Tax Reform

Last week's release of the final report by a blue-ribbon panel on tax reform for California was accompanied by all the ceremonial obeisance customarily paid to groups of public-spirited citizens completing a difficult task. There was praise for their public spirit and donation of unpaid time. Their report was hailed in Sacramento as a judicious foundation for a necessary reconsideration of our crumbling tax system. I have another view: It was a shamefully squandered opportunity.

Barack Obama and Mitt Romney are both smart and accomplished individuals. That's why it is so disappointing that neither candidate has taken a truly responsible position when it comes to the nation's fiscal future. That's not to say that both men haven't advanced some good ideas. Romney, for example, is pushing to limit federal spending, and he's showing political backbone in putting Social Security and Medicare reforms on the table. But Romney also signed the Americans for Tax Reform pledge to "oppose and veto any and all efforts to increase taxes.

After years in which California Republican lawmakers took their marching orders from out-of-state anti-tax groups, some GOP candidates are now refusing to sign no-tax pledges. It's a welcome development. The candidates should be applauded for their independence. The difference between today and two years ago is stark, as Times staff writers Michael J. Mishak and Anthony York reported Saturday. Back then, candidates seeking the Republican nomination for the Assembly and state Senate weren't serious contenders unless they signed the so-called taxpayer protection pledge, which was enforced by Grover Norquist's Americans for Tax Reform.

After years in which California Republican lawmakers took their marching orders from out-of-state anti-tax groups, some GOP candidates are now refusing to sign no-tax pledges. It's a welcome development. The candidates should be applauded for their independence. The difference between today and two years ago is stark, as Times staff writers Michael J. Mishak and Anthony York reported Saturday. Back then, candidates seeking the Republican nomination for the Assembly and state Senate weren't serious contenders unless they signed the so-called taxpayer protection pledge, which was enforced by Grover Norquist's Americans for Tax Reform.

Reduced sentences for drug crimes. More job training and rehabilitation programs for nonviolent offenders. Expanded alternatives to doing hard time. In the not-too-distant past, conservatives might have derided those concepts as mushy-headed liberalism ? the essence of "soft on crime. " Nowadays, these same ideas are central to a strategy being packaged as "conservative criminal justice reform," and have rolled out in right-leaning states around the country in an effort to rein in budget-busting corrections costs.

Tax reform proposals are the political equivalent of science fiction: entertaining but imaginary. No tax proposal ever passes through Congress unscathed. There are too many interests that believe their survival depends on tax preferences — hence the tax code's immutable tendency to accumulate complexities as a ship collects barnacles. Still, presidential candidates' tax proposals are useful windows into their philosophies. Should income taxes on the wealthy go up or down? Should income from investments be taxed at a different rate than income from labor?

Republicans and Democrats agree that the federal tax system is broken, but they couldn't disagree more strongly about how to fix it. That's true largely because each side clings to a different set of theories about how taxes affect the country, only some of which bear much relationship to reality. Hoping to dispel a few of the myths pervading the debate, a Washington think tank offered a report this week laying out a dozen facts about tax reform. The bottom line: Good fiscal policy comes at a steep political cost.

President Obama roiled the business community Monday by proposing to hike taxes on income generated outside the United States. The changes, which supposedly would close loopholes and remove incentives to export jobs and investment, would bring an estimated $210 billion to the Treasury over the next decade. We're all for closing loopholes and ending tax shelters that enable the wealthy to hide income.

Both Republicans and Democrats in Washington have called for simplifying the tax code, broadening the tax base and lowering at least some marginal tax rates. But MIT economist and author Simon Johnson said there's a significant hurdle in the way of any such reform -- a hurdle highlighted by the Senate vote Monday on the Obama administration's proposed " Buffett rule . " The proposal, which would impose a 30% minimum tax on anyone with $2 million or more in taxable income, was blocked in the Senate.

On April 15, every Washington policy wonk's fancy turns to thoughts of streamlining the tax code. This year's most-talked-about idea comes from two iconoclastic senators, Oregon Democrat Ron Wyden and New Hampshire Republican Judd Gregg. The two have proposed a plan that would simplify the tax law, shrink your 1040 form to a single page and even cut taxes slightly for most people who make less than $200,000 a year. Their plan still has a few kinks.

