Why Is The American Tax System Broken?

How is the American tax system failing? Taxpayers complain about a wide range of things depending on their perspective. Despite this, Pew Research Center studies consistently show that most people are concerned about corporations and wealthy individuals not paying their fair share. Their opinion is that individuals with low and middle incomes are often required to pay higher taxes than people with higher incomes due to the tax system.

In spite of these reservations, a November 2020 Federal Revenue Service (IRS) survey found that 94% of Americans agreed that it is “every American’s civic duty to pay their fair share of taxes.”

Although most taxpayers have positive views of the IRS’s performance, opinions vary by age and educational level.

By 2021, there was less trust and satisfaction among taxpayers when dealing with the IRS.

A portion of the change is related to political party preferences. Republican and Democratic perspectives have changed, with Republicans becoming more optimistic and Democrats becoming more suspicious, particularly in the wake of the 2017 individual and corporation tax cuts.

A new 15% alternative corporate minimum tax on corporate book profits is part of the recently passed Inflation Reduction Act (IRA)5, which is a significant effort to stop tax evasion by some of the biggest firms. The IRA also provided the IRS with $80 billion in additional funds over the ensuing years in order to raise staff levels that have been drastically reduced for more than ten years, improve customer service, and strengthen enforcement.

Nonetheless, the fact that all Congressional Democrats voted in favor of the IRA despite all Republicans’ opposition shows how challenging it is to stop tax evasion. Opponents of the IRS budget increase, for instance, claim that it will support more aggressive, even frightening, IRS audits of regular taxpayers.

But, President Biden has emphasized—and Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen has given the IRS instructions—that the legislation and its implementation should not result in higher taxes for those making less than $400,000. Since the Senate Parliamentarian concluded that this kind of provision could not be established under the legislative reconciliation procedure chosen for the IRA’s passage, the statutory provision addressing protection for people with earnings below $400,000 was removed from the IRA.

Although the majority of taxpayers understand that some form of taxation, at some level, is required to finance the government, there is a wide range of opinion on the size of the government, the level of taxation that should be levied, the best way to structure a tax system, the effective rates of that system, and how those factors affect various groups and interests. To fully analyze this debate, a tome would be needed. Unsurprisingly, once tax laws are in place, people and businesses will make every effort to take advantage of them. It’s crucial to consider how such rules differ in their effects and who gains and loses from them.

So, this essay mostly talks about the current U.S. income tax system and focuses on parts and results that make taxpayers and policymakers worried. Excise taxes, which are put on a smaller number of goods and services, are not covered.

Unjust Tax Burden Distribution

Most American taxpayers think it’s fair to have a graduated income tax system, which is often called “progressive” because the rates go up as income goes up. Critics worry that the national tax burden is not now appropriately graduated based on income level between people and between persons and corporations, particularly major corporate businesses. The system’s credibility was weakened by news stories claiming that former President Trump paid just minimal income taxes for decades and that significant firms were not required to pay income taxes. The alternative corporate minimum tax was just passed to stop big companies from not paying their taxes.

Many people disagree with a system that frequently subjects people with middle- and lower-incomes to higher effective income tax rates than many people with higher incomes and that permits some higher-income taxpayers to completely avoid paying taxes. When viewed relative to other countries, a significant portion of American taxpayers believe that the country’s tax system is unjust.

Many people agree that certain tax benefits are appropriate or even required. In order to arrive at an economically precise assessment of income, generally accepted allowances include the deduction of “ordinary and essential” business expenses. Similar to the basic deduction, refundable tax credits for individuals, itemized deductions for charitable contributions, mortgage interest, and some losses enjoy widespread support.

The part of the tax code that exempts people with low earnings from paying income tax (for 2022, below $10,275 for single people and $20,550 for married couples) is seen as reasonable and equitable.

Also, letting these people off the hook reduces administrative costs because they won’t have to pay to file a lot of tax returns that aren’t likely to bring in much money.
Individual and corporate income taxes, payroll taxes, excise taxes, estate and gift taxes, and generation-skipping transfer taxes are all included in the Internal Revenue Code (IRC). But most of the criticism has been about the many corporate and personal income taxes.

It seems logical that people don’t have much passion for paying taxes. Yet, the majority of grievances center on how just the system is rather than how much money people owe in taxes. This could be interpreted as a subliminal admission that the present tax rates aren’t as severe as they were when they were substantially higher.

Concern emerged over the fairness as well as the efficiency and sufficiency of the tax legislation and its administration. This issue grew as budget deficits mounted, starting in 2018 when significant tax cuts lowered tax revenues—a trend that intensified because the COVID-19 outbreak hurt the economy.

Let’s take a closer look at a few of these problems.

