{"product_id":"a-fine-mess-isbn-9780143111146","title":"A Fine Mess","description":"\u003cb\u003e\u003ci\u003eNew York Times\u003c\/i\u003e bestelling author T. R. Reid travels around the world to solve the urgent problem of America's failing tax code, unravelling a complex topic in plain English - and telling a rollicking story along the way. \u003c\/b\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003eThe U.S. tax code is a total write-off. Crammed with loopholes and special interest provisions, it works for no one except tax lawyers, accountants, and huge corporations. Not for the first time, we have reached a breaking point. That happened in 1922, and again in 1954, and again in 1986. In other words, every thirty-two years. Which means that the next complete overhaul is due in 2018. But what should be in this new tax code? Can we make the U.S. tax system simpler, fairer, and more efficient? Yes, yes, and yes. Can we cut tax rates and still bring in more revenue? Yes. \u003cbr\u003e  \u003cbr\u003e Other rich countries, from Estonia to New Zealand to the UK—advanced, high-tech, free-market democracies—have all devised tax regimes that are equitable, effective, and easy on the taxpayer.  But the United States has languished. So byzantine are the current statutes that, by our government’s own estimates, Americans spend six billion hours and $10 billion every year preparing and filing their taxes. In the Netherlands that task takes a mere fifteen minutes! Successful American companies like Apple, Caterpillar, and Google effectively pay no tax at all in some instances because of loopholes that allow them to move profits offshore. Indeed, the dysfunctional tax system has become a major cause of economic inequality. \u003cbr\u003e  \u003cbr\u003e In \u003ci\u003eA Fine Mess,\u003c\/i\u003e T. R. Reid crisscrosses the globe in search of the exact solutions to these urgent problems. With an uncanny knack for making a complex subject not just accessible but gripping, he investigates what makes good taxation (no, that’s not an oxymoron) and brings that knowledge home where it is needed most. Never talking down or reflexively siding with either wing of politics, T. R. Reid presses the case for sensible root-and-branch reforms with a companionable ebullience. This affects everyone. Doing our taxes will never be America's favorite pastime, but it can and should be so much easier and fairer.“[C]harming… Reid takes us on a world tour of tax systems and the efforts to reform them. He approaches this most disliked specialty of the dismal science of economics with a wry voice and a light touch… a rich and sturdy fabric of facts presented in plain English. As a longtime Washington Post foreign correspondent, Reid knows how to make the distant seem close. His eye for the telling detail is sharp… Those unfamiliar with economics, accounting or tax law will be better able to understand these subjects by reading “A Fine Mess.”… With enough readers, Reid might even help us to initiate real tax reform by replacing a tax code so complex it includes the anti-complexity rule in Section 7803(c)(2)(B).”—\u003cb\u003eDavid Cay Johnston, \u003ci\u003eThe New York Times Book Review\u003c\/i\u003e\u003c\/b\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003e“A fun book on taxes. It's terrific.”—\u003cb\u003eFareed Zakaria, CNN's Global Public Square\u003c\/b\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003e“An exploration of the absurd complexity of the American tax system and an astute comparison to many examples of simpler, effective tax collection by other governments around the world.  Throughout his well-reported, clearly written exposé of United States tax policy, [Reid] reveals the follies of the concept of American exceptionalism and the misguided pride of presidents, members of Congress, and Internal Revenue Service commissioners….Though Reid's topic may be anathema to many readers, he makes it relentlessly revelatory and simple to understand.”\u003cb\u003e—\u003ci\u003eKirkus Reviews\u003c\/i\u003e [starred]\u003c\/b\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003e“Highly readable and informative…offers solid solutions and predicts the time for change has come.”\u003cbr\u003e\u003cb\u003e— \u003ci\u003ePublishers Weekly \u003c\/i\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c\/b\u003e\u003cb\u003eT. R. Reid\u003c\/b\u003e is a longtime correspondent for \u003ci\u003eThe Washington Post\u003c\/i\u003e and former chief of its Tokyo and London bureaus. He is a commentator for National Public Radio and has been a correspondent for several PBS documentaries. His bestselling books include \u003ci\u003eThe Healing of America\u003c\/i\u003e, \u003ci\u003eThe United States of Europe\u003c\/i\u003e, \u003ci\u003eThe Chip\u003c\/i\u003e, and \u003ci\u003eConfucius Lives Next Door\u003c\/i\u003e.1.\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003e Policy Laboratories\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003e During one of its periodic bursts of anger at the Internal Revenue      Service, the U.S. Congress passed a strict new law requiring the      Treasury Department to reduce the complexity of America's income      tax system. In standard congressional fashion, this mandate for      simplicity-it's known as the \"anti-complexity clause\"-was included      in a massively complex piece of legislation that added some thirty      thousand words and scores of complicated new deductions,      exemptions, and credits to the bloated multivolume corpus of the      nation's tax law. If you happen to be browsing through the statute      books some restless night, you can find the anti-complexity clause      in Subsection IX of subpart (ii) of Section 7803(c)(2)(B) of the      Internal Revenue Code.