Commentary on the economy, the markets, and business

How to get rich people and politicians to pay their taxes

I have an idea. It's an entirely impractical idea. But so is running a democracy where minimizing what you pay in taxes is a badge of honor, as opposed to a blatant shirking of one's patriotic duty. I might not always like what our government spends money on, but that's why I vote and get involved and do all those other things that hold up my end of the social contract.

Anyway. Back to my idea, which was inspired by the news that UBS has admitted that it conspired to defraud the IRS and agreed to pay $780 million for  helping hundreds, if not thousands, of wealthy Americans avoid paying taxes. Federal prosecutors think that from late 2002 through 2007, UBS helped clients hide $20 billion and evade some $300 million in taxes annually. Prominent people not paying their taxes is a problem we seem to be having a lot these days.

So I say from now on nobody pays their own taxes. Instead, each tax-paying citizen will be responsible for filing an income tax return for someone else--a complete stranger. When you are filing your own tax return, your economic incentive is to minimize what you pay. But were you to do someone else's taxes, your incentive would be the exact opposite--to have that person pay to the full extent of the tax code, since that money goes to help pay for things you probably feel that someone should be paying for (even if not you personally). You know, things like the Army and SEC fraud investigators.

The reason I think this will work is because I've seen it work. One time in a negotiations class, my classmates and I played a little game of trust. We all wrote down either "0" or "1" on a slip of paper. Then the slips of paper were collected and counted. If everyone wrote down "1", the number of points the entire class received was maximized, but anyone who defected and wrote down "0" would personally win more. We played a few rounds, and the number of defectors increased every time. Once you know one person is defecting (i.e., not paying their taxes), you feel like an idiot for not doing the same.

Then I commandeered the class.  I told everyone that we were going to add a new layer to the game. After each person wrote down their "0" or "1," I'd collect all the slips of paper, mix them in a hat, and redistribute them. That new slip would be the one each person submitted to be counted, and got extra credit for if it happened to say "o."

That round, everyone wrote down "1." Turns out, when you know you're not likely to be the "self" in self-serving behavior, you start acting in the best interest of the group.

Like I said, this might be tough to implement if we're talking about doing each other's tax returns and not just drawing slips of paper out of a hat. But I'll leave those details to someone else to figure out. Because I'm not too hot on the system we've currently got going.

Barbara!

  • Print
  • Comment
Comments (7)
Post a Comment »
  • 1

    Barbara,

    This connects with something I have been mulling over in connection with "patriotic" behavior and the power of peer pressure. I'm a fashion historian, and one of the more interesting aspects of the home front effort during WWII was the L85 restrictions on clothing, developed under the direction of Stanley Marcus (of Neiman-Marcus). The beauty of L85 was that, unlike the rationing systems used in Great Britain, it was a design-based system that was self-enforcing. Consumers could see at a glance if a garment met the standards (no patch pockets, deep hems or other extravagant uses of materials). The resulting peer pressure among designers, retailers and consumers meant that enforcement costs were minimal.
    .
    (For more detail, see pages 111-121 in Marcus's memoir, Minding the Store, on Google Books.)
    .
    Maybe the IRS can post the names of compliant taxpayers on a searchable "I paid my fair share" website? With permission, of course! But at least having elected officials certify their tax status would be more meaningful than a flag pin.

  • 2

    @Barbara: As a psychologist (sigh, and software developer and journalist; I wear many hats), I'm intimately familiar with Garrett Hardin and The Tragedy of the Commons (since you are referencing a commons, I really really hope you are too). I don't think we have to go to the extremes you describe, but I do think we have to rationalize the tax code to rid ourselves of the ambiguities of those taxes.
    -
    And I am especially disappointed at our current crop of politicians who have not taken advantage of the ambiguities, but rather have simply not paid their taxes, in, well, violation of the Law. In particular, I'm not a Dachle fan, but I recognize that it was his party's turn in power and was willing to accept his turn in the barrel, so to speak. Yet he has proven himself to be ethically far worse than the average American, who I believe at least attempts to be consistent with these ambiguities.
    -
    And Geithner? Well, he deserves a special place in Dante's Inferno. I accept Justin's explanation that the regulations regarding his role in the IMF were opaque, but his failure to pay his lawful taxes after being caught the first time is unconsionable. And he is now overseeing the IRS. Can I say it (I haven't seen anyone else do so)? This is Wrong, in a very moral and ethical sense.

  • 3

    I have a better idea - simplify the tax code. Based on current tax law, regardless of what you pay, your income or any other factor, you've violated some provision already. When the ordinary citizens can't figure out their taxes without professional help or a computer program, it's time to make it simple.

  • 4

    Carpevis,
    -
    Now you are talking! The easiest thing to do would be to simplify the tax code. I know that this will eliminate a Republican talking point down to what rate should you or X entity pay, but seriously, when I have to buy a $60 computer program with a tax professional to check it just to make sure my taxes are done right because I just bought a house...something is wrong with our tax code. It doesn't excuse those who cheat, but it seems far wiser to remove the impetus to do so.

  • 6

    I've never completely understood why we use the tax system to incent citizen behavior. If we want people to buy houses, or fund their retirement, or save for their kids' college, why don't we just cut them a check to do it?
    _
    this proposal just replaces one immensely complicated system (tax breaks) with another (government checks). Indeed, while its fairly easy to take tax breaks for home mortgages, etc, "cutting checks" would likely result in a plethora of new bureaucracies each dedicated to verifying eligibility, and cutting checks, for their own programs.
    _
    The tax system is only complicated for the people who are obsessed with tax avoidance. I've never had a problem filling out my own taxes because I never consider the "tax advantages" of the decisions I make.
    _
    For the average American, the "big ticket" deductions aren't all that complicated -- what makes the system so complicated is all the crap associated with "itemized deductions", and dealing with all the paperwork associated with itemization. (For instance, you can deduct medical expenses -- in other words, those $10 co-pays are tax deductible, but you have to keep the receipts. You can also deduct the cost of driving to the doctor to receive treatment -- but you have to keep a record.)

  • 7

    Here is an idea about a National Sales Tax http://21stcenturyteaparty.wordpress.com/2009/03/27/the-tax-code-is-broken/
    Let me know what you think.
    Steve

Add Your Comment:

You must be logged in to post a comment.
The Curious Capitalist Daily E-mail

Get e-mail updates from TIME's The Curious Capitalist in your inbox and never miss a day.

Quotes of the Day »

Get & Share
JON STEWART, wondering why both President Obama and President Bush have made speeches ordering exactly 30,000 new troops