My life belongs to me, not you.
I have not lived for your amusement, enlightenment, entertainment or any other purpose you might devise.
In antiquity nakedness was a sign of poverty and enslavement; a slave had no right to privacy; all that he was or had was the property of his master.
I do not want or care to know what you pay or don't pay; that is between God and you, or the government and you.
If you wish to live as a slave, do so.
I will not wear your chain.
20
The idea that everyone's taxes should suddenly become part of the public domain is ludicrous. Why someone thinks they have the right to access my personal finances is shocking. Running for public office and requiring those that seek that office to do so, by law, is one thing. Asking every citizen to open up their finances to the gossipy and prying eyes of the world is quite another and a stupid, for wont of a better word.
23
I’m a fan of NYT, but opinion articles like this make me wonder if you’ve lost your minds, and remind me to stay away from your editorial page.
Not to mention another example of a “liberal media” idea that can encourage residents of flyover country to vote for Trump again.
16
As it happens, this is already the law in Finland, and the NYT published an article about it: "Happy ‘National Jealousy Day’! Finland Bares Its Citizens’ Taxes", NYT Nov 1, 2018.
4
Monetarily we are the most corrupt country in the world and we allow the real criminals the ones our so called Justice Dept. just cannot seem to ever bring charges regardless of the size of their crimes. Anyone remember the 2008 crash?
Why Americans are still stupid enough to continue welfare for billionaires is beyond comprehension.
14
Well, heck, yeah, everyone's tax returns should be public. What better way to solve petty personal disputes than by referral to the IRS for an investigation.
"Psst ... IRS - I was looking over the return of my neighbor - you know, the one whose dog keeps pooping on my lawn - and I didn't see any reference in there to the money earned from his son's lawn mowing and snow shoveling and from his daughter's babysitting. And I can prove it, too, because some of that lawn mowing, snow shoveling and babysitting was for me. Sic'em, Tax Kings."
9
The solution is to have the IRS send everyone their bill, based off of all the forms we get. Have a set period of time to protest that bill. Have a deadline for payment. Anyone who hasn't paid gets their info published.
That way, no one can cheat, no one has to do the math/struggle with forms, and you can protect your right to privacy by paying what you owe.
6
If Harvard economist Raj Chetty were sincere about income inequality, he would propose dismantling the Ivy League and have Harvard use its nearly $40 billion endowment to pay the tuition, room and board for all students.
5
No, it won't reduce "economic inequality". The hot buzzword for bad choices.
5
This is the single worst idea I’ve ever read. Is the author serious? Personal taxes returns made public?
What a gaping hole in privacy this would create, I can’t even think of the number of ways it would be exploited.
14
The NYT should take the first step and make public all salary data of the company. Perhaps that would se t the right example, and would show that your editorial opinion is sincerely held.
12
This is a terrible idea. What a great way to turn neighbors against neighbors---just the kind of discontent and snitching a communist government wants.
11
That would certainly be a boon to grifters and con men targeting the elderly.
13
Except for SSNs
3
Speaking of fraud, I regard it as unconstitutional allowing a write-off on taxes of ostensible tithing.
The first amendment to the US Constitution states "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." ...
Congress has enacted special tax laws that apply to churches, religious organizations and
ministers in recognition of their unique status in American society and of their rights guaranteed by the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States. Churches and religious
organizations are generally exempt from income tax and receive other favorable treatment
under the tax law; however, certain income of a church or religious organization may be
subject to tax, such as income from an unrelated business. https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p1828.pdf
"...their unique status in American society..."
SUCKERS
3
Find the message from our President in which he mentioned that his supporters have a high IQ. If Congress would not understand his taxes, surely his base would. Convene the high IQ base, and share the documents with them.
2
Absolutely not. This will be abused and used against opponents.
4
If everyone's taxes were public domain, how many would realize how badly off they actually are? The disparities have become so enormous that they are abstractions. For example, for how long will it take for a million seconds to transpire? A billion?
A million seconds will take less than a fortnight or 2 weeks; however, a billion will take a more than three decades.
Seen this way the disparities are quite alarming--unfortunately, too many Americans are numerically illiterate.
4
In this day of hashtag I'm angry mobs, providing them with targets is ludicrous. I see flash mobs protesting not the taxes paid or not paid, but the actual incomes.
We don't need more fodder for social media busy bodies.
1
There should be no Federal Personal Income Tax.
2
Excellent idea. The innocent have nothing to fear.
3
I have a better idea to capture fraud. Publicize the people who get government benefits, which ones, and how much? Oh, that may cause people to be looked down on, but very effective catching cheats. Isn’t that the exact reason for tax records to be posted? Fraud plays both ways. Expose it all, down to every tax credit for every child at every address. See what people think about that.
2
We chastise Facebook for intruding into our privacy -- this is the worst intrusion into my privacy I can think of. It is none of anyone's business what I make!!
4
Nice try...I am poor, but still i need my PRIVACY.
3
Property taxes are already public. Hasn’t killed anyone.
5
During the same week that the NYT is running a series on the electronic spying in to the lives of citizens by private interests, a member of the NYT editorial board is recommending further invasion of privacy. Go figure.
What Mr Applebaum is really advocating is opening up the ability of all kinds of cottage industries and scam artists to further target individuals in commercial schemes, and oh yeah, set up another bureaucracy under the guise of 'freedom of information.'
Another weird idea being sprung, just because the president buckles tradition and refuses to release his income tax.
2
Absolutely not. What my wife and I make is no one else’s business.
3
Why would I want a potential or current employer to know my medical deductions? There are probably other sensitive things on my return if I look at it through the lens of privacy.
Strange mix of articles in the Times - some bemoaning the invasion of privacy on the internet and this one asking for an either further invasion of privacy.
23
The problem of tax cheats should be solved by beefing up enforcement at the IRS, not by publishing a list of wealthy marks for grifters, con artists, and identity thieves.
As far as elected politicians are concerned, it already is public record what salary is paid for what position. Do we really want to discourage citizens who care about their financial privacy from serving the local school board by singling them out for financial scrutiny by their neighbors?
