Search the archive.

Republicans, in theory, support measures to curb tax evasion but not if it means showering cash on the I.R.S. and doubling the size of its staff, as the Biden administration has proposed. The tax collection agency was never particularly popular with Republicans, who tend to embrace small government and low taxes. But their animus toward the I.R.S. became more impassioned in 2010, after Democrats and the Obama administration used it as a tool for enforcing the Affordable Care Act’s requirement that everyone buy health insurance. Republicans eventually repealed the tax penalty that enforced the mandate in 2017, but the health law remains in place. “As a general matter, Republicans have this theory that the best government is either no government or very small government,” said John Koskinen, who served as the commissioner of the I.R.S. from 2013 to 2017. “To the extent that you deny the government the ability to collect taxes that are owed, you limit the ability of the government to expand its operations.”

The debt-limit agreement highlights an overlooked threat to the $80 billion Democrats pushed through last summer for the IRS: That it will become a congressional piggybank. Nine-and-a-half months after the money was handed over to the agency, lawmakers are taking a quarter of it back, in order to stave off budget cuts to unrelated domestic programs. Though that’s helped ease the debt hike through Congress, some call it a precedent that could endanger the administration’s ambitious plans for the IRS. After all, lawmakers will continue to face demands for money, even after the debt fight passes, and the agency will still have nearly $60 billion in its coffers — most of which won’t be spent for years to come. The administration itself is downplaying the impact of the impending $21.4 billion cut, saying the money Democrats gave the IRS last year was always intended to be slowly spooled out over the next decade. Now, instead of running dry in ten years, the administration says, the money will be exhausted in eight. But, by that logic, lawmakers will surely ask why they can’t lop off another year or two or three off the back end, and use the savings for something else. “Once you start down this path…” said Sen. Ben Cardin (D-Md.), a senior tax writer. “It’s extremely disappointing.” That is an altogether different threat than had been the focus in Washington before the debt fight. Attention had been focused on Republicans’ promise to repeal the entire $80 billion, something they campaigned on in the run-up to the midterm elections but was never particularly likely, not with President Joe Biden in office and Democrats in charge of the Senate. A less stark but more potent risk is that the IRS money gets pulled into unrelated budget disputes, and Democrats are forced by Republicans to choose between cutting funding for the agency and other initiatives they also support. That’s essentially what’s happening with the debt deal between Biden and House Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.), who have agreed to use $20 billion of the money to prevent cuts over the next two years to domestic programs whose budgets are set each year by Congress. The plan would actually increase the deficit by $19 billion, according to a Congressional Budget Office estimate provided to Senate Budget Committee Chair Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.). Cutting IRS enforcement costs the government money because auditors bring in far more revenue than it costs to employ them. While the plan would save $21.4 billion in spending, CBO predicts it would reduce future tax collections by $40.4 billion. Nearly six times the agency’s annual budget, the $80 billion was intended to be used for a once-in-a-generation overhaul of the agency that would improve tax services, beef up enforcement and modernize its technology. The problem for the agency is that will be a very slow process. Though the money was approved last August, the IRS has barely begun to spend the cash. It only released its blueprint for the cash in April and has told lawmakers it anticipates spending only $2.8 billion by the end of 2023. By 2025, just $5.8 billion will have been obligated, the IRS says. Most of the cash won’t go out the door until sometime after 2027. That’s partly because it takes a long time to hire and train sophisticated auditors, something that will be particularly tough in a tight labor market. “You can readily see the risk, which is that the next time anyone needs money, they’ll say, ‘Well, there’s $60 billion there,’” said former IRS Commissioner Charles Rossotti.

My research will analyze whether the goals were of PRWORA to eliminate redistributive tax dollars from the middle class to the “undeserving” single mother households. The definition of redistributive public policy is the transfer of taxes from the rich to the poor; but in some instances the redistributive benefits comes from the middle class to the upper class in the form of regressive taxes. However, redistributive public policies that involves social welfare policy that taxes the upper and middle classes to fund programs for the lower class. Distributive public policy is when the government deems it is necessary to benefit a certain segment of society such as farmers or a community after a disaster without raises taxes on the public. Distributive public policies are not controversial because the taxpayers are not being asked to fund another segment of society’s lifestyle. Redistributive public policy has been an ongoing debate since the 1960s with the increase in single mother household that were chronically dependent on government for their income. Redistributive tax policies have a racial undertone that intimates that single mothers, specifically African-American single mothers are not productive and are dependent on the governmental support for themselves and their children. The perception by many in the public is that the single mother households are not deserving of ongoing support of the taxpayers. The conservative ideology is defined as valuing tradition, religion, and institutions. The people holding conservatives values and ideology are usually the wealthy and the fundamentalist Christians and other conservative religious groups.

