[Mb-civic] An article for you from an Economist.com reader.

Mon Nov 29 11:30:10 PST 2004

- AN ARTICLE FOR YOU, FROM ECONOMIST.COM - 

Dear Civic,

Michael Butler (michael at intrafi.com) wants you to see this article on Economist.com.

(Note: the sender's e-mail address above has not been verified.)

Subscribe to Economist.com now and save 25% by clicking here now
http://www.economist.com/subscriptions/offer.cfm?campaign=168-XLMT

A PROMISING ALTERNATIVE
Nov 25th 2004  

In the alternative minimum tax, America may have a ready-made route to
tax reform

 GEORGE BUSH wants to overhaul America's tax code. The newly re-elected
president has declared tax reform to be a top economic goal for his
second term, alongside the revamping of Social Security (the public
pension system). A commission is being set up, to mull over options.
Washington's tax wonks are busily speculating about what Mr Bush might
do.

 So far, the president has done no more than mention general
principles. He wants to make the tax code simpler and fairer, and to
encourage saving and investment. He wants to eliminate
loopholes--although he has also hinted that some tax incentives for
buying homes and giving to charity must stay. In addition, he has
promised that reform will not mean an increase in the total taxes
Americans pay.

 Much of this makes sense. To economists, a good tax system is one that
raises money with minimal distortion to the economy. That means
marginal tax rates should be low and the tax base should be broad, with
few if any exemptions. The system should be simple, to keep down the
costs of compliance and monitoring. America's tax system falls far
short of this ideal. It is monstrously complicated. The cost of
complying with taxes is estimated to be well over $100 billion a year,
or more than 10% of income-tax receipts. A lot of the trouble is that
America's tax code is not only a means of raising money, but also the
government's main social-policy tool, not to mention a prime source of
pork-barrel patronage dispensed by congressmen. Refundable tax credits
are also the chief form of income support for the working poor. When
politicians want to encourage home ownership, the purchase of health
insurance or attendance at college, or merely to help a favoured
industry, they reach for tax breaks.

All this makes the chances of radical reform slim. Nonetheless, some
change is possible, thanks to the alternative minimum tax (AMT).
Introduced in 1969, this little-known back-up to the income tax was
designed to ensure that rich Americans could not avoid paying income
tax entirely by claiming too many deductions. It allows fewer
deductions than the normal income tax (mortgage interest, donations to
charity and a few other things). It is also less progressive, with two
rates, of 26% and 28%, levied on income above a certain, tax-free
amount, which for a married couple has long been $45,000. Under today's
law, Americans have to pay either income tax or the AMT, whichever is
higher. 

 Until recently, few Americans owed more under the AMT than under the
standard system. Only 1.3m people paid the AMT in 2000. But because the
AMT's tax-exempt amount is not indexed to inflation and because Mr
Bush's tax cuts are reducing Americans' bills under the standard
income-tax, the number of AMT payers is rising and is set to climb
dramatically in the next few years. The number is already 3m. According
to economists at the Tax Policy Centre in Washington, DC, by 2010 it
could reach almost 30m, around one in four taxpayers.

NOT THE PROBLEM, BUT THE SOLUTION
 Most politicians regard the advance of the AMT as a problem that needs
to be fixed. The notion that 30m Americans would be forced to calculate
their tax liabilities twice and that they would lose their many
(popular) tax incentives, particularly deductions for children, is seen
as politically unfeasible. Already the exemption has been raised,
temporarily, to $58,000, to keep a lid on the number paying the AMT.
Unfortunately, this will be an expensive course to maintain. Increasing
the exemption in line with inflation would cost $400 billion in forgone
tax revenue over the next decade. If Mr Bush's tax cuts are made
permanent, that figure rises to over $600 billion. 

 From the perspective of tax reform, however, the AMT is less an
expensive problem than an opportunity. Why not use the AMT as the
vehicle for tax reform? By 2009, it will be less costly to ditch the
income tax and keep the AMT than to repeal the AMT and carry on with
the income tax. The AMT is far from perfect--its personal exemption is
not indexed; quirks in its structure can mean high marginal rates for
some taxpayers; and it allows some needless deductions--but it is less
riddled with loopholes than the current income tax. Thus it is a good
starting-place for base-broadening, exemption-ending reform. 

 In theory, it might be better to shift to a national sales tax, a flat
tax or another type of consumption tax than to pursue tax reform via
the AMT. But practicalities count too, and the advance of the AMT could
be used to make big improvements on the income tax. The AMT could be
made more progressive, and the most popular incentives of today's
income tax retained, without bringing in all the more outrageous
exemptions. This could be a stepping stone to further change later. 

 Michael Graetz, a tax expert at Yale University, has come up with an
innovative way to do this. He proposes simplifying America's tax code
dramatically. He would replace the income tax with the AMT, but with an
exemption of $100,000 per family and a single rate of 25%. With a
$100,000 exemption, only 25m people would need to pay income taxes,
around one-fifth of today's figure. To make up for the lost revenue, Mr
Graetz suggests introducing a value-added tax of between 10% and 15%.
This would shift the tax base towards consumption rather than income,
and would thus be friendlier to saving. Marginal rates would be low.
And the system would be simpler. To retain progressivity and mitigate
the impact on the poor, Mr Graetz suggests that poorer Americans could
get tax relief on their contributions to Social Security. 

Taken together, Mr Graetz's plans imply a wholesale change to America's
tax system. That may render them politically unrealistic. Nonetheless,
the looming AMT crisis suggests that America has a rare opportunity to
clean up its tax code. If he is really serious about reform, Mr Bush
should grasp it.

See this article with graphics and related items at http://www.economist.com/email/confirm.cfm

Go to http://www.economist.com for more global news, views and analysis from the Economist Group.

- ABOUT ECONOMIST.COM -

Economist.com is the online version of The Economist newspaper, an independent weekly international news and business publication offering clear reporting, commentary and analysis on world politics, business, finance, science & technology, culture, society and the arts. Economist.com also offers exclusive content online, including additional articles throughout the week in the Global Agenda section.

- SUBSCRIBE NOW AND SAVE 25% -

Click here: http://www.economist.com/subscriptions/offer.cfm?campaign=168-XLMT

Subscribe now with 25% off and receive full access to: 

* all the articles published in The Economist newspaper
* the online archive - allowing you to search and retrieve over 33,000 articles published in The Economist since 1997 
* The World in 2004 - The Economist's outlook on 2004 
* The US Election 2004 - providing dedicated coverage of the election, including articles from Roll Call, Capitol Hill's leading political publication 
* Business encyclopedia - allows you to find a definition and explanation for any business term 

- ABOUT THIS E-MAIL -

This e-mail was sent to you by the person at the e-mail address listed
above through a link found on Economist.com.  We will not send you any 
future messages as a result of your being the recipient of this e-mail.

- COPYRIGHT -

Economist.com privacy policy: http://www.economist.com/about/privacy.cfm