The Immense and Growing Price of "Tax Expenditures"

Tax FoundationTax FoundationTax expenditures are officially created loopholes that allow individual and corporate taxpayers to reduce their federal liabilities if they engage in certain sanctioned ways. They're called expenditures because they resemble government spending and have been treated as such in federal budgets going back to the 1970s. The biggest tax expenditures (in terms of dollars) include not counting employer-paid health premiums and insurance as compensation, excluding pension contributions and earnings from taxes, the mortgage-interest deduction on up to two homes, depreciation of machinery and equipment, deductions for state and local taxes paid by individuals, and charitable contributions.

Tax expenditures tend to be very popular with the people who benefit from them but they also represent a blatant attempt by the government to engineer behaviors ranging from having children to buying homes rather than renting. As the consensus that our current tax code is overly complicated and inefficient (both in terms of economic activity and revenue generation), all tax expenditures should be on the table for reconsideration and elimination.

The Tax Foundation has an interesting new study out that looks at the massive increase in the value and type of tax expenditures since the last comprehensive tax reform, which took place in 1986.

Beginning in the mid- to late 1990s, numerous tax expenditures were added, expanded, or otherwise allowed to grow. Today, the tax expenditure budget is $1.2 trillion, which represents real dollar growth of 44 percent since 1986 and 96 percent growth since 1991 when tax expenditures were at their lowest. All of the growth has been in the individual tax code, with about two-thirds of real dollar growth coming from just three provisions: the earned income tax credit, the child credit, and the exclusion for employer-provided healthcare. Corporate tax expenditures have actually declined since 1986 in.

The study concludes

While [tax expenditures] may achieve some other social purpose, such as more redistribution, more healthcare, or more education, they come with many downsides relating to their implementation in the tax code, namely ineffectiveness, fraud, abuse, and overspending. One avenue for tax reform would be to move these provisions to the spending side of the ledger, overseen by a spending agency subject to the annual appropriations process rather than the IRS.

Read the whole thing here.

I'd argue that the best sort of tax reform would, first of all, focus on the absolute amount of revenue needed to pay for the amount of government we want to fund over a certain period of time. Because massive amounts of borrowing fund government operations (and effectively transfer taxes to future taxpayers), most politicians don't see tax policy as a way or raising a specific amount of money to pay for current government. Instead, they treat tax policy as something that should always be tweaked to squeeze more revenue out of taxpayers.

Beyond that, taxes should be simple and transparent and they should distort economic activity as little as possible. As the Tax Foundation suggests, it would be far more efficient and effective to directly subsidize transfers via clear-cut government spending rather than through confusing, ineffective, and distortionary tax policies.

Related: "Taxes: The Price We Pay for Civilization" (originally released on April 14, 2010)

 

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • John Thacker||

    The problem is that the big bucks ones are both broad and broadly popular, and in some cases can be reasonably defended-- even though in practice, the actual beneficiaries of the tax breaks are not the putative ones. For example, not taxing government bonds is really a way for the government to decrease the borrow costs of states and local governments.

    The most outrageous and easy to attack ones are narrow, but precisely because they're narrow, they don't affect that much money. So it's a difficult problem to attack.

  • sove739||

    I work at Home with Google. It's by-far the nicest job I have had. I've made $64,000 so far this year working online and I'm a full time student. I've made such great money. It's really user friendly and I'm just so happy that I found out about it. Here is what I do, www.Bling6.com

  • Dr. Frankenstein||

    Good luck with simplification. I can name a number of tax breaks that people love. Mortgage intrest deduction, child credit, EITC, 401K Roth and Roth IRA exemptions, charitable deduction, State income tax deduction, Health care not considered to be income. I would love for a simpler system that doesn't try to social engineer everyone. It's not going to happen.

  • R C Dean||

    If you want to make any meaningful reform of the tax code, the first line has to be "The Internal Revenue Code and all regulations thereunder are hereby repealed."

    If you don't start with a clean slate, then its like only removing part of a tumor.

  • robc||

    Yep.

    If you dont start over, then I would fight to keep some of those deductions too.

    Thats why freedom cant be done incrementally.

  • CatoTheElder||

    I'd prefer the following in hopes of that it would prevent something worse arising from the ashes of the IRS:

    Amendment XXVIII Section 1. The sixteenth article of the amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.

  • robc||

    I want a section 2:

    The seventeenth article of the amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.

  • Malvolio||

    If you want to make any meaningful reform of the tax code, the first line has to be "The Internal Revenue Code and all regulations thereunder are hereby repealed."