\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003e It's classic: Congress decides to reduce the complexity of our tax      code by making it even more complex. It might be funny if the      whole taxpaying process in America weren't so maddeningly      expensive, inefficient, and time-consuming. At the same time      Congress took that principled stand in favor of simplicity, it      also added a clause-that would be Section      7803(c)(2)(B)(ii)(III)-requiring that Treasury file a report each      year on the overall cost of the income tax regime. The reported      burden on U.S. taxpayers turns out to be no laughing matter.\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003e In 2015, the government estimates, American taxpayers spent just      over six billion hours preparing and filing their income tax      returns. They paid $10.1 billion in fees to the booming      tax-preparation industry and another $2 billion for tax software      programs (programs that still require hours of work for the      typical taxpaying household). For an American household earning      the median family income-about $55,000-the average is more than      thirty hours per year gathering documents and filling out forms.      Tens of millions of Americans have to spend the weekend before      April 15-a lovely spring interlude when they should be out on the      golf course or at the kids' soccer game-tearing their hair out      over instructions like this gem from IRS Form 1041-I: \"Go to Part      IV of Schedule I to figure line 52 if the estate or trust has      qualified dividends or has a gain on lines 18a and 19 of column      (2) of Schedule D (Form 1041) (as refigured for the AMT, if      necessary).\"\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003e The cartoonist Jeff MacNelly used to offer a satire of this      process every April 15:\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003e FPO\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003e \u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003e It doesn't have to be this way.\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003e If you walk down the street in London, Tokyo, Paris, or Lima, you      won't see an office of H\u0026amp;R Block or any similar firm; in other      nations, people don't need a tax-preparation industry to file      their returns. Parliaments and tax collection bureaus all over the      world have done what the U.S. Congress seems totally unable to do:      they've made paying taxes easy.\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003e In the Netherlands, for example, the Algemene Fiscale Politiek (in      essence, the Dutch IRS) has a slogan: \"We can't make paying taxes      pleasant, but at least we can make it simple.\" It is certainly      simple for my friend Michael, a successful Dutch executive with a      six-figure income and all the economic complications that come      with his family's upper-bracket lifestyle. An American in the same      situation would have to fill out at least a dozen different forms,      some of them six pages long (or pay somebody to do it for her).      Michael, in contrast, told me that he sets aside fifteen minutes      per year to file his federal and local tax returns, and that's      usually enough. But sometimes, he said, he needs to check some      line item on the return, and that can be time-consuming. At this      point, Michael was getting downright indignant. \"I mean, some      years, it takes me nearly half an hour just to file my tax      returns!\"\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003e America could learn something from the Netherlands, and from other      countries, about how to make the taxpaying process simple. And      itÕs not just the complexity problem that we could solve by taking      a look at other countries. Almost every government on earth      collects taxes (as weÕll see, there are a few lucky nations that      get by just fine without taxing their citizens). Many of the      developed countries have come up with tax systems that are      simpler, fairer, and more efficient than ours. They can show us      what to tax, how much to tax it, and how to collect the money      thatÕs due.\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003e I traveled the globe looking at tax systems that work better than      ours (and some that are worse). I found useful lessons for the      United States all over the world. Other countries can show us how      to get the same amount of revenue with lower tax rates and how to      use the tax code to deal with important national problems, such as      the growing inequality of wealth between the richest Americans and      everybody else.\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003e Just about every economist and political figure in America agrees      these days that our tax code has to be reformed. As Americans      elected a new Congress and president in 2016, it appeared that our      body politic was finally ready to take on this challenge.