by Richard Fobes
Wall Street financial firms and similar “taker” businesses avoid paying their fair share of taxes, while small “maker” businesses – such as family-owned restaurants and small software companies – struggle under a burden of excessively high taxes. This occurs because large “taker” corporations donate huge amounts of money to election campaigns, and in return they have received tax loopholes. In contrast, small hard-working businesses stay out of politics and barely survive under the burden of tax rates that were intended for the large “taker” corporations.
We can eliminate business-tax loopholes and simplify the tax code by taxing “taker” businesses at higher tax rates compared to lower tax rates for “maker” businesses, and then removing all subsidies and tax credits and other adjustments from business taxes. (This proposal does not request any change for taxes on individuals.)
The core of this proposal is to categorize business activities using the following categories that begin at the top with “farming” and “maker” business activities, which will be taxed at the lowest tax rates, and ends with “taker” business activities, which will pay the highest tax rates. In-between categories will be taxed at in-between tax rates.
- Farming, which includes: farming (except tobacco), and ranching
- Making, which includes: manufacturing (physical, mechanical, chemical, pharmaceutical, electrical, electronic, apparel, textiles/fabrics, etc.), inventing, cooking, baking, brewing, creating audience-focused entertainment (books, music, movies, stage shows, spectator sports, etc.), creating educational content, writing software, engineering, research (pharmaceutical, chemical, high-tech, etc.), power generation, oil refining, and water treatment
- Teaching, which includes: teaching, educating, and training (except as otherwise categorized, such as marketing and giving legal advice)
- Maintenance and health care, which includes: maintenance (mechanical, electronic, etc.), upgrading, facilities support, physical measurement, sewage treatment, medical services by medical personnel, hospital patient services (excluding administrative services), dentistry, and chiropractic services
- Communication and packaging and transportation and storage, which includes: television and radio and multimedia transmission and distribution, telecommunications (telephone and Internet services), data processing, administrative services, quality control, copying and duplicating, publishing (except content creation), canning, meat packing, waste management, shipping, hauling, driving, piloting, hospitality (hotels and motels), equipment rental, natural gas transportation and distribution, warehousing, and retail
- Sales, which includes: marketing, sales, and advertising
- Taking, which includes: banking, managing financial assets, managing a business in another category, commodity trading, stock-market trading, providing insurance (home, life, health, auto, and business), providing legal services (as done by attorneys, lawyers, paralegals, and legal assistants), payday loaning, real estate development, land development, timber cutting, fishing, hunting, trapping, mining, oil drilling, natural gas extraction, hazardous waste disposal, gaming (casinos), and tobacco farming
“Taker” business activities weaken the economy of the United States in these ways.
- “Taker” business activities shift the ownership of property that already exists, which does not increase the net value of what exists in the United States. As a consequence, “taker” business activities fail to grow the US economy in ways that involve attracting money from customers outside the United States. The “taker” businesses that do attract foreign money involve a loss of natural resources.
- “Taker” business activities often involve litigation and require government regulation, which wastes taxpayers’ money and shifts resources away from wealth-increasing activities. For example, insurance companies often use jury-duty trials to decide whether or not the insurance company should pay an insurance claim.
- “Taker” business activities require skills that are relatively easy to learn. This lower learning threshold is demonstrated by the fact that machinery and computer software are used to automate many “taker” tasks. The reduced importance of quality in most “taker”-based products, and the lack of brand allegiance also demonstrate the lower learning threshold.
In contrast, “maker” business activities strengthen the US economy in these ways.
- “Maker” business activities create things of value that previously did not exist, which dramatically increases the net value of what exists in the United States. As a consequence, these activities significantly grow the US economy by directly or indirectly attracting money from customers outside the United States.
- “Maker” business activities do not involve as much regulation or litigation (compared to “taker” business activities), which dramatically reduces the cost of government and, in turn, reduces the taxation burden.
- “Maker” business activities require skills that are challenging to learn. This higher learning threshold is demonstrated by the enthusiasm of customers wanting to pay for what these businesses create, the brand appeal of successful “maker” businesses, and the need for people to perform tasks that are difficult to automate.
Initially the tax rates between “taker” and “maker” business activities will be small so that businesses and the Internal Revenue Service have time to adjust their accounting procedures to accommodate businesses (especially General Electric) that fit into multiple taker-versus-maker categories. (Existing information can be used to calculate an effective tax rate for a business that has business activities in multiple categories.)
Over a period of fifteen years the difference between the taker-versus-maker tax rates will grow, and at the same time all business tax deductions (not including expense deductions) will be reduced from 100% (full deduction) to 0% (no deduction), after which all such business tax deductions will be removed from the tax code.
The only exceptions to this revised tax structure will be adjustments that are regarded as important for the purpose of maintaining a strong military.