    Then "meaningful reform" is impossible.

    100 million households and 5 million businesses have made their plans around the tax code as it is. And abrupt change would be like a major war in its devastation.

    Take a single example: the mortgage-interested deduction. Expensive, stupid policy, and if you repealed it tomorrow, you'd send millions of families into bankruptcy. To end it without causing a catastrophe, you'd have to phase the deduction out over a period of years.

  • some guy||

    You could simultaneously lower the income tax rate so that their liability doesn't change that much. Basically you could do it so that most mortgage holders break even and everyone else wins.

  • Death Rock and Skull||

    It will happen just the same way it happened in Milan.

  • R C Dean||

    Looks to me like tax expenditures and our deficit roughly equal each other. Quelle coincidence, non?

  • KDN||

    The biggest tax expenditures (in terms of dollars) include not counting employer-paid health premiums and insurance as compensation, excluding pension contributions and earnings from taxes, the mortgage-interest deduction on up to two homes, depreciation of machinery and equipment, deductions for state and local taxes paid by individuals, and charitable contributions.

    Are they actually counted this way in terms of the study? Most of those are deductions instead of credits, and that statement and doesn't really jibe with this passage:

    about two-thirds of real dollar growth coming from just three provisions: the earned income tax credit, the child credit, and the exclusion for employer-provided healthcare.

    Considering the massive increase in home values over the last 15 years (even post-bubble), you would think that the mortgage-interest deduction would account for a lot more than (at most) 1/3 of the growth.

  • John Thacker||

    Most households still don't take the mortgage interest deduction. Besides renters, there are enough people with cheap enough houses (or paid off houses) that they take the standard deduction instead. Only about 21.7% of returns in 2010 took the deduction.

    The child credit was pretty massively expanded in the last 15 years.

  • John Thacker||

    Also consider that at the end of this 15 year period, interest rates are pretty low, so the mortgage interest part hasn't increased nearly as much as home prices.

  • ||

    They're called expenditures because they resemble government spending and have been treated as such in federal budgets going back to the 1970s.

    FUCK that. Government refraining from stealing another chunk of my paycheck does not constitute an expense on their part.

  • ||

    To the government, yes it does. Remember, every dollar they don't take from you is, to their eyes and to the eyes of statists everywhere, a revenue loss.

    When your entire business model is based on stealing, not stealing more is a reduction in profits. Or to paraphrase, when your entire business model is utterly immoral, you are a fucking scumbag.

  • John Thacker||

    Government taxing me more because I'd don't engage in the government approved behavior, however, is. Given that in practice, having these don't reduce the amount of government spending, they really are just about shifting who is paying.

    Some of these deductions are social engineering through the tax code. As I said originally, the broad based ones are politically popular (and can be defended philosophically by many, even if not always convincingly to me.)

  • Logical 1||

    Well said Mr. Scientist - my thoughts exactly

  • ||

    I hate that use of terminology as well, although it does make sense purely from an accounting standpoint. The government is forgoing revenue it would otherwise collect for some other perceived benefit. But the use of that terminology does imply that all money belongs to the government, and the process of budgeting is merely the process of deciding how generous Uncle Sam is going to be about letting you keep some of it.

  • John Thacker||

    I'd prefer calling them "special higher taxes on the childless and renters." Change the default assumption so that the "real" tax code is the lower one, and other people are paying penalty taxes.

    The math would be the same, though.

  • sarcasmic||

    Tax expenditures is like saying that not taking is giving. That's Tony-level disingenuousness.

  • ||

    Meh.

    It's redistribution of wealth. It's making one group (that you like) pay less than another group (that you don't like). And it's buying votes.

    You can argue about the morality of taxes all day, but if you are going to have them, they ought to be equal. Deductions for having kids or buying houses is complete fucking bullshit. Why should I pay more for government services than you do just because you decided to produce spawn? Oh, because more people have kids than not, so politicians can aggrandize themselves to the majority by making the minority pay extra.

  • sarcasmic||

    Redistribution is taking from one and giving to another.

    Taking different amounts from different people is still taking.

  • ||

    True. But if you view what the government does with the taxes it collects as a group of services provided to each individual, if some are paying more for said services than others, it amounts to the government giving free shit to some while others pay double (or some ratio thereof).

    All a progressive tax structure is, is a way to give one group (the majority) free shit at the expense of the wealthier minority, for the purpose of purchasing the votes of the 51% receiving the free shit.

    It's free shit all the way down.

