditures' vs 'entitlements' et, al.
Whatever your view on tax reform and the ideal tax code, there is much to chew on and to learn in Bartlett's work. He is upfront on his own views. Ideally, he'd prefer a shift in taxation to a value added tax. I don't follow him here-I don't see how a VAT can possibly not be regressive. Indeed, even proponents of a progressive consumption tax believe a VAT is by definition regressive.
http://diaryofarepublicanhater.blogspot.com/2013/04/a-progressive-consumption-tax.html
Still, the book is not about the VAT and he doesn't advocate it he simply lays his cards on the table. He provides some very thought provoking history of the development of the U.S. tax code. He shows that in many ways the very high top marginal rates under FDR was less about progressivity or even raising revenue but simply a sense of fairness. With the start of WWII in 1942 for the first time income taxes were directed at many nonrich Americans-you might call this the first 'base broadening' tax measure.
After WWII the top rate was left there out of concern about WWII public debt and fear of deficits. He doesn't say this but it's striking how close the vaunted 1986 'tax reform' was the imposition of a flat tax. The saving grace was that the capital gains tax lost it's lower rate and was raised in line with the individual rate. Bartlett argues that conservatives saw the tax hike on the rich from 28% to 31% for the top rate as a breaking of the faith. From here on the conservatives have pushed for-and received-lower capital gains rates-until the recent fiscal cliff deal.
However, Bartlett makes a crucial point not often appreciated-Clinton's 1993 rise of the top rate from 31% to 39.6% had the progressive aspect that the income level for being in the top rate rose from $86,000 to $250,000-which is about $375,000 in today's dollars.
I'm only in the early stages but this book has already taught me a lot. Still I'm far from accepting that 'tax reform' is anything worth pursuing. For me as a liberal I value two things in the tax code:
1). Making it more progressive
2). Raising more revenue. Thanks to the Bush and Reagan tax cuts it has stopped generating adequate income.
What is the value of tax reform? Too often it seems to be just a backdoor to a more regressive tax code. I don't think that Bartlett has the nefarious motives of many conservatives. So I look forward to reading on. I see he's also done some great work that compares the U.S. tax code to the tax code in various European countries. So it's a great resource no matter where you come down on this.
http://www.amazon.com/Benefit-Burden-Reform-Why-Need-What/dp/1451646194/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1373670300&sr=1-1&keywords=bruce+bartlett
His book is well named because I must admit that I've never really been sure that I see the benefits in tax reform. As a liberal I tend to think that Jared Bernstein was right recently when he suggested that liberals shouldn't even bother with 'tax reform' unless it makes the tax code more progressive. At a minimum they shouldn't buy into the ideology of revenue neutrality.
http://diaryofarepublicanhater.blogspot.com/2013/07/tax-reform-1986-and-better-mousetrap.html
Still Bartlett's book is a must read. For one thing if anyone can build a compelling case for tax reform it's him. I am reading this with a good deal of suspense: I'm eager to see the best arguments for tax reform. His book first and foremost provides a very good history of U.S. taxation as well as defining the various elements of the tax code-'expenditures' vs 'entitlements' et, al.
Whatever your view on tax reform and the ideal tax code, there is much to chew on and to learn in Bartlett's work. He is upfront on his own views. Ideally, he'd prefer a shift in taxation to a value added tax. I don't follow him here-I don't see how a VAT can possibly not be regressive. Indeed, even proponents of a progressive consumption tax believe a VAT is by definition regressive.
http://diaryofarepublicanhater.blogspot.com/2013/04/a-progressive-consumption-tax.html
Still, the book is not about the VAT and he doesn't advocate it he simply lays his cards on the table. He provides some very thought provoking history of the development of the U.S. tax code. He shows that in many ways the very high top marginal rates under FDR was less about progressivity or even raising revenue but simply a sense of fairness. With the start of WWII in 1942 for the first time income taxes were directed at many nonrich Americans-you might call this the first 'base broadening' tax measure.
After WWII the top rate was left there out of concern about WWII public debt and fear of deficits. He doesn't say this but it's striking how close the vaunted 1986 'tax reform' was the imposition of a flat tax. The saving grace was that the capital gains tax lost it's lower rate and was raised in line with the individual rate. Bartlett argues that conservatives saw the tax hike on the rich from 28% to 31% for the top rate as a breaking of the faith. From here on the conservatives have pushed for-and received-lower capital gains rates-until the recent fiscal cliff deal.
However, Bartlett makes a crucial point not often appreciated-Clinton's 1993 rise of the top rate from 31% to 39.6% had the progressive aspect that the income level for being in the top rate rose from $86,000 to $250,000-which is about $375,000 in today's dollars.
I'm only in the early stages but this book has already taught me a lot. Still I'm far from accepting that 'tax reform' is anything worth pursuing. For me as a liberal I value two things in the tax code:
1). Making it more progressive
2). Raising more revenue. Thanks to the Bush and Reagan tax cuts it has stopped generating adequate income.
What is the value of tax reform? Too often it seems to be just a backdoor to a more regressive tax code. I don't think that Bartlett has the nefarious motives of many conservatives. So I look forward to reading on. I see he's also done some great work that compares the U.S. tax code to the tax code in various European countries. So it's a great resource no matter where you come down on this.
No comments:
Post a Comment