OneTax

Part of a series on Taxation
Taxation in the United States
Federal taxation
Authority · History Internal Revenue Service (Court • Forms • Code • Revenue) Taxpayer standing Income tax · Payroll tax Alternative Minimum Tax Estate tax · Excise tax Gift tax · Corporate tax Capital gains tax
State and local taxation
State income tax State tax levels Sales tax · Use tax Property tax Land value tax
Federal tax reform Automated payment transaction tax Competitive Tax Plan Efficient Taxation of Income Hall–Rabushka flat tax Taxpayer Choice Act USA Tax · Value Added Tax FairTax · Flat tax
Tax protesting History America: Freedom to Fascism The Law that Never Was Cheek v. United States Tax protesters Irwin Schiff Richard M. Simkanin Robert Clarkson Tom Cryer Vivien Kellems Wayne C. Bentson Wesley Snipes Tax protester arguments Constitutional 16th Amendment Statutory · Conspiracy
Taxation by country Australia British Virgin Islands Canada · China Colombia · France Germany · Hong Kong India · Indonesia Ireland · Netherlands New Zealand · Peru Russia · Singapore Switzerland · Tanzania United Kingdom United States European Union Tax rates around the world Tax revenue as % of GDP v · d · e
v · d · e

The OneTax is a tax reform plan and proposed amendment to the United States Constitution that eliminates the federal income tax for all individuals earning less than $215,870.^[1][2] The OneTax is described as revenue-neutral, which means that it compensates for lost revenue from the income tax by closing loopholes and eliminating tax expenditures in the current income tax system. ^[3]

Background

The current United States income tax system imposes higher costs of tax compliance than any other country, with direct costs exceeding $460 billion, and indirect deadweight loss costs of over $1.2 trillion.^[4] As this figure was calculated in 2004, it is likely that the actual current deadweight loss caused by the income tax is more than $1.4 trillion. As a national sales would create comparable deadweight loss, tax reform plans like OneTax aim to reduce or eliminate income tax compliance costs without instituting a national sales tax.

History

The OneTax and plans like it was first created in the 1990s by policy wonks outside the beltway, seeking to put forward a tax simplification plan that wasn't regressive. At the time, the major tax reform proposals were the FairTax and flat tax, both of which are regressive with regards to income.^[5] The first recorded mention of this reform by a political candidate for national office was at a "Town Hall" campaign event held in Smithfield, Rhode Island in 2002.^[6] In 2011, the Republican Presidential Primary race brought tax reform proposals to the fore. In addition, discussion of the plan as a way to eliminate the income tax for "the 99%" has become a topic of the Occupy Movement.^[7]

• 

  OneTax flyer from Occupy Oakland.

Implementation

The core piece of the reform is a proposed Constitutional Amendment which repeals the Sixteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, but carves out taxes on income to remain in place for two specifically defined ways:

1. The United States federal government may tax income on those individuals earning more than ten times the per capita income as determined by the most recent census.

2. The United States federal government may continue to collect a payroll tax on all workers, the proceeds of which are earmarked for exclusive transfer to, or provision of health care benefits for, those persons aged 65 or older.^[1]

Effects

The primary effect is the elimination of the present personal income tax system and the elimination of 97.6% of all personal income tax compliance costs,^[1] and the elimination of more than 96% of the current deadweight loss.^[4] These two items alone should create an immediate boost of more than $2.1 trillion to the lagging U.S. economy.

Controversy

It is not in dispute that the OneTax will lead to higher effective tax rates for higher-income individuals (or it will lead to significantly lower federal spending).^{[citation needed]} Many opponents of such tax changes argue that the country's highest income earners are the economy's "job creators".^[8] These opponents claim that taxing wealthy individuals at a higher rates will discourage job creation.

Others argue that the current low rate of tax on capital gains encourages investment and is necessary for the long-term stability and growth of the United States and world economy. Meanwhile still others, such as Warren Buffett claim that higher tax rates on the rich do not discourage investment and growth.^[9]

Revenue neutrality and effective tax rate

Critics argue that the OneTax cannot be revenue neutral within raising the top marginal income tax rate above 39.6%. In 2009 (the most recent year for which the IRS publishes statistics), total income tax collected (not including payroll tax) was $867 billion dollars. The total taxable income for those making $200,000 or greater was $1.663 trillion dollars. Therefore, to remain revenue neutral, shifting the income tax to those earning more than $200,000 would require an effective rate of 52%. The total taxable income for those making $200,000 or less is $3.46 trillion dollars.^{[10] [11]}

OneTax supporters claim that the proposal addresses these concerns not by raising the top marginal rate, but by eliminating other loopholes created for high income earners. Fewer than 30% of Americans realize that the payroll tax generates almost as much federal revenue as the income tax.^[12] Currently, all earnings above $106,000 are exempt from the payroll tax, meaning that the majority of federal taxes collected on the middle class are collected through a regressive tax. Eliminating this exemption raises the highest effective marginal tax rate to about 48% - similar to the effective tax rate currently paid by small business owners with incomes below $150,000. This change, combined with the elimination of other exemptions, it is argued, allows the OneTax to remain revenue neutral despite eliminating income tax filing for more than 98% of American households.

See also

• Occupy movement
• Fair Tax
• Flat Tax
• 9-9-9 plan

References

1. ^ ^{a b c} Bartlett, Bruce. The Benefit and The Burden: Tax Reform-Why We Need It and What It Will Take. Simon & Schuster. 
2. ^ "Personal Income and It's Disposition 1990-2010" (PDF). United States Bureau of the Census. April 2011. http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2012/tables/12s0678.pdf. Retrieved 2011-11-03. 
3. ^ InvestorGuide.com. "Definition of Revenue Neutral". http://www.investorwords.com/8338/revenue_neutral.html. Retrieved 2011-11-03. 
4. ^ ^{a b} Johnsson, Richard (June 2004). Taxation and Domestic Free Trade. The Ratio Institute. 
5. ^ Gale, William (March 1998). "Don't Buy the Sales Tax". The Brookings Institution. http://www.brookings.edu/papers/1998/03taxes_gale.aspx. Retrieved 2011-11-03. 
6. ^ "Candidate Seeks Wholesale Tax Reform". Bristol Phenix. July 2002. 
7. ^ "Occupy San Diego: No Platform But Some Ideas". La Jolla Light. October 2011. 
8. ^ Trumbull,Mark (September 16, 2011). "Boehner vs. Obama: Are US job creators really on strike?". The Christian Science Monitor. http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2011/0916/Boehner-vs.-Obama-Are-US-job-creators-really-on-strike. Retrieved 2011-11-03. 
9. ^ Calmes,Jackie (September 17, 2011). "Obama Tax Plan Would Ask More Of Millionaires". The New York Times. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/18/us/politics/obama-tax-plan-would-ask-more-of-millionaires.html. Retrieved 2011-11-03. 
10. ^ "IRS Tax Statistics". http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/histab3.xls. Retrieved November 3, 2011. 
11. ^ "100 Percent Tax on Those Earning $500K or More Leaves U.S. With $839B Deficit". http://cnsnews.com/news/article/100-percent-tax-those-earning-500k-or-more-leaves-us-839b-deficit. Retrieved November 3, 2011. 
12. ^ Kaiser Kennedy School (May 15, 2011). American's Knowledge Of Federal Tax Statistics. 

Cite error: <ref> tag with name "refCensus2012" defined in <references> is not used in prior text; see the help page.

Cite error: <ref> tag with name "refFerrara" defined in <references> is not used in prior text; see the help page.

External links