  • John Thacker||

    So for example, if we decided that, in payment for past abuses, that American Indians and African Americans didn't owe any personal income tax, but everyone else owed at the same rate as before (or possibly higher, to make up the difference) you wouldn't view that as "redistribution?"

  • John Thacker||

    I suppose if everyone got a dollar amount worth of government benefits equal to the taxation paid, it would not be redistribution. In practice, it doesn't work that way, which is why increasing the progressivity of taxation can be considered "redistribution."

  • AlexInCT||

    "Why should I pay more for government services than you do just because you decided to produce spawn?"

    Future tax payers that can be fleeced!

    Or something.

  • Rasilio||

    "Why should I pay more for government services than you do just because you decided to produce spawn?"

    Cause those spawn are gonna finance your Medicare and Social Security one day

  • R C Dean||

    depreciation of machinery and equipment, deductions for state and local taxes paid by individuals,

    I will quibble with depreciation as an "expenditure." Unless you let people expense capital expenditures in the year they are made, I think you have to let them deduct the depreciation. Otherwise, you have a big expenditure that is just not recognized.

    Also, quibble with state and local taxes as an "tax expenditure." How many times should anyone have to pay taxes on a given dollar of income? Why does it matter what level of government you paid it to? If anything, these shouldn't be deductions, they should be credits.

  • Hugh Akston||

    No. They should eliminate the deductions altogether. If they don't want companies to put off capital investments or to double-tax people who already pay state taxes, then they should just lower taxes across the board.

  • Adam330||

    So companies should pay taxes based on gross revenues with no deductions for expenses? That seems even nuttier than our current system?

  • UnCivilServant||

    That's how my taxes work, and it would seem to encourage more efficient production. Or at least provide less subsudy to low-margin or loss making enterprises.

  • Death Rock and Skull||

    Pretty much every company and industry spends more than half of their gross revenue every year. Taxing gross revenue of businesses would pretty much bankrupt almost every business.

  • Rasilio||

    No they don't.

    The entire point of the standard deduction is to account for a basic level of living expense which is not taxed.

    Corporations don't get standard deductions and instead have to itemize

  • John Thacker||

    They could entirely eliminate the corporate income tax, and tax individuals for it all on a pass-through basis. That would make much more sense than gross revenue taxes (which have been tried in some US states.)

  • Rasilio||

    They should eliminate the corporate income taxes and replace them with individual income (or possibly capital gains) taxes because the corporations do not actually pay any of those taxes.

    All they do is collect them and pass them along to the government, the money ultimately comes from one of 3 sources, the customers via higher prices, the workers via lower wages, or the owners via lower profits.

    The problem is the ratios that each of those groups pays of the taxes is obscured and decided by a combination of market factors and ownership.

  • KDN||

    The whole post isn't clear. Deductions seem to be lumped in with credits, which just isn't right. If you include the former than you are operating under the assumption that every dollar brought in is the government's unless they say otherwise. Lumping in deductions with credits is completely disingenuous, but if we're going down that path then the corporate number should dwarf the personal total by factor of 10.

    "Tax expenditures" should be restricted to direct subsidies and tax credits. Once you put deductions in then the whole thing goes off the rails.

  • Adam330||

    I'm not sure why you're making this sharp distinction between credits and deductions? You can do the same thing with either. For example, I could allow you to deduct up to $2000 in college tuition from your income. At a marginal tax 15% rate, that would result in a $300 savings. Alternatively, I could allow you to take a credit of up to $300 for college tuition paid. Same outcome (and this is in fact very close to two current tax code provisions- the HOPE/Lifetime Learning credit and the tuition and fees deduction).

  • KDN||

    Because they're two totally different concepts. Deductions help define what your net income is and a credit is added on top of what is already taxable; the former helps define what is taxable (income less expenditures, for simplicity's sake) and the latter is givebacks from the government for engaging in approved activities.

    It may be equal as far as the government's bottom line is concerned but they are not the same thing and shouldn't be treated as such.

  • Adam330||

    So in terms of my example, why is it ok to permit a deduction for tuition but not ok to give a credit?

  • KDN||

    So in terms of my example, why is it ok to permit a deduction for tuition but not ok to give a credit?

    It's the government, the answer is always "because."

    And the government saying, "that spending counts as part of your net income if it isn't an approved activity, but you can reduce your income if it is an approved activity," that's really different?

    From an accounting perspective, yes.

  • KDN||

    I failed threading.

  • Adam330||

    Um ok then.

  • John Thacker||

    It's the government, the answer is always "because."