In CT, the salary paid to state employees is published on-line. At least when it comes to professionals like doctors and lawyers and accountants, the loss of salary privacy is a substantial negative to state employment. When an employer decides to publish payroll with names attached, that employer is going to have to pay more as a result. The policy doesn't even make sense - if a person has a no-show job, that's the problem, not the level of pay.
Paradoxically, CT passed a law recently to prohibit employers from asking applicants what their current salary is. With current state employees, there's no need to ask! It's right on line.
I’m sitting in the doctor’s office waiting room, and the couple across from me is doing their taxes on the phone! Chatting loudly about their financial details, how much they have to pay, one reading a credit card number to the other as the security code! Obviously at least two people wouldn’t mind having their taxes open to everyone.
3
Good article, great idea, but it really doesn't matter. The United States long since passed into the abyss of total control by deep pockets. What I think, what u think, what the majority thinks simply doesn't count for anything. In two years Trump has flaunted innumerable norms and probably several laws w/o recourse. He has proven the fallacy of the American democracy and the hypocrisy of the rule of law. When he is reelected in 2020 the end will be sealed & he will formalize what has become obvious.
1
Yesterday's paper dedicated to maintaining privacy and today your article proclaims the benefits of open disclosure of peoples most personal aspect of their lives. A perfect example of why wannabe demagogues llke trump win elections.
5
Elsewhere in the opinion section we are told to fear Facebook and Google, and our smartphones, because they are storing info about us, and selling it to others. Here we are told our income info should be public too.
3
I'm all in for making taxes public. The question is how it'd ever pass into law.
4
The taxes that individuals pay is based on tax law. Those with higher incomes are able to take advantage of 'tax loopholes' and generate income thru lower or non-taxed alternatives. That they have more income isn't shameful. The shame is on the the legislators that fail to change laws that shape equality due to where their interests lie; after all, our legislators tend to be in the top percent of the income distribution and are influenced by lobbyists.
Given Citizens United and the lack of affordable health care as examples of the" balance of powers lay of the land", no one should be surprised by the persistence of inequality.
2
I seem to recall that the 4th Amendment has some requirements before my private affairs can be made public "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
Constitutional rights are SO inconvient to those who want the State to have tyranical control
16
Given the fanciful nature of a lot of the yelling against this—nobody seems able to come up with an actual case of this sort of thing hurting anybody, and in fact half the yellers seem to have no idea what’s even ON a tax form—I have a question.
Does anybody know of any place in the United States where a public employee’s salary, benefits, retirement package, and so on are NOT already matters of public record? Anybody know of a publicly-traded company or corporation where the same info isn’t available for all the chief officers at the very least?
How ‘bout the military, members of Congress, and so on? Cops, judges, DAs and the like? anybody not know how to find out what they get?
Anybody know of a state where everybody who sits on any kind of public board ISN’T legally required to file public-access paperwork listing any and all serious potential conflicts of interest?
5
@Robert- this from earlier contradicts that assertion:
"This has been tried here in Norway. I applaud the intention to create more transparency, but - an unintended consequence here was that it created a shopping list for criminals. Sort of, who's richest, who can we most profitably burgle/ kidnap/ threaten? So, there has to be a better way."
2
Americans so much love their cocoon of political security that they believe taxes should be public, one's voting record should be public, one's every thought and belief should be public and recorded, and our general political condition and our personal safety will never change.
History says that neither democracy (such as we have it) or the social order we enjoy will last forever. If you want proof, look around. If and when lawful protections breaks down and people are no longer protected from one another, knowledge of such personal information can prompt social strife. People will be targeted, for their beliefs, because of their political persuasion, because of how much money they have.
Our governments Federal, state, and local may have arrogated to themselves the power to levy income, estate, and other taxes. But they should not let everyone else in the country know such personal information.
3
I work for the State of California. For maybe 10 years the names of all state employees and their compensation has been public information. There is at least one website where all the data is accessible to the public. All someone has to do to find out how much I earn is look me up on that website.
I've never been terribly pleased with this arrangement. While the public certainly has an interest in knowing the number of employees and their various pay rates in different jobs, it seems unnecessary that names be attached to that data.
But you know what? Nothing untoward has ever happened to me as a result, and I've never heard of anyone else whose life was affected by this practice.
Put me down for a "Yes" vote for making income tax information public. Whatever intrusion on people's privacy might happen would be more than offset by the positive effects of having the information, most particularly for the wealthy among us, out in the sunshine where everyone can see it if they wish.
Obviously we'd see staunch opposition not just from Republicans, but also many Democrats. People with money and power always want to be treated as exceptions to the rules they impose on the rest of us. And when those people let us know without a doubt who they are, that should be our cue to vote them out of office.
8
@Foul Hooker- this from earlier:
"This has been tried here in Norway. I applaud the intention to create more transparency, but - an unintended consequence here was that it created a shopping list for criminals. Sort of, who's richest, who can we most profitably burgle/ kidnap/ threaten? So, there has to be a better way."
1
@Foul Hooker
Actually, the system you talk about only list income paid by the state. You mistakingly state later call the information how much you earn. This paper posted Kamala Haris’s income at $1.8 million. Is that what California paid her? NOT.
This is ethically, socially and practically wrong.
1) Comparison of Norway and the US is simply not correct. One is a small and highly homogenized wealthy society with very low crime rates and holds a one trillion plus dollars in a wealth fund for its several million citizens. The other is a very large, highly populated multicultural country with serious crime and public debt.
2) Public tax disclosure is seriously problematic at multiple levels as it put a family at a -much- higher risk. No family deserves to be placed in a target list of criminals or a charming freeloader seeking to marry a wealthy girl. First, prove wrongdoing and then punish or disclose.
3) People who pay low or no taxes because of temporary financial difficulties will be ostracized.
4) Wealthy people often run their wealth through companies. This is not some insidious act but the way our society functions. Wealth is often created in the form of a company. The tax transparency would only work if these structures meaning all assets (and liabilities) are disclosed but this would erode the fundamental concept of limited liability that gives our societies the ability to scale. It is this ability to 'scale up' that made the US what is it is today.