The term "fiscal aspects" is not defined anywhere in the Swiss order. Other passages, however, shed light [**30] on the Swiss court's intent. On page one of the (29-page) order, the Swiss court observed that Zurich authorities had opened two cases against Cuevas, one "because of financing illegal activities in narcotics trading," a second "for collection of wrongfully obtained capital gains."

The second prosecution, relating to taxes, provides the most obvious referent for the term "fiscal aspects." Such a construction of "fiscal aspects" (relating to taxes or financial penalties) is supported by the following central, but ambiguous passage of the extradition order:

But it is nonsense to find talismanic significance in the idea of taking money from the public as a whole. See Michelman, supra note 11, at 146-49 (arguing that within the liberal tradition Scalia's concession that general redistribution is permissible commits him to principles that justify affirmative welfare rights). Progressive taxes take money from some, high income earners, and transfer it through public assistance to others, low or no income earners. Indeed, the very definition of redistribution is to take from some to give to others. Taxes may be a good mechanism for redistribution because legislators may encounter difficulty in singling out one group for adverse, perhaps unfair, treatment. Justice Scalia is unconvincing, however, in his effort to demonstrate that the entire class of landlords is less likely to be unfairly singled out than, for example, the class of high income earners. See Note, Taking a Step Back: A Reconsideration of the Takings Test of Nollan v. California Coastal Commission, 102 HARV. L. REV. 448, 464 (1988) (challenging the claim that tax policy is more democratic than regulatory policy). In short, once redistribution becomes a permissible goal of government, the standard for unfair redistribution cannot be derived from mere allegations that the purpose of a statute is redistributional. See generally Rose, Mahon Reconstructed: Why the Takings Issue is Still a Muddle, 57 S. CAL. L. REV. 561 (1984) (characterizing the ambivalence of takings clause jurisprudence toward redistribution as the inevitable result of the tension within the American tradition between property as wealth and property as virtue).

I like that explanation and I use that in my class as a justification for what sometimes we call income redistribution. And basically the idea is this, can take something away from, I’m going to keep picking on tim cook today, i can take 100 away from tim cook and he doesn't hardly even notice and i can give it to somebody who's a starving student and they are just thrilled to have that extra hundred dollars and so Tim cook's not any sadder and the other person is much happier and collectively in society then we are happier overall. So and i think it's a good i think it's a good i think it's reasonable it certainly has limits but it's a reasonable way to think about the world. So you said you use that to explain income redistribution what's the difference what's the connection between income redistribution and progressivity? Well one connection is this so what you were talking about was just one side of the equation which is the government taking the income. The other side of the equation is…you have to you have to make the evil voice taking the income yeah okay so the government's gonna take your income and by the way um it took my income uh well i filed my taxes jeff was saying he filed his on saturday night i'm doing them saturday filed them today like half an hour ago okay so i i'm almost worse than you i started on saturday night i could not bear to finish i finished on sunday night fearing that something would come up that i would have to resolve on monday it turned out it was fine so i did file on late sunday night electronically. So the the government took all my money but they're not going to just take that money and burn it they're going to take that money and do something with it including possibly directly giving it to someone who doesn't have very much money and so that's where the redistribution part of it comes in. The government doesn't literally take only take from rich people they give, sometimes, to poor people. I would say they're pretty i mean as long as when you said it literally you said as long as they don't burn it as long as they don't burn it and as long as they're not taking rich people to just like shuffle things around and give back to rich people then they're the same thing, progressive, yeah.

Fiscal redistribution is defined as the reduction in income inequality, brought about by government via taxes and transfers. Their findings indicate that only in countries characterized as young democracies do elections exert a positive impact on fiscal redistribution. Moreover, their work suggests that the effect of elections is strongest in young democracies characterized by relatively higher political instability. Further details can be found at: Kammas P. and V. Sarantides (2015). Fiscal redistribution around elections when democracy is not “the only game in town” SERPS 2015019.

