Excellent essay and a great discussion of the benefits and burdens of the different approaches for the safety net. The Internal Revenue Code (IRC) has long been used to provide both targeted benefits (different filing statuses, tax brackets, dependents, etc.) and penalties. Politicians learned a long time ago that if they want something funded they could go through the IRC without having to take a public stand for or against that something. That something is hidden in plain sight in the thousands of pages of proposed tax legislation. But, there are two problems with this approach. The Congressional staff writing and revising tax legislation sometimes tries to foresee every problem and write solutions into the law. This makes the law cumbersome and difficult to enforce since the English language is frequently not precise, jargon is used, and it matters whether a simple word such as "and" along with "or" are used. Many times the audits of lower-income taxpayers is due to innocent mistakes concerning how to comply with the law. Tax preparation software has helped and the new IRS free tax filing program (still in pilot stage) will also help. The other problem is the constant defunding of the IRS by Republicans which not only helps those at higher-income levels but hurts those at lower-income levels. I've always thought that tax law should not be written by anyone who hasn't prepared tax returns for at least two years. I think the same can be said for safety net rules. Politicians should shadow someone who needs these benefits for six months to see what's it's really like. Since I'm wish casting, I'd also like to see cities use some of the empty office buildings to build out one-stop shopping for citizens having access to multiple safety net services, SNAP, the IRS, Social Security, voter registration, DMV, etc., or even kiosks easily available for some problems. Unfortunately, no one is eager for me to run this part of the administrative universe.
Really interested to see if the new direct file tax return program works to broaden the people who engage with the tax system. But that depends on it being properly implemented for a few years.
"Families who are earning some income have more support than in the past, and lower burdens. Those disconnected from the tax system are worse off, facing substantially higher burdens." We learned from the American Rescue Plan experience with a fully refundable CTC that the tax system can be used to reduce poverty. I have proposed a negative income tax basic income guarantee at the poverty level ($15k/yr) for all adults. Unfortunately, as you noted, we are accustomed to imposing work requirements for welfare. We need to detach our sentimental attachment to this burden before we can have a rational discussion of significant cash assistance to the poor.
Excellent essay and a great discussion of the benefits and burdens of the different approaches for the safety net. The Internal Revenue Code (IRC) has long been used to provide both targeted benefits (different filing statuses, tax brackets, dependents, etc.) and penalties. Politicians learned a long time ago that if they want something funded they could go through the IRC without having to take a public stand for or against that something. That something is hidden in plain sight in the thousands of pages of proposed tax legislation. But, there are two problems with this approach. The Congressional staff writing and revising tax legislation sometimes tries to foresee every problem and write solutions into the law. This makes the law cumbersome and difficult to enforce since the English language is frequently not precise, jargon is used, and it matters whether a simple word such as "and" along with "or" are used. Many times the audits of lower-income taxpayers is due to innocent mistakes concerning how to comply with the law. Tax preparation software has helped and the new IRS free tax filing program (still in pilot stage) will also help. The other problem is the constant defunding of the IRS by Republicans which not only helps those at higher-income levels but hurts those at lower-income levels. I've always thought that tax law should not be written by anyone who hasn't prepared tax returns for at least two years. I think the same can be said for safety net rules. Politicians should shadow someone who needs these benefits for six months to see what's it's really like. Since I'm wish casting, I'd also like to see cities use some of the empty office buildings to build out one-stop shopping for citizens having access to multiple safety net services, SNAP, the IRS, Social Security, voter registration, DMV, etc., or even kiosks easily available for some problems. Unfortunately, no one is eager for me to run this part of the administrative universe.
Really interested to see if the new direct file tax return program works to broaden the people who engage with the tax system. But that depends on it being properly implemented for a few years.
"Families who are earning some income have more support than in the past, and lower burdens. Those disconnected from the tax system are worse off, facing substantially higher burdens." We learned from the American Rescue Plan experience with a fully refundable CTC that the tax system can be used to reduce poverty. I have proposed a negative income tax basic income guarantee at the poverty level ($15k/yr) for all adults. Unfortunately, as you noted, we are accustomed to imposing work requirements for welfare. We need to detach our sentimental attachment to this burden before we can have a rational discussion of significant cash assistance to the poor.
Very much hoping that if the CTC returns, it does not get bogged down under requirements.