This article is not about the $450b the IRS seeks. The IRS can and should find a way to collect these monies, especially in a digitally connected world. Here, I see the 'let's curtail individual rights for the common good' philosophy.
5
This has been tried here in Norway. I applaud the intention to create more transparency, but - an unintended consequence here was that it created a shopping list for criminals. Sort of, who's richest, who can we most profitably burgle/ kidnap/ threaten? So, there has to be a better way.
8
And yet somehow, I know you can’t come up with a single solitary example of any of this actually happening.
Please give an example of this actually happening.
Thanks.
Specific, mind you.
No thanks. Don’t need more privacy shredded, thanks very much. (Also - not happening.)
However, that doesn’t hold for presidential candidates or Donald Trump.
3
That's market economy. Full information assumed.
2
I'm a private citizen working for a private company. What I make is not anyone's business. I don't care what anyone else makes, it doesn't matter to me.
9
In Norway, everyone--including the King of Norway and the Prime Minister's--paid taxes are open to the public. Everything is transparent...the way it should always be in a Democracy.
11
Privacy is part of private life and contributes to happiness. Tax records are private and cannot be made public. The only exception are for those people who quit private life and seek public life. Their records should be made public and mandatory to contest in elections for any office. The reason is we want honest people to be our leaders. Knowing other people’s incomes only increases useless gossip talk.
6
What a treasure trove for fraudsters, scammers, advertizers and family members who will be going after the money that elderly aunt Mary who happens to have a good income from her late husband's estate. Give me a break. If you want to aggregate tax data by job catagory, age or other variables to get at some of the issues you mention, fine, but leave aunt Mary alone.
8
Great article and very thought provoking.
Corporations' tax returns are public record (even though they're people). And the revelation that 50 of the largest and most profitable corps paid NO federal taxes in 2018 dramatically revealed the actual beneficiaries of the 2017 tax cut.
7
I agree with this suggestion on the principle that there is no such thing as a fair marketplace unless every participant has the same information.
7
lets start with requiring every person who wishes to run for public office must first disclose their income tax returns for the past 5 years before they are eligible to run for public office.
second, the names of all real estate property owners(including full names of owners of all limited liability companies) , including all beneficial owner interests must be publicly disclosed. all straw party ownership would be unenforceable. any non public ownership would be illegal and non enforceable. all leases for over one year would have to be filed publicly or would become unenforceable. the purpose is to prevent ownership of property in the USA by dirty money such as drug money, stolen money, etc). all hidden interest would be void and unenforceable.
5
Really bad idea. This would be right up there with allowing the government to inspect our houses…or our laundry. Ever heard of the right to privacy?
12
OK,sir. You first.
Give us 5 years of all your financial info and add all romantic liaisons and medical info. All that is so we can be sure you’re not vulnerable to blackmail to change your writing, which is of such great influence.
All of your Times colleagues should follow suit, don’t you agree?
11
@Franco51- oh can please include your blood type and recent medical imaging and testing as well. we're all tired of paying for you hypertension and anti-lipid medication as well, and your liver transplant if you're smoking.
6
The Dems must get busy and pass a law that states that ALL candidates running for Congress and the WH must release 10 yrs of income tax data. This will of course mean that Fat Donald will not run in 2020 but I hope will not stop the DSNY prosecutors from putting him in jail.
7
@Duncan Lennox- no no, that's always been voluntary and is best that way. If they do disclose, it tells us very little. If they don't, it tells us a whole lot more.
Taxes in America are essentially an honor system and that's OK. But, as the Russian proverb goes, "Trust, with verification."
2
Absolutely! Transparency for all.
9
@EdBx-
Aboslutely NOT!
2
Oh the irony. This op-ed appears on the front page of the Times website directly under "It’s Time to Panic About Privacy." I can't speak for Norway or Finland, but in the United States there is a constitutional right to privacy.
13
I'm pretty sure I'd be OK with someone using my taxes to illustrate a demographic, or to point to growing economic inequality, or even to have better insight into what different people get paid for the same job. But there's no reason any of those larger social purposes can't be shared anonymously.
(I do realise that would be of no help to shaming the top 1%, nor would it provide any additional transparency to those politicians skimming & scamming the system.)
This is the reason I don't use Facebook. I have several quite separate aspects in my life. & I have the right to keep them separate.
Google was bad enough. My students would Google me & find schools, resumes, acknowledgments. But they would also find out quickly that I was gay, involved in education at the local LGBTQ community center, & asked to speak at large events.(They also found that I had an Abyssinian Cattery.)
I don't think there's anything wrong with being involved with different aspects off life & trying to keep them apart from one another. But not everything is to be shared with everyone. My students (19 & 20 year old undergraduates; graduates & post graduates) did not need to know that I'm a vocal advocate for Lesbian Self Development including Safe Sex - but in the 90's, that piece of information could have meant the difference between getting the position & not.
So no, I don't want my neighbors reading over my deductibles, or what I got paid to speak here or there. It's just too dangerous.
Ona
8
@Ona- very well said!
2
‘Scuse me, but the salaries of public employees, as well as their benefits, as well as their labor agreements and so on, are public record.
1
@OnaWhy do you want to shame the top 1%?
No, everyone's taxes should not be made public. Nor their pictures, letters, emails, you name it. Privacy is - or should be - a basic human right in America and should be added to our Constitution.
Mandatory disclosure should be reason based, not ubiquitous. The default should be to privacy.
I do agree that if someone wants to run for or be appointed to a public office or position, the amount of personal information they should make public should be tied to the impact of and risk to the rest of us of that office. Yes, we should start with the taxes of President/Vice President, the Cabinet, Senators, Representatives, and governors. Toss in SCOTUS, too. After that, well, your argument holds little merit.
6
It is funny how in Nassau County when the County Assessor allowed residents to look up the values (by accident and only for a couple of days) of politicians, judges and police officers there was an uproar. The politicians swung into action, the PBA lobbied the county executive and the website immediately removed the search by name function.