Besides simplifying the tax code and eliminating business-tax loopholes, the taker-versus-maker tax-rate difference will dramatically strengthen the economy of the United States in the following ways.
- “Maker” businesses, especially entrepreneurial ventures, can create jobs for unemployed and underemployed professionals as a result of retaining more of their income.
- Many (but not all) of the jobs in “maker” businesses that were transferred to foreign countries to avoid excessively high business taxes can be moved back to the United States.
- Businesses will be motivated to decrease their tax rate by increasing “maker” business activities – which strengthen the economy – and by decreasing “taker” business activities – which weaken the economy.
- Investors will favor buying the stocks of “maker” businesses because of their lower tax rate and the resulting higher business income. This change will make financial capital more readily available to wealth-creating “maker” businesses than to wealth-destroying “taker” businesses.
- “Taker” businesses tend to require more government resources, such as for regulation and scrutiny and enforcement, and they will pay more taxes to compensate for using more government resources. This change will lift the currently oppressive tax burden from “maker” businesses.
- Individuals will be attracted to “maker” professions where they can take pride in being recognized for their valuable contributions. In contrast, high-income “taker” professions will lose some of their excessive prestige. For example, doctors will gain prestige, and lawyers will lose prestige, which matches the value of the work they do.
- All businesses will waste less time on the accounting and legal activities that arise from now having excessively complicated business-taxation laws.
After the taker-versus-maker tax reform has been fully implemented, there will be less taxation on the exchange between a manufacturing business that buys computer software from a software business that, in turn, buys products made by the manufacturing business. In contrast, there will be higher taxes on the exchange between an insurance company that pays for legal work from a law firm that, in turn, buys its insurance from the insurance company. The lower tax rate reflects both the fact that a manufacturing business and a software company create things of value that previously did not exist, and the fact that both businesses sell their products to other customers. In contrast, the higher tax rate reflects both the fact that the work done by an insurance company and a law firm involve processing data and documents just for the purpose of transferring money, and the fact that these money transfers do not produce anything of value that can be sold to additional customers.
Although this tax-code reform does not apply to individual taxes, this reform effectively increases the taxation of money that is earned by wealthy people through their investments in “taker” businesses. This reform works without imposing a “progressive” income tax that could easily be avoided (such as by shifting income to other family members) by the wealthy individuals to which it is targeted. And this reform works without imposing a sales tax, which is effectively a “regressive” tax that would harm hard-working law-abiding citizens and leave investment income unaffected.
The unwillingness of rich people to pay their fair share of taxes was a significant contribution to the downfall of the Roman Empire, and the downfall of the Italian Renaissance. Currently we are financially suffering from a similar situation in which the people who richly profit from “taker” businesses (through investments and executive-level employment) have been avoiding paying their fair share of taxes. They avoid fairer tax rates by donating lots of money to the election campaigns of Congressmen in both political parties, which causes Congress to protect the many tax loopholes that benefit “taker” businesses. The data posted at OpenSecrets.org proves that “taker” industries give the largest campaign contributions and that such industries give money to candidates in both political parties.
Wealthy people correctly recognize that their investments are valuable for putting tools and other resources into the hands of hard-working individuals and “maker” businesses. Yet they overestimate the importance of their investments, and underestimate what they think they should be paying in taxes. Ironically the wisest investors recognize that “maker” businesses are the best kind to invest in because those businesses typically provide the best returns on an investment.
The time has come to unburden “maker” businesses and allow them to grow, hire new employees, and make the products and provide the services that attract enthusiastic customers. The result will be dramatic gains in the widespread economic prosperity of the United States.
If Congress fails to recognize the wisdom of “taxing the takers more than the makers,” then we, the unheard majority of voters, will have clear proof that we need to reform election methods, especially by banning single-mark ballots from Congressional elections. The resulting fairer elections would allow us to elect problem-solving leaders to replace the currently elected special-interest puppets. Hopefully our current Congressional leaders will recognize the wisdom of implementing this long-overdue tax reform, and the need to cut the puppet strings that have prevented Congress from putting the needs of the majority over the desires of a few short-sighted people who own and run tax-loophole-favored “taker” businesses that weaken, rather than strengthen, the US economy.
For a look at interest group power in the US, please visit Open Secrets website, specifically their interest group page.
RodgerMitchell says
When we begin with a false premise, everything that follows is wrong. In this case, there are two false premises:
1. Federal taxes are necessary to support federal spending.
2. It is possible for a tax to be fair.
The facts are: Taxes do not support the spending of our Monetarily Sovereign government, which creates its sovereign currency as hoc, by spending. If taxes were $0, this would not affect by even one penny, the federal government’s ability to pay its bills. All taxes harm the economy, and particularly the 99%.