Advantages are greater at higher tax brackets

Graduated rates and brackets are one component of a progressive tax system, but they are not the only one. The U.S. tax code raises marginal tax rates on taxable income as tax brackets grow. Progression is resisted by:

• Exemptions and exclusions for specific categories of income, such as tax-free interest on bonds issued by local and state governments
• Some income categories, like capital gains and dividends, are subject to special, reduced rates.
• Deductions for a variety of expenses, including some sizable business expense allowances
• For the sake of simplicity, these modifications—collectively referred to as “deductions” moving forward—can cause some extremely high-income individuals’ effective tax rates to be lower than those that apply to others with far lower incomes. Taxpayers with exceptionally high wages and investment returns are occasionally able to avoid all tax burden thanks to these deductions.

Credits versus deductions

Taxpayers gain from deductions that result in lower taxable incomes in a regressive rather than progressive way. The tax benefit associated with such products is typically equal to the reduction multiplied by the marginal tax rate of the taxpayer. Hence, if an individual taxpayer’s income is in the top 37% tax bracket, every $100 in income that is reduced from what would otherwise be taxed at this rate results in a $37 savings for the taxpayer. If the appropriate rate is 24%, a $100 reduction in income would result in just a $24 savings.

In contrast to tax credit savings, this allowance of greater tax savings for higher incomes. Regardless of income level or tax bracket, a 20% tax credit will often result in a savings of $20 in tax liability for every $100 spent by all taxpayers. The taxpayer won’t save the full $20 if the credit’s amount is greater than their tax liability, unless the credit is refundable. Tax credits are frequently non-refundable.

Business tax evasion

Presently, a 21% corporate income tax is the standard rate under the tax code.
Yet, due of significant business write-offs, loss carrybacks and carryforwards, aggressive tax planning, and, if audited, persistent and protracted bargaining, many U.S. firms pay far lower effective rates—or no tax at all—than this. Some argue the propriety and magnitude of corporate tax benefits, particularly those received by politically influential industries, while others contest the existence of any corporation tax scheme.

restrictions on alternative minimum taxes

Alternative minimum tax (AMT) laws for corporations and individuals have been implemented over time to make sure that taxpayers with high incomes but significant tax deductions and other tax benefits pay at least some taxes. The AMT was then abolished for all C corporations in the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. Also, it enhanced the individual AMT exemption amount and phaseout, which led to a decrease in the number of individual taxpayers who are currently subject to the AMT compared to before 2018.

The minimum tax regulations’ goal of guaranteeing that all taxpayers pay taxes was never fully achieved. Due to their reliance on tax law concepts and definitions for income rather than on economic or financial principles, these bills typically failed, in large part because of this. The recently passed alternative corporate minimum tax, which is effective for tax years beginning after December 31, 2022, applies its 15% rate to the “book” income that firms declare on their financial income statements in recognition of the limits in earlier regulations.

If a corporation’s minimum tax liability exceeds the sum that would be required to be paid in normal corporate income tax, it will be subject to this “alternative” minimum tax rather than the standard 21% corporate income tax.

The new regulation only applies to firms with three-year annual average financial statement incomes greater than $1 billion, which restricts its use.

preferential rules for business losses and investment returns

There is debate regarding lower investment return rates as well as specific corporation tax write-offs.

Gains in value and dividends

Taxpayers who have made considerable investment returns may be able to pay effective rates that are far lower than those that apply to conventional income, such as salaries, wages, or interest, thanks to the low rates that apply to capital gains and dividends.
The famed investor Warren Buffett recognized that the tax code should not let him to pay a lower tax rate than his receptionist. Buffett’s income is primarily derived from investment earnings.

These lower rates spark discussion because they undermine notions of justice and render the system less progressive.

Opponents contest the necessity of the laws and the scope of the advantages.

On the other hand, proponents of these advantages assert that they promote worthwhile economic investment.

The contentious carried interest law, which benefits some investment professionals, particularly managers of private equity and hedge funds, is an example of how difficult it is to overcome fairness issues. It permits them to pay only a 20% gains tax plus a 3.8% investment tax on their gains, a combined rate that is lower than the ordinary income taxes, which can reach 37%. With the exception of the holding time for carried interest advantages being extended from three years to five years, efforts to repeal this preferential treatment in the IRA were unsuccessful.

a few business losses

Losses from these operations may be used to offset earnings or investment income from other activities by people who materially participate in a trade or business that is conducted directly or via a pass-through organization or who engage in real estate as a real estate professional. The regulations allowing an active participant (such as a real estate professional, if appropriate) to deduct current, carryback, and future losses allow eligible taxpayers to claim sizeable write-offs that lower or even completely eliminate their entire net taxable income.

Concerns About Non-Income Taxes

Payroll taxes, inheritance and gift taxes, and income taxes are all included in the tax code. Some of these taxes raise problems similar to those developing under the income tax, despite generally receiving less attention than income taxes.