    Um, that's your logic, not the government's logic. You're the one arguing that allowing people to deduct their spending on tuition from their income is perfectly ok, but a credit is not.

  • John Thacker||

    From an accounting perspective, yes.

    From the government's bullshit accounting perspective, yes.

    But that's the same sort of accounting perspective that tries to pretend that tax credits aren't spending.

  • KDN||

    You're the one arguing that allowing people to deduct their spending on tuition from their income is perfectly ok, but a credit is not.

    I misunderstood the thrust of the question. Apologies. I personally don't feel that either in this case is justifiable, but philosophically I have nothing against deductions. However, they should be restricted to actual necessities, and they shouldn't be counted as "tax expenditures" because the government never had any right to that money in the first place (assuming that we are to keep our tax regime consistent and apply it to net income).

    But that's the same sort of accounting perspective that tries to pretend that tax credits aren't spending.

    Tax credits are clearly spending, tax deductions are not. From a personal accounting standpoint, credits are income while deductions are the government recognizing an expense. Not the same thing even though you see it the same way on April 15.

  • John Thacker||

    the latter is givebacks from the government for engaging in approved activities.

    And the government saying, "that spending counts as part of your net income if it isn't an approved activity, but you can reduce your income if it is an approved activity," that's really different?

  • JWatts||

    "Because they're two totally different concepts."

    Agreed. There are two different points in this thread that are getting intertwined.

    Deductions are Not the same as Credits. Yes, you can make the math add up the same way, but that's merely solving for the solution and doesn't mean they are identical concepts.

    That being said, the morality of the two concepts is a different matter. And indeed the morality of different types of deductions are different on a case by case basis.

    An argument can be made that it's unfair to tax money that was already taxed away, since you never received the money in the first place. But that's a different argument than the arguments behind the mortgage deduction, electric car deduction, child deductions which are all essentially behavioral modification and/or rewarding certain groups at the expense of others.

    Credits on the other hand are (or can be) pretty ridiculous with regards to the tax codes. Deductions can, at most, reduce your tax obligation to zero. Credits on the other hand can and do expressly make your tax obligation negative.

    Credits are just a complicated version of the Federal government paying someone to do something and they (generally) aren't tied to income at all.

  • John Thacker||

    I disagree, pretending that deductions and credits are so different is completely disingenuous.

    Take, for example, the recent IRS issue with 501(c)(4)s. If the law actually explicitly stated that "any money given to a progressive social welfare group can be deducted from your taxes, but not money given to conservative or libertarian groups," you wouldn't view that as a subsidy or social engineering? You would say, "Oh well, that's okay, I don't care if certain types of spending is treated differently than others?"

    It is very possible to have rules about deductions that are, in practice, no different from credits or subsidies.

  • JWatts||

    "I disagree, pretending that deductions and credits are so different is completely disingenuous."

    They are different. They may both be immoral (which seems to be your point) but that doesn't make then the same concept.

  • Death Rock and Skull||

    Corporate profit taxation, if it exists, should be a simple revenue minus expenses calculation. Yes, capital expenses should be deducted the moment they happen.

    Fuck IRS depreciation, which encourages the replacement of equipment faster than it actually physically depreciates. Its like a subsidy to manufacturers.

  • John Thacker||

    Yes, capital expenses should be deducted the moment they happen.

    Fuck IRS depreciation, which encourages the replacement of equipment faster than it actually physically depreciates. Its like a subsidy to manufacturers.

    Err, wouldn't deducting the expenses that moment that they happen encourage even faster replacement (and lower taxes), if there's really that much replacement for the tax benefits?

    Long depreciation schedules discourage equipment replacement.

  • Death Rock and Skull||

    They might hold on to shit longer while expanding as fast as they economically can. Wealth is not created by destroying assets, so if a business bought a bunch of new equipment and ended up with excess older equipment, it would likely be sold, which would generate revenue that pushes up the taxable net revenue. There is not much to gain by buying more shit than you need.

  • JWatts||

    "Fuck IRS depreciation, which encourages the replacement of equipment faster than it actually physically depreciates. Its like a subsidy to manufacturers."

    In reality, depreciation is designed to collect more money from businesses in the short run than it's designed for any other reason.

    I doubt manufacturer sales would drop if everyone could expense equipment vs depreciating it. Why would they? The only thing that would drop would be your tax obligation in the year that you bought something expensive and that would be offset by paying higher taxes in off years.