\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003e One of the benefits of a comparative study of taxes is that the      other countries can serve as policy laboratories for us. In fact,      just about every idea that anybody, left or right, has proposed to      \"fix\" the U.S. tax system has already been tried somewhere. For      example:\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003e From the right, there have been repeated proposals for a flat-rate      income tax, with everybody paying the same rate-about 18%-of their      income in tax. Several Republican presidential candidates in the      2012 election, and at least four more in 2016-that would be Ben      Carson, Rand Paul, Ted Cruz, and Rick Perry-have backed the flat      tax. (Steve Forbes, the publisher who ran for president twice, has      been the most prominent advocate of this idea.) Would it work? As      it happens, about a dozen countries have actually tried this      innovation.\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003e From the left, there have been repeated proposals for a carbon      tax, designed to reduce fossil fuel emissions and thus encourage      development of \"green\" forms of energy. As it happens, Australia      actually tried this innovation-and quickly gave up on it.\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003e Virtually all economists agree that two of the most widely used      deductions in the federal income tax code-the deduction for      mortgage interest and the deduction for charitable      contributions-cut government revenues by billions of dollars but      provide almost no economic benefit. The logical response would be      to eliminate them. There are all sorts of proposals floating      around Washington, but Congress has never found a politically      palatable way to take away these popular write-offs. As it      happens, many rich countries have come up with intelligent ways to      get rid of these deductions, with minimal impact on home ownership      or charitable giving.\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003e The United States provides tax breaks for savings plans, to      encourage Americans to put away money for retirement. As with      everything else in our tax code, this straightforward idea has      become absurdly complex. There's a bewildering variety of      different plans, with names that sound like secret code-the      401(k), the 403(b), the 457(b), the SEP, the SARSEP, the ESOP, and      so on. There's an IRA, and there's a Roth IRA, which is different,      and then there's a myRA, which is different from the other two.      There's something called the \"nonqualified deferred compensation      plan.\" One of the savings vehicles in our tax code is actually      called the SIMPLE IRA, but of course it's not simple at all; the      SIMPLE IRA requires two different IRS forms (Form 5304 and Form      5305) and a ten-page book of instructions (Publication 4334). Each      different tax-free savings plan has its own rules about who can      use it, how much you can put in, how much you can take out, when      you can take it out, what you can use the money for, and how much      tax you'll owe. To deal with this expanding labyrinth of      regulations, a billion-dollar advisory industry has sprung up just      to help Americans figure out how to put money in a savings      account.\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003e Many other countries also use the tax code to encourage savings,      but no place has made it as convoluted as the U.S. mess. In      Canada, for example, the tax-free savings account is called,      sensibly, a \"Tax-Free Savings Account.\" Anybody can use it; you      can put the money into any bank or investment account; you can      deposit and withdraw at any time, for any reason. The interest and      dividends are always tax-free. The plan is so clear-cut and so      popular that savings have skyrocketed. It is a vastly simpler way      to achieve the same goal that our tax writers have turned into an      inscrutable muddle.\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003e The 535 members of the U.S. Congress-the people who write the tax      laws-have given themselves various tax breaks and deductions that      other Americans don't get. This is probably a natural tendency      among people who write the law. As it happens, though, some      countries have found ways to combat this predictable effort by      legislators to reduce their own tax bills. Slovakia, for example,      has a rule that members of the national legislature and the prime      minister's cabinet always have to pay 5% more in tax than any      other Slovakian with the same income.\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003e Should we double the tax on sugared soda pop as a way to combat      obesity? Should we impose a tax of 0.0001% on every Wall Street      transaction? Should we tax commuters for driving to work when      traffic is terrible? Should we give companies a tax break for      raising wages? Should we tax gasoline at $4 per gallon? Should we      triple the cigarette tax? In each case, other countries have given      these ideas a test run.\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003e This is not to suggest that tax systems in other nations are all      simple, efficient, and rational. Because the tax code in any      democracy is a political animal, there are strange anomalies of      taxation everywhere.\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003e Most countries, for example, tax income at a graduated rate; that      is, the more income you have, the higher rate of tax you have to      pay. But Great Britain, for reasons that evidently made sense to      Parliament, has imposed a tax rate of 60% on incomes of $160,000      per year but 45% on incomes of $230,000 or more. Similarly,      there's a strange quirk in the tax structure in the Netherlands.      