I guess even Local pols, judges and cops dislike the idea of a little sunlight.
4
Legend has it that affluent people in underdeveloped countries are afraid to get financial statements mailed to their homes because kidnappers and thieves would be able to pick them out by waiting for the mailman. Posting incomes and assets of all Americans could result in an old-west of country where everyone really will need to be armed all the time just to avoid being robbed or kidnapped.
5
This article would make more sense if the author told us how much money he makes and how much he pays in taxes.
9
Please stop politicizing the IRS. It's bad enough people have the government reaching for every penny they earn (literally).
3
When we are born we come into a world that has made a lot of progress overtime. I do not think anybody would like to be born in a cave and raised by cavemen and cavewomen.
Nowadays it is like we are born in a world moving at a certain speed thanks to inventive humans, many of them completely forgotten, so priviledged we are!
Personally I find it "rich" when someone thinks that they have achieved EVERYTHING on their own and therefore should keep it all.
Taxes are what we pay for the world to go around and the rates should be tied to income and cheaters should go to jail. How complicated is that?
Who are the cheaters? The ones who continually want to create loopholes in their favor and the ones who are right down selfish and claim that they want the government out of their lives. Perhaps we may consider sending them on Mars, in the near future, so that they can put their wishes into practice!
4
@BG- the IRS already has more than enough power to go after people who actually cheat the system. They are the swift and terrible sword of our day. Reform of the tax system is what is called for, not publishing everyone's tax returns. Besides, the very rich will find ways around this. It is the rest of us who will suffer from being paraded naked and exposed in front of our neighbors and the media, those who can't buy their way out of what amounts to a true invasion of everyone's privacy.
Do you really want to be part of that group?
1
In NYC it's illegal to ask for a job applicant's salary history, because that knowledge "...often creates a cycle of inequity and discrimination in the workplace, which perpetuates lower salaries specifically for women and people of color."
https://www1.nyc.gov/site/cchr/media/salary-history.page
Releasing everyone's tax information would seem to violate this law or at least nullify it, as prospective employers could easily find the applicant's current income.
6
this is an awful idea. First of all nearly 40 to 45% of all Americans pay zero income taxes. unless they are getting a refund from they are actually getting a check from other taxpayers via the Earned Income Tax Credit, they don't even have to file the return. government they don't even have to file a return. that means the 50% of the people who support 100% of the government forfeit their privacy for the privilege of funding the government.
whenever I read an article by one of the members of the editorial board, it stuns me how radical their views are.
7
secrets prevent the truth from being revealed. The Mueller report is a good example of why secrets must be revealed so truths can be revealed.
5
@jazzme2- your neighbor's tax returns do not fall into that "need to know" category. You should be ashamed for suggesting that they do because it will be your and your family's turn right after them.
Is that what you really want?
3
The right to know shouldn't be considered a sort of privilege.
Transparency is scary and many rich families, starting from this president, are literally terrorized by that.
Who knows why.
3
@Armando- well there are many middle class families, including my own, who are also terrorized by the same prospect, as am I. What is truly surprising is that you are not.
1
How ironic that in the same week the NYT is publishing a series of articles on the erasure of my privacy by the internet, a member of its editorial board thinks my tax returns should be made public. Why not? They do it in Norway. Here's another way we're different from Norway. The crime rate, and the ease of obtaining a personal arsenal of semi-automatic weapons. Yup, let's publish a shopping list for criminals. Brilliant.
6
@Outdoors Guy. I think criminals can already tell who has something to steal without tax records.
2
@Flaminia- you have no idea what you are really saying. Wait until it's your turn, and you won't be nearly so sanguine.
How about a roadmap for kidnappers and break in artists and an invite for scam artists by letting them target their prey easier. This will in no way help the lower unskilled worker make more money. Will it increase jealousy and increase ways to hide income? Half baked would be a favorable review of this idea.
6
What rubbish. While I can see the publication of property taxes and assessments so that property owners can see if they are being fairly assessed versus other properties in their town, a person's income depends on how hard they work, how talented they are, how successful they are in promoting themselves, whether maximizing income is a big priority in their lives, and, to a great extent, luck.
As the song said, its Ain't No Body's Business But My Own" (and that of the IRS). NOBODY ELSE!
8
The presumed outcome of this idea is that on-line mobs would place public pressure on people who are deemed to have paid insufficient amounts of tax. I’m happy to pay the tax which is required by law. I oppose any efforts to remove privacy considerations in order to hassle people into giving more money to the government.
7
@Doug Downunder- that would be great, except that you live in a foreign country and don't have this problem.
1
"Property tax records provide a reasonable model. Local governments disclose the name of the property owner, the value of the property and the amount of taxes owed and paid. The same information should be available for income taxes ..."
Very poor analogy. In terms of privacy, property taxes are a lot different than income taxes, because they are far less revealing of the owner's or occupant's personal/investment income. If I want an idea of what a property might be worth, I don't go to the county tax assessor. I go to Zillow or Trulia. The value of a property tells nothing about a person's global savings/income/investment situation, or how a person allocates income between lifestyle choices such as where to live.
3
I see how this works; I have the right to get an abortion because it’s nobody’s business—because my right to privacy is supremely sacrosanct—but that level of privacy doesn’t extend to my income taxes?
An individual’s private financials are some of the most closely held details of a person’s life. No one has the right to know how much I make, or what I pay in taxes. Otherwise, why don’t we all just post our returns on the front door—like we do a building permits?
I don’t care if you're a baker, candlestick maker-or President of the United States—the right to privacy extends to all citizens—no matter how badly the Democrat Party wants to expose them for personal gain.
9
Why not give the hackers and criminals our pin codes to the ATM while we’re at it.
7
@Matthew S.- one step away...
Google knows everything else about me, why should it no know this too?
2
@CPlayer
I agree....just put it out there
@jazzme2- you two have no idea what you are saying, nor the carnage that will ensue to you personally if you let this happen.
It will bring not a single one of the truly rich to any kind of justice or equity, but it will punish everyone else severely.