And it is not possible for any tax to be fair. You name the tax, and I’ll tell you why it’s not fair.
I have offered to teach the 99% some basics in economics, but to date, no one has shown any interest. You believe you already know economics, but you do not, so I’m afraid that all your efforts will be counterproductive.
Rodger Malcolm Mitchell.
Adrian Tawfik says
You must be willing to have some tax. ‘Nothing is certain but death and taxes’ said Benjamin Franklin. Taxing citizens is a ‘fair’ thing for a country to do. Are you suggesting government should not exist, or that it should be financed by printing money?
Richard says
I agree with Rodger that any tax has aspects of both fairness and unfairness. However,…
… the purpose of this tax reform is to increase economic prosperity. It does so by eliminating tax loopholes that the 1% can “buy” from Congress by donating lots of money to congressional election campaigns (of candidates in both parties). Yes, the excessive influence of money on Congress is “unfair”(because it allows money to compete with votes), yet many people were willing to accept that unfairness when the economy was strong. Now that we are experiencing a huge deficit and a weak economy, the long-term negative consequences of tax loopholes are being recognized – by both liberals (OWS) and conservatives (the Tea Party).
I’ll argue that enforceability is more important than fairness. This tax reform is designed to be enforceable in a way that limits tax avoidance. To put tax avoidance into historical context, a few centuries ago in Europe a taxation strategy was to tax a residence according to how many chimneys it had. Wealthy families lived in huge buildings with many chimneys, whereas poor people typically had only a single chimney, so this seemed like a good idea based on “fairness” and the ability to count chimneys without trespassing. This approach failed because wealthy families modified their homes to connect multiple fireplaces into the same chimney. The next taxation strategy was to tax the number of windows, which seemed “fair” because bigger houses had more of them, and it seemed enforceable because windows can be counted without trespassing. This approach also failed because everyone boarded up some of their windows. (Interestingly some of Isaac Newton’s childhood writings near a window were preserved for this reason, and then discovered when the window was later revealed.)
In this “tax the takers more than makers” tax reform, categorizing business activities would be based on numbers that the federal government already collects. This makes it enforceable. The fact that it also, in most people’s minds, is “fair” makes it likely to receive popular support. However, the purpose of this tax reform is increased economic prosperity, not “fairness.”
Regarding Rodger’s claim that the federal government can operate without collecting taxes, that was tried, and the result was failure. Specifically, the first attempt by the second Continental Congress to form a government was defined by their “Articles of Confederation.” That government depended on voluntary contributions from each state to support a national militia, and of course some states refused to donate. A few years later the (same) second Continental Congress wrote the U.S. Constitution, and that time it included provisions for taxation. (Another mistake of the Articles of Confederation was a failure to establish any limits on what laws could be passed, and that was remedied by adding the Bill of Rights to the U.S. Constitution.) Do we really need to make the same “no-taxation” mistake again in order to re-learn the same lesson?
Richard Fobes, author of “The Creative Problem Solver’s Toolbox”
RodgerMitchell says
I address this at:
https://rodgermmitchell.wordpress.com/2012/06/14/why-not-increase-federal-deficit-spending-heres-why/
RodgerMitchell says
”
Regarding Rodger’s claim that the federal government can operate without collecting taxes, that was tried, and the result was failure. Specifically, the first attempt by the second Continental Congress to form a government was defined by their “Articles of Confederation.”
That government depended on voluntary contributions from each state to support a national militia, and of course some states refused to donate. “
False comparison. Apparently what was tried and failed has no resemblance to today’s situation. The U.S. federal government needs no “voluntary contributions” from anyone. It needs no taxes. It needs no borrowing. It is Monetarily Sovereign. It has the unlimited ability to create dollars.
How does it create dollars? By marking up the numbers in creditors’ checking accounts, which it can do endlessly. Federal finances are not like your finances. You require a source of dollars in order to spend. The federal government creates dollars by spending. Two completely different process.
Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
Adrian Tawfik says
Thanks for your comments Mr. Mitchell. I have seen your website and I enjoyed it because it raises some interesting questions. I completely agree that Congress should borrow 2-3 trillion dollars today in order spend on infrastructure and other projects to stimulate the economy until the housing market starts up again. I am still unsure about your contention that all of government can be financed this way. What is the optimal level of debt? And another question I like to ask anti-tax people, would taxes be acceptable in a time of war (Civil War or WWII?)
augustin says
There are 2 broken links in the list of related articles (interview and EM article).
Interesting article, though. Adrian or Richard should blog about it at minguo, in relation to our poll on taxes: See https://minguo.info/usa/node/146 and https://minguo.info/usa/manifesto/taxes .
Personally, I am in favour of a progressive and complete elimination of taxes on labour, which certainly would help the makers.