Link to the original site

One of the more bizarre ideas to come out of Congress is an expansion of the “net operating loss carryback” provision. This proposal would allow companies taking a loss in either of the next two years to deduct that loss against taxes already paid at any time during the last four years (currently the deduction is limited to the previous two years). This is an inefficient and poorly targeted approach to the foreclosure problem because the deduction would be available to all companies – not just homebuilders and other housing-related businesses. It is also a troubling proposal because the breaks it provides have no strings attached to them. If there isn’t a demand for new homes, there isn’t going to be a demand for homebuilders regardless of whether or not the company gets a check from the federal government.

Another idea Congress proposed is a no-interest loan in the form of a refundable tax credit for first-time homebuyers that must be paid back over 15 years. Unfortunately, the credit will not be available to the buyer until after the downpayment has already been made, so its usefulness is seriously constrained.

Other tax changes are discussed in the link above, but overall it seems clear that Congress has missed the mark. Their collection of proposals raises one interesting question in particular: why are so many of the approaches to this crisis centered around tax cuts when nobody is arguing that the problem is a result of high taxes? As Bob McIntyre, director of Citizens for Tax Justice, recently said, “If we gave this issue to the agriculture committees, they’d probably give us farm subsidies, so if we give this problem to the tax-writing committees they give us tax breaks because that’s what they do. I’m pretty sure we have committees in Congress to deal with housing.” It’s always good for politicians to be able to offer up tax cuts, though.

But while for the most part Congress’ proposals are nothing more than the result of an over-eagerness to cut taxes, another one of their proposals actually did touch on one potential solution involving taxes. Property taxes are not the cause of the foreclosure crisis, but lowering property taxes on those homes most at risk for foreclosure seems like a sensible component of any broad strategy for reducing the number of foreclosures. Unfortunately, but perhaps unsurprisingly, even Congress’ efforts at providing property tax relief aren’t tremendously helpful – an income tax cut of no more than $350 per spouse (or roughly $150 under the Senate bill) for all homeowners who do not itemize is all they could muster. Additionally, since the cut comes in the form of a deduction, it’s value increases for better-off homeowners in higher tax brackets who are presumably at less risk of foreclosure.

In contrast to this meager amount of relief proposed in Congress, a bill introduced in Michigan (where the foreclosure crisis has been particularly devastating) takes works the property tax angle more aggressively (and arguably more productively) by offering a full exemption from the property tax for homeowners earning less than 200% of the federal poverty level. Homeowners earning up an income limit to be determined by the taxing district are eligible for a 50% reduction of their property tax bill. Taxpayers possessing assets worth more than an amount to be determined by each locality will be excluded from the relief, as will taxpayers whose homes are worth more than 300% of the median home price in their district.

By providing extensive relief to those least fortunate homeowners most vulnerable to foreclosure, rather than only offering more minor relief to a broad swath of taxpayers, the Michigan legislature has before it a bill much more likely of meaningfully impacting the foreclosure crisis. And by introducing a degree of progressivity into the property tax, this bill could make life just a bit easier for those individuals most likely to be impacted not only by the foreclosure crisis, but also by the recent economic slowdown in general.

Notably, this emergency bill is in addition to the state’s property tax circuit-breaker that provides tax credits to lower- and middle-income families based on the share of their income they are required to pay in property taxes. The emergency relief, then, isn’t something that even needs to be made permanent. A circuit-breaker is the preferred method for assisting those in need of relief in a normal housing market – but under the current, very abnormal housing market, this additional relief could play an important role in a broader plan designed to address the needs of Michigan homeowners.

As an interesting aside, one of the other primary benefits of this bill would be a standardization of the process for providing need-based property tax relief. Detroit has recently been plagued with reports that their “Hardship Committee”, appointed to decide who is in need of property tax relief, has been awarding tax benefits to wealthy, well-connected homeowners. The state bill would offer local committees less discretion in deciding who can see a tax reduction. This investigation into Detroit’s “Hardship Committee” by The Detroit News provides a very interesting read that discusses a stunning example of tax fairness being thrown out the window.

