I just ran accross an interesting tidbit - The US has the lowest tax collection costs per capita of any of the G8.
“I just ran across an interesting tidbit - The US has the lowest tax collection costs per capita of any of the G8.”
A few comments
1. I noted that you did not cite your source. That makes me highly suspicious that it is one that most on here would not find credible. Either that, or (more likely) there is other data in there which does not support the point you are trying to make. In fact, I have looked for some comparative data on the complexity/compliance costs of various countries’ tax systems previously and have not found anything.
2. For someone who takes humbrage at the acronymn “SQL”, that sounds remarkably close to a defense of the status quo to me.
3. According to Dr. Arthur P. Hall (hardly a FairTax zealot), the cost of complying with the income tax system was $140 B per year back in the mid 90s. The cost of the entire federal tax system was estimated at $200B back then. I’m not sure what taxes account for the $60B difference, but the estate and gift tax would clearly be a significant component. The article was dated in June of 1995, but he didn’t make it clear (unless I missed it) which year he was referring to. I don’t think it is debatable that whatever the number was in the mid 90s, it is much larger today. At any rate, Dr. Hall estimates that moving to the Armey flat tax would save 94% of that and moving to NRST (with a rebate) would save 92%. I have a hard time believing that the Armey flat tax (which has now morphed into the Burgess flat tax option) could have saved more in compliance costs than than a sales tax, but that isn’t germane to this discussion. The fact of the matter is, if the opportunity to save more than $126 B in waste existed in the mid 90s and the number has gotten substantially larger today, that that does not constitute a significant benefit.
http://www.taxfoundation.org/files/8de6cd34cce32e3493b0d9a87d8bf90c.pdf