3
This is really a rather brainless idea and flies in the face of the concept of personal, private information. If you are looking for a job do you really want your perspective employer to know how much you deducted for unreimbursed medical? If you deducted anything it could be a sign of a medical problem and who needs employees with medical problems which will also affect corporate health insurance premiums. If I am wealthy I don't want every Tom, Dick and Harry to know where my assets are so they are subject to theft. I am astounded anyone could propose something this idiotic. If someone's tax return is legally questionable it's up to the IRS and state tax bureaus to pursue. Having politicians fill out legally required disclosure forms would be a much better idea, so long as the right questions are being asked and the answers can be verified.
6
everyone?
not for you to decide sir, my life, my private data, or anyone else's, sir.
7
Maybe this is a good idea. What it would make clear is the fact that the alleged progressivity of the tax code is a hoax. Because of adjustments to gross income and itemized deductions from adjusted gross income, the burden of the income tax code is probably far from progressive. If everyone were required to reveal their gross income and their tax bill, that would become clear and might provide the impetus for eliminating those adjustments and those deductions and thereby greatly simplifying the tax code as well as reducing rates across the board. Then maybe the form 1040 could fit on a post card.
5
Researching our local New Hampshire town records of 1800 to 1829, all assets of land and farm were public and tax assessments as well. When did this stop?
4
While I understand the appeal of such a proposal, this is a slippery slope.
Tax returns nowadays contain a lot of rather information, including medical expenses, family related expenses and the such that reveal a lot about our personal life. I'd rather not feed this information to my neighbors or to internet trolls, unless I am running for president.
4
So you really want scammers and gold diggers to be better able to pick their elderly victims? Thanks bunches!
6
Never mind the risks attendant with exposing everyone's tax returns: fraud, impersonation, extortion, kidnapping, identity theft, etc.
Just show everyone everything.
The quality of thinking on the Editorial Board is really quite striking.
And not in a good way.
8
By the way...”objectivist,” means that all the facts are in evidence, and that one looks at said facts honestly.
Just wanted to clear that up.
1
How about just anyone running or holding office?
3
Public disclosure of income is the only way we will tackle pay discrimination for women and minorities. Public disclosure of wealth is the only way we can do the research to understand how the wealthy take advantage of our system to hide their money from the tax collector. Transparency is essential to tackling inequality. Transparency is essential to democracy. Who is privacy protecting you from? The government already knows, as does anyone with enough resources to do the research, including financial companies that you've never heard of. Transparency simply levels the playing field. People with a little money need to stop worrying what people with a little less might know. They'll care less than you might think.
5
@Tom Meadowcroft
If I happened to work for a strip club, the CIA, or an abortion clinic, I certainly wouldn't want the the rest of the world to know my name, address, children's names, etc. Disclosure has a downside, comrade.
3
How fascinating to see the advent of Big Brother oversight arriving on a mantra of morality and virtue - a la "if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear." And then shouldn't the same logic should extend to every aspect of our lives; why shouldn't even our thoughts be monitored and publicized so that our fellow citizens may know exactly what sort of people they're dealing with. Think of the lies and subterfuge that could be headed off! There's a wonderful Twilight Zone episode parodying the dangerous excesses of such 'publicness'. In the real world, the 'confessions' of Communist China during its Cultural Revolution and those of the fake Soviet Sedition Trials of the 1920s/30s are well known, but I know of no healthy society heading heading in so invasive a direction, so righteously prescribed. It gives me the creeps!
9
Of the 4 cardinal sins of the left -- sloth, wrath, pride, and envy -- envy is perhaps the most harmful. As Bertrand Russell noted, envy is one of the most potent causes of unhappiness, bringing sorrow to committers of envy -- while giving them the urge to inflict pain upon others. According to St. Thomas Aquinas, the third stage of the struggle aroused by envy is hatred because "sorrow causes hatred".
Making tax returns public is simply the epitome of envy. It will lead to unhappiness and hatred.
The virtue that stands in contrast to envy is gratitude. Perhaps more Americans should be thankful for living in the greatest country on this wonderful planet at the greatest moment in world history.
5
@ Hopeful Libertarian, even if not everyone’s taxes, I sure hope we can agree that appropriate individuals - per legal protocol - should be able to review a president’s records when there is even a small level of concern based on public statements by the president himself AND by his own advisors. Those on the right would be screaming for the tax records of a Democrat president if the situation were reversed. Those who won’t acknowledge that can’t be taken seriously. Clear the record. What is there to hide? It’s the president! Not an average citizen.
5
@Rico Versalles We already have appropriate individuals who can review the president's tax records. They're at the Internal Revenue Service and Department of Justice.
1
@Mrs. Proudie The point is not that the IRS knows whether Trump is the successful billionaire genius he claims to be but whether those who believe it and vote accordingly know it to be so. The IRS may know that he is up to his orange bouffant in debt. Accordingly, the voting public should have an accurate picture os Trump's veracity.
4
“The price of liberty is not only eternal vigilance, but also publicity.”
You might want to look at another OP-ED piece today: "It's Time to Panic About Privacy"
3
Interestingly, this opinion piece, advocating the most extensive disclosure ever of US residents' private information, appears in the same issue of the same publication as Farhad Manjoo's opinion slide show "It's Time to Panic About Privacy."
7
I am confused. At least once a day (more actually) i read screams about not having any privacy at this age of social media. And yet, this one proposes to expose perhaps the last piece of data about me that i managed to keep private? Imagine how much space it will create for "customized prices and offers".
I can see how politicians, who chose to be public figures, have to be open about taxes. But I stay away from politician career and that should be enough to let my taxes to continue being a private matter.
8
I'll bet that there is a large gender division on this question. Men want their information private, because they are the ones benefiting from wage discrimination. Moreover, they might be contemplating divorce, and want to hide assets and the income that created those assets.
Women realize that tax information just isn't deserving of protection, especially since they are the victims of wage discrimination and they are the ones who need information to get a fair divorce settlement.
Credit card companies, tax preparation companies and those who hack those companies have access to much of this information anyway.