Link to the original site

This argument is pretty basic– if states have to pare back their budgets, they’ll cut spending on education and transportation and will reduce state employment in these areas, so giving states emergency fiscal relief will allow states to keep these jobs– but it isn’t new. As Uchitelle points out, Keynesians have long argued that government spending can be an effective option for digging out of economic downturns. And this position has had an eloquent advocate already this year in Columbia University’s Joseph Stiglitz, who argued back in January that the best federal “stimulus” plan would include:

giving money to states and localities that are facing real financial constraints. Tax revenues are going down. Property values are going down. And most states have a balanced budget framework.
So if the revenues go down, they have to cut their expenditures. And this will depress the economy. So dollar for dollar, this will stimulate the economy enormously.

The common-sense point being made by both Uchitelle and Stiglitz is that government spending, just like private spending, boosts our economy. It’s a point that is too often forgotten by policymakers who (whether they realize it or not) are still in thrall to the Reaganite notion that nothing good ever came out of government. Folks in Congress who ought to know better have been falling all over themselves this year to put “extra” money in the hands of individual consumers, with the hope that they will spend it and thereby boost the economy, but have given little thought to the idea that state governments can provide a similar stimulus of their own.

There’s some hope from the ongoing presidential debate, according to Uchitelle, in that at least one party’s candidates are singing the Keynesian tune (if slightly off key):

The Republicans in particular are less than enthusiastic about Keynesian economics, with its use of government to rescue markets. They, and many mainstream economists, for that matter, argue that government is inefficient, bureaucratic, wasteful and unable to spend fast enough to counteract a downturn. The two Democratic candidates, in contrast, argue that a second stimulus package, if one is needed, should include federal subsidies to the states and municipalities, not to start new projects but to prevent cutbacks in existing ones.

But this idea certainly isn’t a central plank of either Democratic candidate’s platform. And even abstracting from these political difficulties, there’s a basic policy problem that makes the Uchitelle/Stiglitz solution a hard sell: what Uchitelle breezily refers to as “extra federal money” is in pretty short supply right now. Until someone at the federal level can stomach the notion of admitting that federal taxes are simply too low to meet our needs, any federal grants to state governments will essentially be paid for by borrowing money from our creditors overseas. The federal government can absolutely come to the aid of states through a new regime of stimulative grants– but the positive long-term impact will be less clear if this federal spending is paid for by our grandchildren.

Link to the original site

Enter John McCain. According to Senator McCain,

“tax cuts, starting with Kennedy, as we all know, increase
revenues”.

If true, the Senator from Arizona has found a way around one of the most dreaded problems facing our lawmakers. No longer must we weigh the pros and cons of higher taxes vs. better services. No, in McCain’s world, lower taxes and better services are a natural pair. In fact, according to McCain, the tradeoff between taxes and services that policymakers have wrestled with for centuries is not only unnecessary, but also nonexistent:

“historically, when you raise people’s taxes, guess what, revenue goes down”. – Senator John McCain

Lower taxes aren’t just the easy way to get more revenue – they’re actually the only way!

The Laffer Hypothesis: Show Me The Money?

If only it were that easy. What McCain is referring to is the infamous “Laffer Curve”, or “Laffer Hypothesis”. Under this hypothesis, it is asserted that U.S. tax rates are so high that investment and overall economic activity has been greatly stifled. So stifled, in fact, that since individuals and businesses are paying so much of what they earn to the government, the incentives to take risks and work hard have been effectively removed from the economy – as a result, markedly less taxable economic activity is being than would otherwise be the case. With less taxable activity, there is less tax revenue. Under these extreme circumstances, lowering tax rates should actually boost economic activity to the degree that tax revenues will increase.

Unfortunately for McCain, the evidence against the Laffer Hypothesis is staggering, and few if any serious economists believe the hypothesis to be applicable to the U.S. tax code in its current state. The Department of the Treasury authoritatively showed this to be the case in this 2006 report. That report shows that in each of the four years following the 1981 and 2001 tax cuts, revenue markedly declined. In contrast, following the 1993 tax increases, revenue increased. Simple as that. It seems that the tradeoff does in fact exist: if you want more money to go to funding government services, you’re going to have to pay more in taxes. This really shouldn’t be all that surprising.

Not Just No Revenue … No Growth, Either!

While the Treasury report just cited is more than enough to refute the Laffer Hypothesis on its own, there is also a wealth of literature examining the hypothesis’ premises. Specifically, that literature looks at the merits of what is known as “supply-side economics”, or the school of thought that cutting taxes for businesses and wealthy investors (the “suppliers”, as opposed to the “consumers” in the economy) will markedly improve economic growth. In the American political landscape, this rationale for tax cuts has been equally if not more important than the issue of what will happen to government revenues.

