A lot of suggestions to change tax calculations are
intended to make it “simpler,” by which is meant to reduce the number of tax bands. Indeed some people even want there
to be just one band – flat taxers.
This is a terrible idea for lots of reasons, but the advantage of “simplifying”
tax rates is in fact disappearing as time goes on.
It really is a bizarre idea to want to restrict the
choice of tax rate to one option rather than utilise many. Arbitrarily limiting
the tax calculation in this way leaves very difficult choices and makes it very
difficult to achieve all that you want with the tax system. If you want to
raise a lot of revenue you have to impose significant taxes on middle earners
in order to get revenue from high earners.
Progressive and effective taxation is very difficult to
achieve with the flat tax, which is often what the supporters of the single
rate restriction really
want to achieve. This would be a different argument about justice and the
tax system, which I have discussed
elsewhere.
The only sensible complaint against more complex rate
structures is that people will not know what the tax implications will be for
the economic choices that they are considering. If this complexity leads people
to make the wrong decisions for them then it would adversely affect them, and
in many cases for the rest of society as well.
The increasing availability and power of technology
really makes this argument for simplifying tax rates disappear almost entirely.
The computer in everyone’s mobile can perform the ‘complex’ calculations of tax
implications in nanoseconds.
In a previous
blog I mentioned that people should in the near future be able to log into
an account with the tax authority and access data on their tax account. They
could also integrate this with other programmes, but it would be useful if the
tax authority could provide a service. This could predict future taxes based on
scenarios entered by the taxpayer.
Tax calculations can be as complex and clever as we want
them to be, and people will still be able to find out whatever they need to
know about what their future liabilities. People can use their personalised tax
website to work out their likely future tax rate and therefore net income.
For this reason the ostensibly more complicated tax calculations
I propose in Rethinking Taxation—which utilise a smooth curve rather than
discrete bands—are perfectly viable and fair. You can apply real-time lifetime
averaging calculations without too much difficulty. I also suggest combining numerous
tax bases into one
comprehensive tax base and to calculate tax on that—people can plug in
their expected income from all these sources and find out their future net
income.
Indeed, there are reasons to think that people would find
it easy to guesstimate their future liability with my lifetime proposal; people’s
tax rates should quickly stabilise and people would come to know roughly what
percentage of their future gross income they will receive net.
In conclusion, there is no need to worry about the complexity
of tax rates in the digital age. This destroys the only argument for flat taxes
or reducing the number of bands. Our technology also opens up the possibility
of much more complex methods of tax calculation such as my own hourly
averaging proposal. This means we can in fact have it all: highly progressive
tax calculations that encourage economic activity.