  • John Thacker||

    Also, quibble with state and local taxes as an "tax expenditure." How many times should anyone have to pay taxes on a given dollar of income? Why does it matter what level of government you paid it to?

    The overwhelming net effect of the deduction of state and local taxes is a transfer of money from low tax to high tax states. It ensures that state and local governments don't pay as much of a price for raising taxes-- instead, that money comes out their federal taxes, and low tax states end up paying more federal taxes to offset.

    It's not that much different from getting the feds to pay for part of your Medicare or Medicaid expansion. If a state wants to spend more, pay for it themselves.

  • Robert||

    I've long been the other way: I think we need more & better loopholes. Divide & conquer. Concentrated benefits, diffuse costs.

  • PRX||

    according to this mathematical concept I'm expending about $50,000 per year in unclaimed welfare.

  • Adam330||

    And I just spent nearly $5000 by not robbing the bank I visited during my lunch hour!

  • robc||

    Depreciation of machinery and equipment?

    Wouldnt the default action be to write that off as an expense the first year? It seems like that increases the taxes not decreases them.

  • robc||

    I see Dean and I are in synce on this one. Doh, should have read down.

  • robc||

    R C Dean, that is.

  • CatoTheElder||

    Why just "depreciation of machinery and equipment"? Why discriminate against capital intensive businesses in this way?

    If depreciation is to be included as a tax expenditure, why not just include all revenues (or cash inflows) as taxable income? Since the resulting tax increases would fall mainly upon corporations, this would likely have populist appeal. Though such a definition would make the tax code even more reprehensible to genuine libertarians, it probably does resonate with libertarian populists.

  • KDN||

    It really wouldn't work that way. Capital investments aren't expenditures, so if you eliminate the depreciation deduction then you have no way to receive any benefit in your tax treatment for the decline in your assets as you use the good or time passes. Treating it that way would really throw the whole accounting system out of balance. It's a really dumb (and unfair) idea.

    The overarching objective of the tax system (both personal and corporate) is to pay tax based on net income. Eliminating a lot of these deductions throws that idea overboard and would create a system that is probably simpler but more arbitrary than what we have now.

  • robc||

    Umm...huh?

    Im saying the alternate is to treat a backhoe the same as a pencil. Write them both off as expenses in year 1.

    The are both capital investments, the pencil just depreciates faster than the backhoe.

  • KDN||

    The pencil's not a depreciable asset, it's supplies. As you're building your books you treat them in a totally different manner; you could simply have a category called "capital goods" and corresponding "capital expense," but since there's no treatment of the current value of the good it will give an inappropriate valuation to your assets.

    I'm probably just getting caught up in the weeds here because I'm an accountant, but having to rejigger everything to fit such a scheme seems like it would vastly change the valuations of basically every company in the world which would be pretty chaotic and the end result would give you less insight into the balance sheets of them. It also violates a ton of bookkeeping protocol.

  • Death Rock and Skull||

    A capital asset is just a bigger fucking supply.

    You're viewing accounting through the government regulated system it operates around, not how it might be in a free market.

  • robc||

    You're viewing accounting through the government regulated system it operates around, not how it might be in a free market.

    Not entirely true. Even in a free market you would want to know the value of your assets, so accounting would still use some form of depreciation.

  • JWatts||

    KDN, I think you are wrong about this.
    Depreciation is designed to collect taxes quicker. It Does Not help corporations out at all, it hurts them! It helps out the government, which is why it's a law.

  • robc||

    It Does Not help corporations out at all, it hurts them! It helps out the government, which is why it's a law.

    Exactly.

    A capital asset is just a bigger fucking supply.

    Exactly.

    A pencil still has value until used up. A hypothetical short pencil resell market could exist, if it was worth bothering with. And, actually, I guess there is one, as golf courses have to get their pencils somewhere. [insert rim shot here]

  • Death Rock and Skull||

    Fucking flat tax or no tax. Tax breaks for certain activities are just as bad as excise taxes or any form of paternalism and regulation/subsidization of economic activity.

  • ||

    How about a flat fee?

  • Adam330||

    How about unicorn farts?

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    This is an example of a discussion which is philosophically correct (except the stuff about depreciation and state taxes), but whose practical implementation would probably be a disaster.

    If some major group of mainstream politicians gets hold of this issue and issues a self-congratulatory manifesto praising their courage in "closing loopholes," the impact would probably be that some politically-vulnerable groups will see their taxes rise under the guise of "reducing tax expenditures." Let's say wealthy homeowners and retirees will lose their benefits, and nonprofits funded by the Kochs will no longer be able to claim tax benefits. "Regular Americans" will be "allowed" to keep their deductions in exchange for some more paperwork.