Unfortunately, however, this rationale has been proven to have little if any merit. Ironically, not only have so-called “pro-growth” and “pro-investment” tax cuts been demonstrated to be incapable of raising revenues, they have also been shown (at least in their most recent manifestations) to be incapable of promoting growth or investment. The Center for American Progress (CAP) and the Economic Policy Institute (EPI) recently teamed up to add to the body of literature on this point with their report, “Take a Walk on the Supply Side: Tax Cuts on Profits, Savings, and the Wealthy Fail to Spur Economic Growth“.

In their report, CAP and EPI find that investment growth, as well as overall economic growth, were much stronger in the years following the 1993 federal tax hike, than in the years following the 1981 and 2001 tax cuts. Numerous other indicators suggest a similar finding: median household income, wages, employment growth, and of course, the federal budget, were all in much better shape following the 1993 tax hike than during either of the periods that followed “pro-growth” tax cuts.

Of course, tax policy isn’t the only determinant of economic performance. But if the supply-side argument has any merit, we shouldn’t have seen the economy surge so dramatically following “anti-growth” tax hikes, and fizzle in an equally dramatic fashion in the wake of “pro-growth” tax cuts. At the very least, we would have expected these opposing sets of tax policies to have brought these three periods closer into line with each other. Simply put, when the supply-siders got their chance in 1981 and 2001, they failed to produce results, and dug the nation deep into debt.

Backed by the Politicians, Refuted by the Experts

But aside from all the empirical evidence regarding the Laffer Hypothesis (the CAP/EPI report, as well as another EPI Report from Harvard Economist Jeffrey Frankel already cover that ground more than adequately), the other important point for today’s debate is what to make of various politicians’ inexplicable belief in this thoroughly disproved hypothesis. The allure of putting more money into the taxpayer’s pocket (via tax cuts) while at the same time putting more money into the government’s coffers (through increased economic activity and the associated higher tax revenues) is apparently irresistible, as evidenced by the following quotes taken from Frankel’s paper:

“The increase in revenues should be financed not by new and higher taxes, but by lower tax rates that would produce more money for the government by stimulating higher earnings by corporations and workers”
- President Ronald Reagan

“Some in Washington say we had to choose between cutting taxes and cutting the deficit. That was a false choice. The economic growth fueled by tax relief has helped send our tax revenues soaring. That’s what’s happened”
- President George W. Bush

“The deficit would have been bigger without the [2001] tax relief package”
- President George W. Bush

“It’s time for everyone to admit that sensible tax cuts increase economic growth, and add to the federal treasury”
- Vice President Cheney

More quotes of a similar vein can be found in Frankel’s paper. Also contained in that piece are valuable quotes directly from each of these administrations’ chairmen of the President’s Council of Economic Advisers. The statements of these highly trained economists reflect a remarkably different opinion on the Laffer Hypothesis:

“The height of supply-side hyperbole was the ‘Laffer curve’ proposition that the tax cut would actually increase tax revenue because it would unleash an enormously depressed supply of effort . [this has been] proven to be wrong”
- Martin Feldstein, chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers under President Reagan

“Although the economy grows in response to tax reductions, it is unlikely to grow so much that lost tax revenue is completely recovered by the higher level of economic activity”
- Glenn Hubbard, chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers under President George W. Bush

“Subsequent history failed to confirm Laffer’s conjecture that lower tax rates would raise more tax revenue. When Reagan cut taxes after he was elected, the result was less tax revenue, not more”
- Greg Manikew, chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers under President George W. Bush

The conflict between these two sets of quotes reflects deep divisions between the politicians and the experts with which they surround themselves. John McCain fits this pattern perfectly. Since McCain is not President (at least not yet), he does not have his own Council of Economic Advisers to refute his wild claims regarding tax cuts. He does, however, have Douglas Holtz-Eakin as his Senior Policy Adviser. Holtz-Eakin is a Princeton-trained economist and former head of the Congressional Budget Office. He also is on record as explicitly rejecting the Laffer Hypothesis.

But McCain isn’t taking Holtz-Eakin’s word for it. Aside from the quotes from John McCain cited earlier, further deference to the Laffer Hypothesis from the McCain camp has been evidenced by the candidate’s choice of Arthur Laffer, the chief proponent of the Laffer Hypothesis, as one of the campaign’s special economic advisers.