Republicans and Democrats agree that the federal tax system is broken, but they couldn't disagree more strongly about how to fix it. That's true largely because each side clings to a different set of theories about how taxes affect the country, only some of which bear much relationship to reality. Hoping to dispel a few of the myths pervading the debate, a Washington think tank offered a report this week laying out a dozen facts about tax reform. The bottom line: Good fiscal policy comes at a steep political cost.

Off the rails Re "Blue Line's woes a black mark for Metro," April 21 No one should be surprised that the Blue Line light-rail system from downtown L.A. to Long Beach has high maintenance costs. The goal of Propositions A and C and Measure R, which raised the sales tax, was to build a rail system, but not necessarily to maintain and operate one. As more lines are built, more money must be spent to maintain the system. The question now is whether the system has reached the size where all the construction money is required for maintenance and none is left for construction.

Both Republicans and Democrats in Washington have called for simplifying the tax code, broadening the tax base and lowering at least some marginal tax rates. But MIT economist and author Simon Johnson said there's a significant hurdle in the way of any such reform -- a hurdle highlighted by the Senate vote Monday on the Obama administration's proposed " Buffett rule . " The proposal, which would impose a 30% minimum tax on anyone with $2 million or more in taxable income, was blocked in the Senate.

Our one shared national moment of fiscal soul-searching is behind us for another year — of course I refer to the filing of tax returns — but tax reform theater in Washington, like the melody in the old Irving Berlin song, lingers on. So while individual and business taxpayers watch to see whether any tax reform plan has any chance of passage, the Obama administration's "Buffett rule" proposal succumbed Monday to the threat of filibuster by...

On April 15, everyone's in favor of tax reform. Nobody can survive the ordeal of preparing a federal income tax return without concluding that there must be a simpler, fairer way to pay for the federal government. And so - as inevitably as death and, well, you know - the presidential campaigns promise us some kind of tax reform. President Obama spent much of last week promoting his "Buffett rule," a proposal to require anyone who makes more than $1 million year to pay federal taxes at a minimum of 30%. It's a matter of basic fairness, he says.

The White House's proposed "Buffett Rule" looks like a political winner, at least for now. A new Gallup poll finds that six in 10 Americans support the idea of a law that would require households that earn $1 million or more a year to pay a minimum 30% tax rate, as President Obama has called for. Thirty-seven percent are opposed. Three out of four Democrats favor the plan, while Republicans are split 43% for and 54% against. Among independent voters, 63% back the idea, while 33% oppose it. Last September, Obama called for tax reform that would, in part, ensure that the middle class did not have a higher tax burden than "millionaires and billionaires.

Our one shared national moment of fiscal soul-searching is behind us for another year — of course I refer to the filing of tax returns — but tax reform theater in Washington, like the melody in the old Irving Berlin song, lingers on. So while individual and business taxpayers watch to see whether any tax reform plan has any chance of passage, the Obama administration's "Buffett rule" proposal succumbed Monday to the threat of filibuster by...

The need to deal with the soaring budget deficit, make U.S. businesses more competitive abroad and address the widening gap between rich and poor make U.S. corporate tax reform inevitable, said former top Obama administration economic aide Lawrence Summers. "Leaders in both parties should commit themselves to the goal of tax reform for growth, fairness and deficit reduction," Summers wrote in an opinion article in the Financial Times on Monday. "Nothing that is likely to be done during the next presidential term will be more important.

The need to deal with the soaring budget deficit, make U.S. businesses more competitive abroad and address the widening gap between rich and poor make U.S. corporate tax reform inevitable, said former top Obama administration economic aide Lawrence Summers. "Leaders in both parties should commit themselves to the goal of tax reform for growth, fairness and deficit reduction," Summers wrote in an opinion article in the Financial Times on Monday. "Nothing that is likely to be done during the next presidential term will be more important.

As everybody knows by now, Warren Buffett - class traitor - pays a smaller share of his income in taxes than does his secretary, Debbie Bosanek. In his State of the Union address Jan. 24, President Obama proposed "the Buffett Rule" to rectify this with a phased-in requirement that all taxpayers making more than $1 million a year must pay federal taxes of at least 30% of their adjusted gross incomes. Who could object? Well, Newt Gingrich - class clown - called the idea "stupid.