1 The Theory of Fiscal Redistribution: Key Analytical Insights

In this Handbook, “fiscal redistribution” refers to the process by which the state collects revenues from individuals and households (primarily through taxes) and spends these revenues on benefits (for example, cash transfers, price subsidies, and in-kind benefits such as education and health) intended for specific individuals and households. In so doing, the state changes the postfiscal income distribution and poverty rates that would have prevailed in the absence of fiscal policy. Because of behavioral responses and general equilibrium effects, fiscal policy can also change the prefiscal income distribution and poverty rates. While at this point the CEQ Assessments do not estimate the counterfactual prefiscal income with these second-round effects in place, it is important to note that the analytical insights presented here and in chapters 2 (Enami, Lustig, and Aranda), 3 (Enami), 4 (Higgins and Lustig), and 5 (Enami) apply to fiscally included income redistribution regardless of the method used to estimate its extent. That is, regardless of whether fiscal redistribution is calculated using run-of-the-mill fiscal incidence analysis, microsimulation methods, or partial or general equilibrium modeling, the theoretical results discussed below and in the next four chapters apply.

The third central concept is (income) redistribution. As Tullock argues, ‘‘redistribution is probably the most important function of most modern governments’’ (Tullock, 2013, p. 1). However, the level of redistribution and its cross-sectional variation cannot be modeled using only purely economic explanations, such as the level of inequality in a given society (see McCarty & Pontusson, 2009). Therefore, I focus on the question of how political processes and institutions, such as autocratic ruling strategies and the degree of incumbent party institutionalization, determine the level of redistribution and inequality. In this dissertation, redistribution is broadly defined as the transfer of resources from one person or group to another person or group (see also Albertus, 2015; Boadway & Keen, 2000; Solt, 2020; Tullock, 2013). More precisely, income or fiscal redistribution is defined as the transfer of resources via taxes and fiscal transfer policies from one person or group to another. By contrast, land redistribution —a second influential type of redistribution (Albertus, 2015) —is defined as land reform measures that lead to a reallocation of land properties from landed elites to the landed poor.10 In addition, income redistribution is also often conceptualized as the transfer of resources to the poor.

The present redistributive policy focus is on a particular type of government redistribution that may be called direct fiscal redistribution to the poor (hereafter DFRP). Fiscal redistribution refers here to redistribution of money and in-kind income among strata of households by means of both government spending and taxing (i.e., fiscal) activities. For example, increased generosity in public assistance payment levels and reliance upon progressive income as opposed to regressive sales taxes can provide positive fiscal redistribution. Direct fiscal redistribution refers to that part of such redistribution that can be accounted for in terms of government's relatively direct and immediate give-and-take of expenditures and taxes to and from income strata of households. Current evidence suggests that such redistribution is considerable in advanced capitalist political democracies, especially vis-à-vis the poor (e.g., Reynolds and Smolensky, 1977; Hicks and Swank, 1984b). During the 1970s DFRP apparently augmented the "pre-fisc" income share of poor households in the U.S. by over 100 percent (see Reynolds and Smolensky, 1977: 74 on the U.S.; and Hicks and Swank, 1984b on advanced capitalism).

Funding for agencies does not happen in a single subcommittee. Functionally, “the IRS is competing against other agencies,” Holtzblatt said. While the IRS looks at its budget in totality, in appropriations, a subcommittee looks at many agencies that fit together within a broad category. This point is key because the IRS has several functions, so in the appropriations process, those functions will be separately identified and appropriated for. Whether the agency gets the money it seeks or that money goes to another agency with a similar function depends on a roll of the dice. And with Republicans dispositionally opposed to the IRS, it will be a challenge for the agency to win those battles.

One of the most conspicuous parts of the tax-and-spending package known as the Inflation Reduction Act is vastly expanded funding — an additional $80 billion over 10 years — for the Internal Revenue Service. If the IRS lacks the means to do its job well, could that be because its job is far more demanding than it ought to be? Yes: The IRS struggles to administer the system because U.S. taxes are insanely complicated. In this respect, the purportedly bold innovation on funding for the agency is partly a tribute to the status quo. The enormous increase in spending is combined with another new batch of complexities. Highlights include incentives for climate-related investments and assorted other good things, and a minimum corporate tax that requires eligible companies to calculate what they owe not one way but two, then pay the larger sum. Changes like these serve legitimate purposes, but they are partly self-defeating. With one hand you incentivize decisions that serve the public interest; with the other, you cancel them out by closing “loopholes.” On top of which, every further complication is an opportunity for tax avoidance, an added compliance burden on taxpayers and the IRS alike, and a transfer of income from producers of socially valuable goods and services to accountants and lawyers eager for their share of the resulting deadweight loss.