This whole asinine situation brings to mind McCain’s previous admission that “the issue of economics is something that I’ve never really understood as well as I should”. Perhaps, given his inadequacies in the subject area, he would be better off deferring to those who do understand it. More “pro-growth” tax cuts targeted to the most fortunate members of society, like McCain’s, are the exact opposite of what is needed.

Link to the original site

The biggest mistake people often make is not taking their debt seriously enough and submitting weak excuses why they should not have to pay, or shouldn’t have to pay the full amount. To the IRS, these are considered “frivolous tax arguments.”

The name sounds more innocuous that it is. Submitting frivolous tax arguments can hurt your case, a lot. It may disqualify you from certain resolution options, it may extend the time the IRS has to collect on you, it may make collections against you stronger, and it will surely piss off the IRS.

The Arguments
So, the first step in not submitting a frivolous tax argument is knowing what they are.

1. Arguing that the Federal Income Tax System is voluntary. Someone cannot be forced to file.
(Wesley Snipes took this route. Worked out pretty well for him, huh?)

2. Arguing the meaning of “income”: “taxable” versus “gross.”

3. Arguing the meaning of certain terms used in the IRS Manual:

• Argument 1: Taxpayer is not a “citizen” of the United States, thus not subject to the federal income tax laws
• Argument 2: The “United States” consists only of the District of Columbia, federal territories, and federal enclaves
• Argument 3: Taxpayer is not a “person” as defined by the Internal Revenue Code, thus is not subject to the federal income tax laws
• Argument 4: The only “employees” subject to federal income tax are employees of the federal government

4. Arguing through use on the Constitution:

• Argument 1: Taxpayers can refuse to pay income taxes on religious or moral grounds by invoking the First Amendment
• Argument 2: Federal income taxes constitute a “taking” of property without due process of law, violating the Fifth Amendment
• Argument 3: Taxpayers do not have to file returns or provide financial information because of the protection against self-incrimination found in the Fifth Amendment
• Argument 4: Compelled compliance with the federal income tax laws is a form of servitude in violation of the Thirteenth Amendment
• Argument 5: The Sixteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution was not properly ratified, thus the federal income tax laws are unconstitutional
• Argument 6: The Sixteenth Amendment does not authorize a direct non-apportioned federal income tax on United States citizens

5. Arguing through fictional legal claims:

• Argument 1: The Internal Revenue Service is not an agency of the United States
• Argument 2: Taxpayers are not required to file a federal income tax return, because the instructions and regulations associated with the Form 1040 do not display an OMB control number as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act
• Argument 3: African Americans can claim a special tax credit as reparations for slavery and other oppressive treatment
• Argument 4: Taxpayers are entitled to a refund of the Social Security taxes paid over their lifetime
• Argument 5: An “untaxing” package or trust provides a way of legally and permanently avoiding the obligation to file federal income tax returns and pay federal income taxes
• Argument 6: A “corporation sole” can be established and used for the purpose of avoiding federal income taxes

To read more on frivolous tax arguments, see the IRS article: “Frivolous Tax Arguments in General”

Now that you know what the frivolous tar arguments are, you need to know what you stand to risk if you file one. Check back next week for “The Frivolous Tax Argument: What You Stand to Loose”

Further Reading:
Myth: Taxpayer is not a “citizen” of the United States, thus
Myth: Wages, tips, and other compensation received for personal service are not income, thus
Myth: Filing “Zero” Reduces Your Tax Liability

Link to the original site

Combined, the two did not report about 2 million dollars in taxable income and were each sentenced to five years in prison.

Who are these people? Elaine was a dentist, and Ed was retired from a pest control business. The couple lived in New Hampshire. Doesn’t seem too exciting, does it?

But what really inducts this couple into the hall of shame is that after being found guilty, they refused to surrender to the federal government. A lengthy, armed standoff ensued. Why would they do this, facing gunned men and the US Government against them? The Browns said they had not been shown any legitimate law requiring them to pay taxes, so they felt they should not be forced to pay.

Where are they now? Edward Brown is imprisoned at the United States Penitentiary at Marion, Illinois. Elaine Brown is imprisoned at the Federal Medical Center, Carswell, near Fort Worth, Texas.

Link to the original site

Link to the original site