Taxes on wages

In order to pay for Social Security benefits, employers and employees must each pay payroll taxes at a rate of 6.2% on wages, and self-employed individuals must pay payroll taxes at a rate of 12.4% on net earnings up to $147,000 in 2022. In addition, insured wages are subject to the 1.45% Medicare tax (the self-employed are subject to a 2.9% tax).

These taxes are “regressive” since they are levied at flat rates regardless of income level. These taxes apply to all wages; there is no exception or zero-rate threshold. Therefore, these taxes represent a significant hardship for people with modest earnings.

Some legislators favor increasing the Social Security tax to include unearned income or imposing it at higher income levels, similar to how the Medicare tax is now applied. Yet, in policy deliberations, the necessity to sustain trust funds is typically weighed against the possibility that lower employment levels could result from increased employer taxes.

Gift and estate taxes

Because estate and gift taxes only affect a small number of people, they do not arouse the same level of attention or concern as income taxation. For 2022, the exemption from estate taxes is $12.06 million. Due to the extensive tax planning that many wealthy people and families do, the estate tax, which is presently 40% on assets that exceed the exemption level, has had a minimal impact.

The tax statute further imposes a generation-skipping transfer tax in addition to the existing estate tax. This tax applies to transfers of assets to beneficiaries more than one generation below the transferor that exceed the exemption level.

The code also levies a gift tax, although it exempts donations made by taxpayers to a single recipient up to $16,000 annually. In general, no gift tax is really owed until all of a transferor’s gifts that are in excess of the yearly exemption level combined surpass the lifetime exemption, which in 2022 is $12.06 million. 24

Both the lifetime gift tax exemption and the estate tax exemption are reduced by the amount of the excess over the annual exemption threshold on a dollar-for-dollar basis. These high exemption thresholds limit the gift tax’s applicability to regular taxpayers.

Are Tax Laws Fairly Enforced?

All legislation must answer the fundamental question: Are the law’s provisions and implementation just and efficient? According to Internal Revenue Service reports and studies written by unbiased specialists, the federal tax system has been falling short of these requirements for more than ten years.

The perception of taxpayers that the tax code imposes—and authorities collect—a level of tax revenue sufficient to support the current government budget and investments for the future, and that all taxpayers are paying their fair share, is a key factor in determining their satisfaction and compliance with the tax system. When their returns are compared to information forms, most low- and middle-income taxpayers who disclose their earnings and investment income on information forms have their e-filed tax returns effectively audited each year. Many of these taxpayers believe that rich people use aggressive tactics, such as disclosing dubious deductions and exclusions to offset income from their enterprises and investing activities, to decrease or even evade their tax obligations.

Budgetary restrictions have made it difficult for the Internal Revenue Service to address noncompliance for many years, which has led to large shortages in tax income. Audit rates for all individual returns at all income levels declined between 2010 and 2019 as a result of IRS budget cuts, which also led to decreases in staffing and enforcement. 25 The amount of unpaid taxes owed to the government and the amount actually collected has grown considerably.

Although though audit rates for lower-income groups were lower than those for higher-income taxpayers, the overall audit rate decreased between 2010 and 2019. In those years, the number of audits of returns with an income between $5 and $10 million declined by 81%, while the number of audits of returns with an income over $10 million fell by 66%. The quantity of returns filed for the two groups increased 92% and 84%, respectively, over the same time period.

It has been calculated that the IRS will fail to collect more than $630 billion (i.e., 15% of taxes due, for 2020) based on its calculation that it failed to collect $380 billion due in all tax categories between 2011 and 2013. If IRS resources are not increased, between 2020 and 2029, the tax gap will increase to $7.6 trillion. The majority of the tax deficit, or about 70%, is made up of unpaid individual income taxes. They show that nearly 20% of people don’t follow the rules. People with higher incomes are the least likely to follow the rules.

Reports that IRS funds and enforcement actions have sharply decreased since 2010 have alarmed taxpayers who cooperated with tax regulations.

The IRS statistics, as well as professional studies and general media reporting, revealed that it is conducting fewer audits as its workforce has shrunk, with the most notable decreases coming in audits of wealthy individuals, big firms, and pass-through businesses and their owners.

Every additional dollar invested in the IRS would result in an increase in tax revenues of $11, according to a professional analysis of data made public by the Congressional Budget Office and the Treasury Department.

The Biden administration sought, and Congress implemented in the IRA, an allocation of an additional $80 billion for the IRS because to a widening tax disparity and mounting concerns about fairness. The CBO used to say that the increase in IRS spending would lead to a net revenue gain of $204 billion, but this number has now been changed to $124 billion from 2022 to 2031.