    Now, if there's actually a practical proposals to get rid of "tax expenditures," such a measure would only pass by somewhat lowering the overall tax rates - and we'd have to watch like hawks to make sure that (a) there wasn't a net tax increase under the slogan of "loophole-closing," and (b) the loopholes didn't creep back in under the guise of whatever formula they have for calculating income.

  • John Thacker||

    (except the stuff about depreciation and state taxes)

    I disagree, the stuff about state taxes is philosophically correct. The deduction for state taxes encourages states to raise their taxes. The net effect is a shift of money from low tax states to high tax states.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    I could be wrong about the state tax deduction, I was simply putting deductions which had been questioned on this thread on their separate shelf, so I could make general points about the rest.

  • John Thacker||

    *shrug*

    Basically any deduction can be defended by someone. The broader based and more philosophical the deduction, the greater the chance that I'd actually even agree with the argument.

    Some real or proposed deductions are on their face ridiculous. But they're actually not that much money (though they're a lot of pages, and very important to the recipients.)

    The big dollar ones are reasonably broad based, and pretty popular, and hard to get rid of. Some of them I could even make a moderately convincing case for. I don't think that they'll go away.

  • John Thacker||

    Best hope for getting rid of the mortgage interest deduction is to not raise the limit, and hope inflation makes it affect fewer people. But the limit will probably be raised at some point.

  • Adam330||

    As the comments here show, any definition of "tax expenditure" is arbitrary. The study included depreciation of machinery and equipment, but that kind of deduction seems to me to be essential to any accurate measurement of business income. What about progressive rate structure? And isn't it a "tax expenditure" when I get charged a 15% rate and some other poor shlub gets charged a 40% rate just because he earns more? The Government could after all charge me a 40% rate too by just changing the law. For that matter, why isn't the fact that the Government doesn't tax 100% of my income a tax expenditure? And why aren't they counting the exclusion of imputed income, like rent-free living in one's own house or the value of services of a stay-at-home mom, as a tax expenditure? Plenty of economists argue convincingly that not taxing these things creates market distortions, and in fact some countries do tax them as part of their income tax regimes.

  • Death Rock and Skull||

    The depreciation systems the IRS comes up with are fucking retarded.

  • DarrenM||

    The depreciation systems the IRS comes up with are fucking retarded.

    To be fair, they have to work with the laws passed by Congress and the President, which are probably the main source of any retardation.

  • CatoTheElder||

    "For that matter, why isn't the fact that the Government doesn't tax 100% of my income a tax expenditure?"

    Indeed. There is nothing in 16th Amendment that would limit this. In fact, a 150% income tax is possible.

    It's really difficult to understand how naive voters were back in 1909-1913 when this amendment was ratified.

  • Auric Demonocles||

    You know, alt-text won't get you taxed extra.

  • laurenrhoades||

    Landon. if you, thought Kathryn`s c0mment is good... last saturday I bought a gorgeous Saab 99 Turbo after bringing in $7520 this past 4 weeks and a little over ten grand lass-month. it's definitly the coolest work Ive ever had. I actually started three months/ago and almost straight away started bringing in at least $80, per-hour. I follow this website,, www.max38.com
    &my; neighbor's sister makes $65 every hour on the laptop. She has been fired for 8 months but last month her check was $20697 just working on the laptop for a few hours.

  • Chris Dubuisson||

    Pension contributions and earnings are not excluded from taxes. The taxes are merely deferred until the money is withdrawn.

  • DarrenM||

    the absolute amount of revenue needed to pay for the amount of government we want to fund over a certain period of time

    And the answer is (as always) ....MORE!

  • ebola131||

    Tax Expenditure....
    A term invented by Anti-Capitalists/Marxists that believe that every earned dollar is owned by the government which decides how much of your earnings you get to keep.
    A violent conflict between this group and libertarians is inevitable.

  • johnson29||

    The interest rate you receive on your Reverse Mortgage Loan will be to most important factor in determine how much you will be able to borrow/receive today and how much will build up over the course of the loan. Just as with a forward mortgage (think of a refinance) where you would want to secure a low fixed rate this is the same concept with the reverse mortgage. The interest rates and fees are all determined based upon home value and what loan you decide to go with.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Video Game Nation: How gaming is making America freer – and more fun.
  • Matt Welch: How the left turned against free speech.
  • Nothing Left to Cut? Congress can’t live within their means.
  • And much more.

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement