Skip to main content

I was given a copy of some bullet points from one of the new proposed Montana tax simplification bills a few days ago, SB 282.  The key points:

As you can imagine, tax code is frequently vilified for being overly complex.  Montana's is no exception; a simple return can take an experienced out-of-state preparer a few hours to do the first time.  The layout is awkward, and there are obscure credits specialized to Montana (which is not unlike every other state, but still).

Tax simplification is always scary though, because it generally is code for a regressive tax; the simplest tax might be that a flat fee that everyone pays, say, $12,000 a year in taxes!  Simple, easy-to-compute, and horrifically unfair to the less fortunate.  

A flat tax rate is also an awkward tool because again, charging a flat 25% is much more harmful to the person who makes $40,000 and has to relinquish $10,000 to the government than it is to the person making $200,000 and has to giving up $50,000 to the government.  That is why we have the tax scale (0/15%/25%/35% is the simplest way to think of it, although it basically never scales that smoothly).

Follow me below the Orange Cloud of Tax Doom for analysis of the above bill, and why it appears to be a regressive tax bill.

We like simplicity.  That's why the above bill appeals to legislators, however, in tax code, the simpler you make it, the less you can guide behavior and care for the less fortunate.  As I said above, while a flat rate would be VERY simple, it would hammer the poor.  What about if we went to a flat rate, but with credits and deductions?  Say you got $2,000 personal deductions if you made below $50,000, and another $3,000 deduction for each dependent?  

We're adding complexity to this theoretical simple flat fee tax, but it gives us the ability to help out those who might need it, and make the code more fair.  What if we also said that if you make under $20,000, you owe no tax, but you still have to file, and you may get some credit for installing an energy efficient appliance, up to $500 back, in your pocket, as a check?

If we give a credit for energy efficient appliances, we can give tax-payers an incentive to do things we want.  It might be to behave in an environmentally-friendly way, it might be donating to state universities, or it could be simply having children (so that we have a strong tax base going forwards).

The bill shown above has one bigggggg red flag:

"The tax rates are reduced for capital gains by 2% for  taxpayers in the 4% bracket and 1.75% for taxpayers in the 5.9% bracket."

One big sticking point for this bill is that the lawmakers was a revenue-neutral bill; if we would save money by cutting back on some credits (in the repeal section), then we have to give that money back to taxpayers in another way.  Hmm, how could we do that...

Let's think about this from another premise.  What if the point of the bill was never (originally) to simply the tax code?  What if the original question was, "How can we help the rich get richer?"

As we mostly all know, one way to help out wealthy people is to lower capital gains tax.  What if the original question then shifted towards, "How can we lower capital gains taxes?"

This appears to be an attempt to cut back on credits to lower capital gains taxes.  Now, what credits are we talking about?  This seems important to know!  Let's take a look (I had to go back into SB 253, referenced above to find out).  Here are the highlights (lowlights?)

Alternative Energy Production Credit
Alternative Energy Systems Credit
Alternative Fuel Vehicle Conversion Credit
Biodiesel Blending Credit
Biodiesel Production Facility Credit
Energy Conservation Credit
Geothermal Heating Systems Credit
Mineral Exploration Credit
Recycling Credit

Oh.  So the point of this bill is to cut much support for energy, especially alternative energy, while decreasing capital gains.  

What can be done about this?

I'm glad you asked!  Go here, pick the communication medium of your preference (see, I'm easy to get along with!) and add your voice against this bill in its current form.

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  I think that this is an ALEC model. We got it in (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    hnichols, Ojibwa

    Utah a few years back, compliments of millionaire Governor Huntsman. Because we don't have kids, own a home, and are not small business owners our state tax payment increased by a very large percentage. Meanwhile folks at the high end of the scale made big bank. In other words, just another scheme to get the lower income folks to subsidize the 1%.

    There can be no protection locally if we're content to ignore the fact that there are no controls globally.

    by oldpotsmuggler on Tue Feb 19, 2013 at 01:02:15 PM PST

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site