Ad Perfect | Ocala.com | Star-Banner | Ocala, FL
Opinion
Home > Opinion > Blogs > Frame 37

Ocala.com Bloggers

Broken News
Bill Thompson
Digital Editor
Eric Barnes
Frame 37
Ocala.com Multimedia
Marion Politics
Newsroom
Observations
Naseem S. Miller
OcalaDay
Joe Byrnes
Read My E-Mail
Allen Parson
Running Wide Open
Joe Vanhoose
Speaking of Business...
Dr. Philip R. Geist
The Bowling Blog
Debbie Whitten
The Green Zone
Dave Rhea
The Sports Blog
Gregory Broome
What is that?
Newsroom
 Search Blogs
 
      
 Blog Archives
 
      
 Not another word about taxes by Dan Andrews
 
Location: BlogsWebster University Business Experts    
Posted by: Webster University 4/5/2007
…Ok, just a few more. It’s that time of year when many of us are thinking about filing our federal income tax returns. I am not. But I am thinking about filing many others’ returns. I am Dan Andrews, an instructor at Webster University and a CPA in private practice.
 
Wednesday’s announcement by the Justice Department that it is trying to shut down more than 125 Jackson Hewitt tax preparation offices for allegedly participating in fraudulent activity that may have cost the U. S. treasury more than $70 million started me, again, to think about how we administer our tax collection system in the country. (See the story in the April 4 Star Banner.)
 
Such problems are not new, nor are they rare. They occur because we employ a tax system that allows dishonest persons to exploit it. You’ve probably heard about many proposals for tax reform in the last few years whose goals included simplification, reducing the costs of compliance, and making the collection process more efficient. To date none of the proposals have seen the light of day in Congress. Why is this? Do we accountants have such a strong lobby in Washington that is working to maintain the complexity of the tax laws? Hardly. My colleagues shake our heads just as the average taxpayer does at the complexity of the laws and regulations we are governed by.
 
I believe that in general most accountants would like to see genuine reform of the revenue laws that would benefit every taxpayer and reduce the incidents of fraud such as the one mentioned above. If we accountants did not have to spend so much time helping our clients comply with the law (time that we all pay for, incidentally), we could develop practices that could bring more value-creating services to our clients. The savings in compliance costs and the increased value that could be added by offering sound consulting services would have an immensely positive impact on our economy.
 
If meaningful tax reform ever occurs, accountants might have less tax compliance work to do and therefore we would have to make huge changes in the way we do business. We would have to find other things to do. But we have been meeting the challenges brought on by change for many years. We are accustomed to it.
 
In future posts I will have more to say on all things taxing. Let me know your thoughts on this issue and on what you would like to read about.
Permalink |  Trackback

Comments (3)   Add Comment
Re: Not another word about taxes by Dan Andrews    By Karen Fattorosi on 4/4/2007
Hello Dan: Welcome to the blog. What keeps the current tax system in place? A good argument can be made for inertia....and the impossibility of moving such a gargantuan mass. It seems to be an administrative nightmare which may be justifying its own existance. Help me understand, please.

Re: Not another word about taxes by Dan Andrews    By Jo Clifford on 4/5/2007
Dan, I support Neal Boortz and his "Fair Tax" movement. Tax reform is past due. What is your take on a fair tax initiative?

Re: Not another word about taxes by Dan Andrews    By Dan Andrews on 4/5/2007
Inertia is a good word to describe why it is so hard to change anything in Washington. To speak of specifics, there are too many entrenched interests and fiefdoms in Washington. Virtually any change will mean that some would gain and some would lose-at least for a time. Political rhetoric would rule the day, rather than objective, reasoned, fact-based discussion. [I am being naive to suggest that such a thing is even possible in most legislative bodies.] We also can't predict what would happen to the economy if we were to change the system. I think that there are some experts who can make accurate predictions, but they are not likely to get a hearing in the debate. Only the loudest voices ever do.

We also have to understand that the tax system is the most powerful toll the government has to affect behavior and, with that power, influence social policy. If we reformed the system in a way that it had only the power to raise revenue then Congress would be without a very large stick with which to practice social engineering, i. e., to get us to behave in certain ways. Virtually every clause in the entire statutory structure is designed either to influence behavior in some way, or to give some break to a constituency.

Another reason that reform is so hard is that most people just simply do not understand enough about the basics of the system and about business and economics, and therefore, most are not able to make good evaluations of the merits of different reform proposals. They are too easily swayed by the loudest voices, not the most reasoned ones.

I have been asked many times, why can't I just pay a tax on what I make and be done with it? Well, the central issue in taxatioin is defining and quantifying what "what I make" is. Not all income is, nor should be, taxable. Even with a flat tax, one must still determine the income on which the flat tax is to be levied.

The Fair Tax seems to be a reasonable proposal. That may be its biggest flaw. But, I believe that for the reasons mentioned above, it will not ever get a fair hearing. I think it also needs some sponsors who are more popular on the Hill than Boortz. Face it, he does not have too many friends up there, and, unfortunately, it's more about the messenger than the merits of the message.


Your name:
Title:
Comment:
Add Comment   Cancel