7
@Eileen Hays I'm a woman and I want my privacy, thanks. I'd be - mortified is too mild a term for it - if the truth came out. Not because I make a lot but because I make shockingly little. I'm self employed. There is no job or 'larger paycheck' waiting anywhere for me. I have to sell myself to potential customers. As things stand, I'm shunned by lenders and I have to pay cash for everything, but no one other than banks and the IRS knows. At least I have my dignity. Why would you take that away from me?
1
@sigh
Those who have a lot to hide have taught us to prioritize "dignity" and "privacy" over the actual improvements in the well-being of many of us that would result from having even very limited tax information about what they are hiding available.
We need to understand how much we are paying in real dollars for dignity and privacy. Perhaps you wouldn't be making so "shockingly little" if you could prove how unfairly you are being paid.
The trade-off is absolutely worth it for people like us. It isn't we who should be ashamed about how little we make -- they should be and would be ashamed, which is why this information is hidden.
3
@Eileen Hays- that information can already be had by the available research, if one cares to look. To date, it has not changed anything because sexism isn't about numbers (that convince no one), it's about attitude.
Hands off my tax return, and yours too. When it comes down to it, and the crazies, Big Data spies, marketers, and identity thieves come after your return in the broad light of day. you'll be saying exactly the same thing as I am despite an obvious need for revenge and punishmnet.
2
Re: "...Disclosure of tax payments would make it easier to hold politicians accountable. It also would help to reduce fraud and economic inequality..." {B. Appelbaum}
My tax person has just informed me: my tax issues are managed for another year...
While I DON'T plan to publish 'em, I could, w/o any concerns, other, than, (potential), I.D. theft...
Meanwhile...It's serially, reported: there are NO laws, protocols, polices, or 'unofficial' traditions which prevent 'taxes, under audit' from being publicized, so...oft, repeated claims that Admiral_Bonespur's tax data is/are, (allegedly...), "...under, audit", is irrelevant!
Show us tax data that DOESN'T confirm tax avoidance-/-other crimes, Mr. President, and the public-conversation will move, on to other subjects, in mere...'femptoseconds'*!
*(Femptosecond: Shortest yet, devised time-measurement unit, aka: '1 trillionth, of 1 billionth, of 1 trillionth' of an everyday second)
2
I believe the tax returns of all political candidates, elected officials, public servants, and civil servants should be made and kept public, to prevent tax evasion and corruption. Period. How else would the public know that their leaders and servants are not financial criminals and/or corrupt government employees and trust their government? Mr. Trump wouldn't even have been on the ballot if the public and the press had his tax record. Most of his cabinet members probably as well.
4
The death of privacy in America? I'm opposed. I'm not rich.
5
Bad idea. This would provide a wealth of information for criminals to exploit.
3
What was disclosed in 1924 is the income declared and amount paid, not the entire tax return. Why or how come you paid what you did is still private unless officials have a reason to believe that you are cheating.
It is interesting and telling that so many commenters reject the whole idea by assuming that everything on the return would be made public.
8
Within the present tax structure I think opening up the tax returns to the public is a bad idea. The files reveal not only earned income but other information that can easily be estimated from disclosures in the returns, such as savings, investments, gambling income, alimonies payed or received, etc.. Many make medical deductions, which I am sure they consider private, others make charitable contributions, and donations to political parties, exposing them to criticism over their choice. Some of this information could be used by adversely by employers in making job decisions and,as many have pointed out, open up millions to target of scams and fraud. Comparison with Norway or Finland is irrelevant to this argument, as they have a different tax structure.
1
I wish elected folks would wear a button with the income percent paid in federal taxes instead of a flag they disgrace every day with partisan shenanigans
7
Ironic to take such an editorial position while the mother ship is featuring a number of rebukes to tech companies for failures to protect our privacy. I’m not running for anything, and never will, so absolutely no one outside of my accountant and the taxing authorities needs to see my tax returns. Politicians are a different matter. They should be held to a different standard, with no exceptions.
1
@VKG
But in a way that's the point. If we're losing all our privacy anyway thanks to electronic data collection, then why keep things like our income and tax payments private? Our financial information is increasingly getting out anyway, but it's mostly private money-making organizations and political organizations that are collecting and analyzing it to try to manipulate us in various ways.
2
This is a terrible idea. If people know you have money what's to prevent them from showing up at your door begging for money? Or trying to extort money from you in some way? Or targeting you in another way? There's too much personal information out there now as it is.
2
How on earth is this on the front page of the Times at the same time as a series on internet privacy?
Aside from opening people up to fraud, scams, and criminal attacks in a world where you can google someone's name and get their workplace and street address--way to make financial abuse and isolation easier for people with abusive partners, parents, or other relatives.
Did the author spend even ten seconds thinking this over before setting pen to paper?
5
You know what really chapped my hide? When I read a few days ago that an additional 30 ridiculously profitable companies didn't pay any tax this year, doubling their number to 60. Including Amazon. Makes the rest of us look like chumps.
5
@Deft Robbin- OK then, publish your return and supporting financial reports on FB. Today. Perhaps others will follow likewise.
Until then , forget it. And get a better accountant.
You, or any of your ilk, has the right to see my tax returns. I have a right to privacy.
I think the phrase “Get off my lawn” applies here.
1
After we make everyone's tax returns public, perhaps we can have a public profile of everyone's sexual habits.
6
I'd be concerned that income disclosure would affect job seeker's ability to earn a better income. Prospective employers could gain the upper hand in negotiations.
That's a pretty big deal for a lot of people. For those seeking elected office, where that is not a consideration, it sounds reasonable.
3
@David Gunter
True observation....but imagine if women doing the same job you are doing could see how much you made compared to what they make for the same job at the same employer.
That is powerful information for women and would help level the playing field so we aren't underpaid.
4
Employers do this today to justify income. You have to prove what you earned In the past.
Recently I have noticed they are just offering less. A lot less and seeing how desperate you are.
3
There ought to be a law for all people running for national public office. 7 years of tax returns, pass a test on the constitution and pass a security clearance.