Adequate IRS Resources Especially Important If Major Tax Changes Enacted Fundamental changes to the tax system are high on Republicans’ legislative agenda. Their proposals are expected to be similar to plans put forward last year by House Republicans and President Trump during the campaign, which would dramatically alter the individual and business tax systems.[25] A revamped tax code would have major implications for IRS resources. IRS staff would need to become familiar with the new tax system in order to interpret and enforce tax laws and counsel taxpayers. Changes to information technology systems would likely be needed to reflect new policies. And tax legislation often requires the IRS to lead extensive rulemaking processes to develop and finalize new regulations. Each of these responsibilities could strain IRS resources in any funding environment, let alone one in which IRS funding is being cut.

As with any new tax, implementing a VAT would impose administrative costs on the federal government and compliance costs on businesses. The magnitude of those costs would vary depending on the tax's design and implementation method. Administrative costs to the federal government are not included in the estimates for this option. Implementing a VAT would require the federal government to establish a new system to monitor compliance and collect the tax. Research has shown that at least some countries that have implemented a VAT devote significant resources to addressing and enforcing compliance.

The objective of the carbon tax with reinvestment is what makes this tax so much more appealing and feasible in combating climate change. The carbon tax with reinvestment starts low ($5/ton), increases annually until it reaches $50/ton to allow the construction market to adjust, the revenues peak and then begin to decline rapidly as emissions decline.200 As stated, excise taxation is not a new concept for the United States. For this reason, no new organizations will be created for tax regulation purposes. The carbon tax with reinvestment will be implemented and regulated by the IRS and the EPA, using the existing, knowledgeable staff.

Tax Administration and Associated Infrastructure Given the focus on a federal carbon tax, we assume that the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) would be charged with administration of the program. While this is a logical choice, arguments could be made for other agencies to administer the program, such as the EPA or Department of Energy given their expertise in energy and GHG emissions. Assuming the IRS is administrating the tax, the agency will certainly need to incorporate data or infrastructure from other federal, and possibly state, sources into its tax guidance in order to implement the program. The importance of robust and reliable reporting and tax payment infrastructure cannot be overstated in the context of a carbon tax. First and foremost, accurate reporting is required to prevent fraud, which undermines faith in the program and its effectiveness, and also reduces revenue. Almost as important is the need to make calculation and payment of the tax as streamlined and as simple as possible to reduce political opposition to what is effectively a new regulatory requirement on businesses, and to minimize the cost of administering the program. There are a number of existing frameworks that could be used on their own or in combination to support the administration of a carbon tax.

A second characteristic that affects administrative costs is the “measurability” of the tax base. Intuitively, a tax base that is easier to measure for tax liability calculation would incur a lower administrative cost than a tax base that is harder to measure. For example, carbon emission levels are more difficult to measure and report than input or output levels. As a result, the more heterogeneous that production processes and technologies are across the industries, the higher the administrative costs would be, as more resources would be needed to examine, monitor, and validate each industry’s emissions.11

Other features of the tax code can indirectly impact administrative costs. For example, higher tax rates and overall tax burdens can indirectly increase administrative costs. Larger tax liabilities and higher tax rates create more incentives for taxpayers to evade paying tax and require the government to allocate resources to reducing tax evasion.15

See FN15. Smulders et al., “The Case of Carbon Taxation.”; Gale et al., “Administrative Issues in Tax Reform.”