Alternate Taxation Systems

Would a different tax system function more effectively and fairly? The U.S. income tax has occasionally been replaced or supplemented by other tax systems that have been considered by American authorities.

Some supporters of a flat, single tax rate on all income emphasize its simplicity and contend that charging all taxpayers the same rate would be more equitable. However, it would be necessary to adopt a rate that is so high that the burden on lower-income taxpayers has been deemed politically and economically impossible in order to raise the amount of revenue needed for government operations.

All taxpayers receive the same degree of benefit from flat-rate tax credits, especially refundable ones, regardless of their income.

Similar to a value-added tax (VAT) or consumption tax on goods and services, significant intricacy is involved in the exclusions needed to prevent disproportionately burdening low-income people. It would also be difficult to develop the laws necessary to cover the organizations receiving special benefits under the income tax system, including not only particular industries but also the sizeable charitable sector.

Recently, advocates who are often driven by the need to raise more money as well as growing economic inequality and wealth concentration in a smaller fraction of the population have supported a flat rate annual wealth tax. Even though many people, including economists and political scientists, are worried about the concentration of wealth, the idea of a wealth tax has not caught on with the public. This kind of tax would be extremely complicated, especially when it came to evaluating assets without an obvious, objective market value, such as works of art or privately owned businesses.

The transfer from the current income tax rules to an alternative regime raises difficulties that have thus far been regarded as prohibitive, even if such alternatives to the current system were deemed practicable. Even though it would make things easier for taxpayers and government workers, putting in place a supplemental tax regime or adjusting and expanding the current excise tax and tariff regulations to add to the income tax would make things more complicated.

Why do American taxpayers dislike the tax system?

The tax system is viewed as unjust by many taxpayers. They find it objectionable that many high-income people can pay the government a smaller percentage of their incomes than is required of taxpayers with lower incomes. Several news reports claiming that certain large, well-known firms have paid little or no tax for years have alarmed many.

Are these complaints from taxpayers about the tax system true?

The majority of the issues raised by taxpayers are actual. The Federal Revenue Code offers deductions and other tax incentives that frequently result in higher effective tax rates on lower-income taxpayers than the effective tax rates that apply to higher-income taxpayers, according to research and confirmation by experts.

IRS officials, academic researchers, and press reports have all confirmed that certain very lucrative U.S. firms have claimed high profits but low taxable income and, as a result, minimal tax liabilities. The recently passed Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 (IRA) includes a new 15% alternative corporate minimum tax that is designed to combat corporate tax avoidance, at least by large firms, by using financial, or “book,” revenue as the tax base rather than taxable income.

Will the additional IRS funding benefit regular taxpayers or only result in more taxes and audits?

Individual taxpayers with low and moderate incomes are likely to see administrative advancements in customer service and tax-return administration throughout the next years. A large portion of the additional funds is designated specifically for modernizing outdated computer systems used to process returns and enhancing connections with individuals. Telephone enquiries should receive better service from the IRS. Also, it ought to expedite the processing of returns, helping those who expect an income tax refund.

Because the IRS has been instructed by both the president and the secretary of the Treasury not to raise taxes or audit rates on taxpayers with incomes below $400,000, the average taxpayer shouldn’t see a rise in either of these due to the increased IRS budget. But, unless future legislation alters the tax system, critiques of fundamental elements of the Internal Revenue Code, such as the low rates for gains and some investment income, would remain untouched.

the conclusion

Americans often criticize the structure of the Internal Revenue Code, how the tax system is run, and how fair it is. Some of these problems are being fixed by new laws that add an alternative corporate minimum tax of 15% and give the IRS an extra $80 billion to improve customer service, update technology, make enforcement stronger, and close the gap between taxes owed and taxes collected. The inability of the law to boost the capital gains and income tax rates for the wealthy, the standard corporation rate of 21%, and to roll back excessively generous business deductions, however, has spurred criticism that more change is required.

Numerous important issues are still unresolved.

• Secondly, tax reforms for corporations may apply to a wider spectrum of business entities and result in more progressive effective tax rates.
• Reevaluating tax deductions and reducing or eliminating any superfluous, inappropriate, or excessive tax benefits, particularly special interest write-offs, could improve taxpayers’ view of the fairness of the law.
• A wider range of regulations could be used to prevent business losses from canceling out income from unrelated sources.
• Using the new IRS resources wisely could boost public trust. According to studies, the tax gap would be significantly reduced if high-net-worth individuals and major corporations’ tax filings were audited more frequently and more thoroughly. The IRS auditors should have the time needed to assess the intricate facts and circumstances given in tax returns filed by commercial entities and wealthy people thanks to the extra funds.

But, Congressional and presidential action is necessary to amend the tax code itself. To improve the efficiency of the tax system and the way the public views it, both fundamental changes to the tax code and administrative upgrades are required.