9
@Deirdre _and_ a urine drug screen
2
Re: "...There ought to be a law for all people running for national public office..." {@Deirdre}
While I can't report on the specifics from memory, there has been / is ongoing discussion in several states, re denying a candidate a spot on the presidential / other ballots if they fail to disclose their tax data!
...I support that policy_change by about 12,000%!
3
Publicizing tax returns would only encourage tax cheating to hide information. Not to mention, provide opportunities for scams that bilk unreported, untaxed cash from those who honestly report wealth.
Maybe that early period of tax snooping taught lawmakers something about human nature that we are relearning in the era of data hacking and social media. Another noble experiment gone wrong.
1
@Carol
Publicizing income tax information encourages fraud?
You misspoke. Publicizing tax information encourages time in the Federal Prison FOR extreme fraud; how else do you think my Nation found out Nixon owed a half Million $$$ in unpaid taxes.
And for more help in understanding tax fraud, try looking up Fox News Jeanine Pirro's husband. Pirro received a Federal Prison sentence for extreme sports in tax fraud.
5
This is why the IRS exists. If the federal government tax burden was not so high, people would have less of a tendency to cheat. However, since they don’t feel connected to a federal government that is distant and often functions contrary to their desires and wishes, they have a little loyalty to the institution.
To remedy what is a probably pervasive problem, reverse the proportions of taxes that folks pay: pay the majority of your tax to your individual state and local community. That is where a citizens Biane and stakeholding develops and is maintained. The federal government can focus efforts on national defense, interstate commerce standards and regulations, external threats to the country. Of course, this is fantasy. We are moving toward a form of authoritarian government because the money demands and scope creep of the federal government in its responsibilities. In a word: doomed.
1
@John What evidence is there that taxpayers would not complain just as loud about local taxes? Here in Florida taxpayers complain about even a dollar in local taxes.
2
@John
....."since they don’t feel connected to a federal government that is distant and often functions contrary to their desires and wishes, they have a little loyalty to the institution...."
That thinking may apply to old-Soviet Eastern European countries, but not in the US. In the US, we still believe that we are democracy and we have a voice. Even as a political party tries to constrict democracy to the wealthy elite. We still believe that we are not an oligarchy where the rich control everything and we are simple serfs. We still believe the Government doesn't lie to us (notwithstanding Trump). We are loyal Americans.
You, not so much.
1
@Dan Woodard MD- oh they do that everywhere.
This proposal may backfire on us if we give it a try. Knowing the income 0f potential victims would be a godsend for cartels along the border. And it's not like we are going out of our way to protect our citizens.
2
@caveman007
So politicians on the dole that happen to live along the border would be exempt, but politicians on the dole who live inland would would not be exempt?
Yeah. That would work. I can only imagine the stampede of crocked politico's moving to border towns.
@Laurie As long as they promise to "look the other way."
I love to read about pipe dreams like this one. Helps to confirm that there are still fair-minded intellectuals in this country who are capable of proposing sound policies.
The reason it's a pipe dream is that we forget who runs Congress: K Street. Until and unless we find a way to discontinue the legal bribing of our lawmakers by that clever euphemism "lobbying," we won't see much change.
8
@TL Mischler
Yeah. Unfortunately you have a good point.
@TL Mischler The constitutional description of "lobbying" is "the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
I guess this is another reason to repeal the first amendment, along with Citizens United and various evangelical religious groups that espouse positions disapproved by the intelligentsia.
Our accountant says many of her tax filers go to extraordinary lengths in order to avoid paying one dime more to the tax man than absolutely necessary! They spend a lot of money in their quest to avoid taxes, losing sight of , and money, just investing in a sound portfolio and then paying their fair share of taxes.
ALSO: Siblings do not share their personal finance with each other out of jealousy and secrecy. Let alone having the government do it for them!
Q.Would the government also release the figures for those recipients of Welfare Programs too?
3
@Moe
Geez Louise; you didn't read the article. The article talks about POLITICANS tax returns, not 'ma and 'pa tax returns.
@Laurie The article advocates publication of everyone's tax information, and makes a point of it by mentioning Norway and Finland, which do that, as well as the United States, which did it for a short while in 1924.
Politicians are mentioned only in passing. Someone other than Moe did not not read the article.
4
@Laurie- What Thomas said. You will not be happy when they publish your returns online. At all.
1
As an American ex-pat living in Canada responding to this article and another one in today’s NYT about Democratic candidates’ incomes and taxes (How Kamala Harris’s Tax Returns Compares to Those of Other Candidates), my first reaction was how little income tax people making around $200K pay compared to my Canadian income tax. Disclosure: I make about half that as someone semi-retired put pay twice that much in Canadian income tax (not to mention a federal sales tax of 5% 7% provincial sales tax). Further disclosure: during decades of living in Canada I have paid nothing for my health insurance and my free health care here compares very favorably to the that I saw my parents and brother receive at the end of their lives in the US. Among other benefits, for example I think Canada is doing a demonstrably much better job of educating its children. To wit, I am not complaining about my taxes or that being public. Shining light on these matters strikes me as a good thing for the questions that it raises, even if it wouldn’t offer all the answers. It seems a lot of us, American or Canadian, are happy to very ostentatiously display our wealth by our homes, cars, clothing etc. Shouldn’t we all have a legitimate right to know how much everyone is contributing to the commonweal? In the age of Facebook, certainly the privacy concerns being trumpeted in many of these responses have much more legitimate targets than this.
11
@John Schallow
I'm an American living in Canada too and I file in both countries. Last year, I paid 39.5% of my income in Canadian federal and provincial taxes. Adding in property, payroll, and consumption taxes, I expect my total tax burden reached close to 50% of my income. Personally, I think it's one of the best investments I make each year. Canada is a wonderful country with a very sane and humane society. If I were to move back to the US (something I could easily do as my work is split between both countries) my total tax rate would probably drop 10 or 15 percentage points, but honestly I don't think it would be worth the savings. Quality of life here is, in my opinion, much better.
4
@617to416- Great. You two go ahead and post your returns and supporting financial information on FB, where everyone can find and read them, including all the identity thieves, Big Data security people, corporate marketers, health insurance actuaries, and so forth. And your neighbors. Include blood samples, health history and medical imaging for an added bonus.