Marie Sapirie: Turning to the existing carbon tax proposals. A critique of them generally is that they will introduce complexity and administrative burdens. They're also potentially regressive and less rebated to lower income taxpayers in some way, and are economically disruptive. Could you tell us about the challenges to implementing a carbon tax that need to be considered? David Kreutzer: Pretty much anything that raises energy costs is going to be regressive because people with lower income spend a higher percentage of their income on energy, on gasoline, on heating, and so on. A carbon tax would be no different than just simply any regulation that would do the same thing. The other complexities are where do you charge the tax? You could imagine the carbon tax proposal being similar to the cap and trade proposal, where they looked at oil and petroleum refiners, taxing the refiners, taxing natural gas producers, and taxing coal at the mine mouth. But there is also going to be problems with what you do with people who are doing offsets. Certainly that's going to be part of it because Wall Street wants to have something to trade. Then you get up, well, how much carbon is saved by a farmer that uses no till in Iowa that otherwise was going to use a plow? All of that introduces scientific complexity, as well as just administrative complexity. They're also simply administrative costs. Any tax has administrative costs. You'd want to look at whether those would be significant compared to whatever benefit you're trying to provide and the problem of people viewing the carbon tax not as a market efficiency generator, but as a revenue generator. Marie Sapirie: Are there ways to avoid or to minimize some of the potential problems with the implementation of a carbon tax? David Kreutzer: I think it's difficult to avoid the ones that I just laid out. Economists have a bad habit of coming up with wonderful ideas that work in the abstract and ignore the politics of actually getting them implemented. One of my professors won a Nobel Prize doing something called public choice and saying, "You need to look at what are the political incentives that come around with these various tools that you want to implement." I did some modeling of the revenue part of a carbon tax with some colleagues when I was at the Heritage Foundation. Even a carbon tax of $25, $30, growing by the rate of interest, generates hundreds of billions of dollars a year in revenue. It also does hundreds of billions of dollars of economic damage to the economy each year. If the solution to a problem is going to fund your pet project, you're much more likely to believe there is that problem. I think we see that. People on Capitol Hill talk about we need to fix the climate problem, but they're really excited about the revenue. Marie Sapirie: Recent carbon tax proposals include a border adjustment. An export rebate coupled with an import tax equal to the domestic tax. What are the merits and the potential problems in that approach? David Kreutzer: Yeah, that maybe is the most compelling sounding part of this thing. But it is, I think, the most dangerous. It is a constant battle to keep people that want tariffs and other trade restrictions at bay. There are always special interests that want to protect whatever their industry is or whatever their product is. It's an almost impossible task for economists to keep that as low as possible. This carbon border adjustment would be very, very difficult to set up. I mean, you'd have to know, for instance, if you're bringing in a car from Japan, how much of a carbon tax did they have in Japan? Did they import something from Korea where they had a different carbon tax? Did they use steel from some other country? What's the carbon content that hasn't been taxed and all of these products that are coming in?

Several members of Congress have floated different carbon tax bills in recent days, some of which have both Democratic and Republican sponsorship. But marginal bipartisan support for enacting a new tax on American families and businesses doesn’t make it good policy. Different models and prices have been proposed, but they all tax activities that emit carbon dioxide on the premise that emissions are responsible for global warming, a cost to society which otherwise isn’t accounted for. They propose to address this “market failure” with a policy that could well lead to economic failure. Families would pay more at the meter and the pump. Approximately 80% of America’s energy needs are met by natural gas, oil, and coal, which means the costs would be economy-wide. It would cost more to manufacture, which would drive up the price of manufactured goods. And it would cost more to farm, which would drive up the costs of food. Analysts at The Heritage Foundation used the U.S. Energy Administration Information’s energy model to estimate the effects of a carbon tax to reduce carbon dioxide emissions as aggressively as possible between now and 2040. According to the model’s results, a carbon tax would cause: Even worse, the burden would be heaviest on low-income families who spend a higher portion of their budget on energy costs. Some carbon tax proposals acknowledge this and offer rebates from the tax revenue collected. But even if a rebate check compensates low-income families for their higher energy bills, it won’t undo the damage they’ll incur from paying more for groceries, clothes, health care, and everything else they buy because of the increased cost of energy for all those providers. Some supporters talk of returning the tax revenue to the people in various ways, but not without taking some kind of cut for their own special interests, whether for green energy projects or new infrastructure. Then there’s the bureaucratic nightmare of implementing a new tax. Acknowledging that a carbon tax would harm American businesses and U.S. competitiveness, carbon tax proponents suggest enacting a border adjustment tax for imported goods from countries where no carbon pricing exists. Others propose to eliminate environmental regulations in exchange for a carbon tax. Administering border taxes on goods imported from countries without carbon taxes “would be enormously complex, requiring an estimate of the tax-equivalent value of the given policies under examination,” said resident American Enterprise Institute scholar Benjamin Zycher. And the administrative state would be empowered to make decisions micromanaging the economy via tax policy.