The sales tax (actually, value-added tax) on dog food is 19%, but      the tax on rabbit food is 12%. Dutch bunny lovers apparently have      more lobbying clout than puppy owners.\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003e It used to be that other countries around the world studied our      tax code. In the 1980s, the United States was a recognized policy      leader on tax issues. When our 1986 tax reform produced a huge      drop in income tax rates, virtually every other developed      democracy followed our example with major rate reductions.\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003e Today, though, the United States is well behind the curve on tax      innovation. Indeed, we've completely missed the boat on the most      important taxing invention of the last half century-that is, the      value-added tax (VAT), a new form of the familiar retail sales      tax. Economists love this tax because it doesn't punish people for      working hard and making money; it taxes spending, not earning or      saving. Governments love the VAT because it is easy to collect and      hard to evade. This innovation is so useful, fair, and simple that      some 170 countries have adopted it in recent decades, often using      revenues from the VAT to cut income tax rates. The only places      that don't use a VAT are a handful of poor countries and the      world's richest country, the United States. We've missed out on a      powerful new technology. When it comes to taxation, Americans are      still pounding out letters on typewriters and dropping them in the      mailbox, while the rest of the world has moved on to e-mail and      texting.\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003e I looked at the VAT, and variations on the VAT, in several      countries. New Zealand, for example, has a broad form of this tax      called the GST-the goods and services tax. Graham Scott, the      Finance Ministry bureaucrat who designed the New Zealand system,      told me that the tax has to be paid on anything that is      purchased-from a manufacturing plant buying basic commodities to a      consumer buying the finished product in a department store. \"The      GST applies to all the services, too,\" Scott told me. \"Lawyers,      dentists, plumbers, architects-they're all taxed.\" New Zealand is      one of several countries that have recently legalized the sex      trade. So I asked if a prostitute working in a brothel is expected      to collect sales tax from the customers. \"Why, yes, of course,\" he      said, as if the answer were the most obvious thing in the world.      \"We haven't figured out whether it's a good or a service, but we      know it's taxable.\"\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003e Taxation experts constantly predict that the United States will      establish a value-added tax, which would make it possible to      reduce income tax rates for every individual and corporation. \"The      VAT makes so much economic sense that even the U.S. Congress will      eventually recognize its value,\" says the UCLA Law School      professor Eric Zolt, who has helped design tax codes for about      forty countries. \"Mark my words,\" Zolt says forcefully, \"the      United States will have a VAT within five years. Of course,\" the      professor concedes, \"I've been saying that for the last twenty      years.\"\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003e These days, when Congress takes up tax reform, the ÒreformÓ      generally makes things worse. A Congress that produces something      like Section 7803(c)(2)(B)(ii)(IX) in the name of reducing      complexity hardly seems likely to agree on any serious changes      that would improve the system. Even with one party controlling      both Congress and the White House, tax reform would be a stretch      in our acidic political atmosphere. So how could Congress and the      White House agree on serious changes to the tax code when our      country is ferociously divided?\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003e The fact is, we've done it before, in a time of severely divided      government. In the mid-1980s, a strong conservative in the White      House and a strongly liberal Speaker of the House-that is, Ronald      Reagan and Tip O'Neill-reached agreement on the biggest      transformation of the federal income tax since the tax was created      in 1913. The Tax Reform Act of 1986, passed by a divided Congress      and signed by a Republican president, was widely admired; it was      precisely the kind of change that almost all tax experts favored.      That reform was based on principles that have been adopted by      countries around the world. If we go back to those fundamental      principles, the United States could achieve serious tax reform,      even in our current state of political gridlock.\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003e Another benefit of looking at other countries is that comparative      analysis can tell us where Americans stand relative to the rest of      the world when it comes to how much tax we have to pay. During his      campaign for the presidency in 2016, Donald Trump repeatedly said,      \"The United States is the highest-taxed country in the world.\" Was      he right?","brand":"Penguin Books","offers":[{"title":"Default Title","offer_id":46305215348965,"sku":"NP9780143111146","price":17.0,"currency_code":"USD","in_stock":false}],"thumbnail_url":"\/\/cdn.shopify.com\/s\/files\/1\/1842\/7735\/files\/9780143111146.jpg?v=1767720464","url":"https:\/\/k12savings.com\/products\/a-fine-mess-isbn-9780143111146","provider":"K12savings","version":"1.0","type":"link"}