Ted Cruz’s claim that the IRS tax code has more words than the Bible

Washington Post ^ | March 11 at 3:00 AM | Michelle Ye Hee Lee

[SoConPubbie]

“On tax reform, we, right now, have more words in the IRS code than there are in the Bible — not a one of them as good.”

–Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), speech at International Association of Fire Fighters legislative conference, March 10, 2015

Comparing the number of words in the U.S. tax code with the number in the Bible is a common theme among conservatives who fault the tax code for being overly burdensome. In fact, the claim has been made in some variation for at least 10 years. We tracked down a similar comparison by Republican Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal in 2005. Rep. Virginia Foxx (R-N.C.) said the same at a press conference in 2013. There are countless other examples.

Cruz is correct on the comparison of words in both texts. But regular readers of The Fact Checker know we frown on such counting exercises, like the number of pages in “Romneycare” health-care law in Massachusetts or the number of pages in President Obama’s Affordable Care Act. Such comparisons — in this case, the word count of the evolving tax code of the most industrious country in the world to words in a religious document that was written thousands of years ago — don’t really tell you much of anything.

We will not issue a Pinocchio rating or award a Geppetto Checkmark. But it is worth exploring this word-count comparison and how the tax code’s complexities affect taxpayers.

The Facts

The literally translated King James Version of the Bible contains just over 800,000 words. There are as many as 3.7 million individual words in the IRS tax code. (Another count places it as low as 2.6 million words without substantive words such as “is” and “and.”)

[null and void]

This sort of thing presents me with a moral problem - I begin wishing that the 9/11 planes had crashed into the Washington Post and New York Times, and that's not a very Christian thing to wish.

Well, uh, I suppose one could hope for a series of Charlie Hedbo style of attacks...

[Steve_Seattle]

"Federal income tax should be based on wages and salaries, tips, interest on investments, annuities, retirement pensions, and social security income. The tax rates are as follows:

Under $10,000 - 0%
$10,001-15,000 - 1%
$15,001-20,000 - 1.5%
$20,001-25,000 - 2%
$25,001-30,000 - 2.5%
$30,001-40,000 - 3%
$40,001-50,000 - 4%
$50,001-60,000 - 5%
$60,001-70,000 - 6%
$70,001-80,000 - 7%
$80,001-90,000 - 8%
$90,001-100,000 - 9%
$100,001-120,000 - 10%
$120,001 - 150,000 - 11%
$150,001 - 200,000 - 12%
$200,001 - 400,000 - 14%
$400,001 - 1,000,000 - 15%
$1,000,001 - 2,000,000 - 17%
$2,000,001 - 10,000,000 - 20%
$10,000,001 and up - 25%

There, I've simplified the tax code in under 300 words. (This obviously isn't a serious proposal, but you get the idea. It wouldn't need to be a LOT more complicated than this, and it took me 15 minutes.)

[MaxMax]

This is such an important issue of the day.

[stephenjohnbanker]

” And it’s a “jobs program” for attorneys and accountants.
“

Ah! Someone who GETS it.

1) There will be no meaningful tax reform

2) For those of you who don’t know, the tax laws are written by attorneys who work for the lobbyists, who bought the politicians : )

[reasonisfaith]

How disappointing that writers can’t be independent thinkers.

[duffee]

and all on one page.

[i_robot73]

There is no stronger argument for a flat tax return to a Constitutionally limited Republic where even a consumption tax (more so than a 'flat tax' [of the same mode as an 'income tax']) would not be required.

Fixed it for you.

[i_robot73]

NOBODY should be free of any tax; nor should anyone be an economic slave (in your example, the worst is a 25% slave; but slavery none-the-less).

[Popman]

LOL....very good...

[Taxman]

Thank you!