And the rest of us will just wait patiently and see how far you get out your front door in the morning. If you've ever visited Planned Parenthood, had an abortion, or used contraception through your health plan, then points will be given for excess time spent on your feet.
Good Luck!
1
This is a fascinating idea, but it would require that people act as adults in using the information. With today's lack of civil discourse, especially in the realm of social media, I'm not sure we're ready for it.
5
In the first place, other countries have done this forever, and no problem.
In the second, anybody who works in a taxpayer-supported job has their salary and the benefits published for all to see. That means every teacher, civil servant, government employee, and so on.
In the third and as mentioned—it’s easy to figure out what every member of the military makes, and what their bennies are. Especially since as with other government workers, any INCREASE to S&B has to be voted on by some kind of legislative body, as a matter of public record. Yes, their retirement as well.
In the fourth, anybody who’s on any kind of org that has a public trust of some sort does annual financial disclosure statements. They’re public record too; you can look them up, on the theory that potential conflicts of interest ought to be known by the public.
In the fifth: I recently checked national records on one of those Internet sites. Every address for the last forty years popped up. Know what else I found? What some friends paid for their house, what the taxes were, what improvements had been. Public record.
In the sixth: Trump’s repeatedly, loudly, made all sorts of financial claims. Every time we’ve gotten the facts, turns out he’s lying.
So boo-hoo, for those who are yelling about their precious privacy. The more I think about this, the better idea it seems.
I say redact the SSN, leave out the Schedules that list specifics, and put it out there.
6
@Robert
..."In the first place, other countries have done this forever, and no problem...."
I can only imagine the Republicans claiming that this is what 'Socialist" countries do. And then they end the discussion.
1
@Laurie- they should have. The point is relevant; we are not a socialist country nor do the majority wish to be. I'm not a republican by a long stretch, and I would have also ended the discussion there too and definitively. My tax returns are none of your business.
When you two are ready to post your returns and supporting financials online, let the rest of us know. Otherwise forget it.
Sure, and we can open medical records and criminal records too. What's the point of privacy if others would like to snoop and use it to spy on neighbors?
5
This is really a rather brainless idea and flies in the face of the concept of personal, private information. If you are looking for a job do you really want your perspective employer to know how much you deducted for unreimbursed medical? If you deducted anything it could be a sign of a medical problem and who needs employees with medical problems which will also affect corporate health insurance premiums. If I am wealthy I don't want every Tom, Dick and Harry to know where my assets are so they are subject to theft. I am astounded anyone could propose something this idiotic. If someone's tax return is legally questionable it's up to the IRS and state tax bureaus to pursue. Having politicians fill out legally required disclosure forms would be a much better idea, so long as the right questions are being asked and the answers can be verified.
10
“One can only imagine what others might learn from the data”. This proposal is a marketing and scamming dream come true. We need more privacy, not less.
12
I like this idea in general for all in public service as it is already the rule that salaries and salary scales for public servants are public so that taxes by salary could also be generalized. Knowing salaries helps aid in negotiation for raises or greater fairness. I think the same should apply to the private sector. However, I'm less comfortable attaching someone's name to the taxes they paid in public forums. I think the rich will wriggle free and the poor will get nickel and dimed. How will investment, or real estate, or inheritance be taxed? Will they be? Is only salary taxed transparently? In the American context, I feel like this idea would get gamed.
2
This was a great history lesson for me. I had no idea that at any time in our past, individual income tax information was made public.
6
Have you lost your mind?
There is a middle position between public officials not disclosing and universal disclosure.
Come on.
4
Tax forms contain social security numbers. You don't want THAT public!
Honestly, the primary source of resistance might not even be wealthy people trying to hide their personal income and taxes, but wealthy capitalists holding on to their companies' massive bargaining advantage of being the only party to know what average salaries truly are during salary negotiations.
In the meantime, you're likely not doing yourself, your family, or your friends any favors by limiting each others' access to information.
7
@John
Yeah. Can you imagine the stampede of woman demanding equal pay for equal work if we found out what male co-workers doing the same job were making.
That alone is enough to stifle the idea
4
@Laurie- that information is already available if you care to look for it.
I think the dirty little secret in this world is just how poor 99% are.
It is to the benefit of the 1% to keep "those that they rule" ignorant not only about how rich the 1% is, but also to hide the fact of how poor everyone else is.
I'm with you, Mr. Applebaum.
And, let's start with Trump.
163
@rosa: What evidence is there that the 1% is actually “ruling” the remaining 99%? In what way are they doing it? Does it mean that a doctor, a lawyer, an engineer is “ruling” a woman with 3 kids who completely relies on government handouts, lives in a government funded house, gets free care, and pays nothing in federal taxes?
5
You think the woman on welfare and her kids are stealing from you but the real theft is the lower tax rates for investors, never ending wars financed with debt and the lack of investment/ maintenance of infrastructure, education and future planning.
The anger you hold to towards those who have nothing was stoked for years by the wealthy who want to distract you.
58
@Deirdre: I am saying that if the fruits of labor are taken from me at gun point and given to someone else, then I am not the “master” or the “exploiter”...
5
This is a DUMB idea! I believe that everyone should pay the taxes they owe. I don’t believe that strangers should know what I pay. Nothing good can come from this. Congress can already see my return for legitimate legislative purposes if they decide to change the tax code.
2
If it’s so dumb, why can’t anybody explain WHY it’s dumb?
I mean, it’s easy to see the benefits: employers would have more trouble paying unequally, pols would have fewer places to hide, you’d get a general sense of where you were with regard to others, crookery would be far harder, and so on.
So what’s the down side? Because so far, all I’m seeing is a vague, angry “MINE! Mine stuff!!”
5
@Robert: why do you think corporations would be forced to pay more equally to people with different productivity?
1
@Robert It is dumb because it is dangerous. This kind of information makes wealthy families targets for everything from scams to unwanted marketing to extortion and even kidnapping. It is also bad social policy because it would exacerbate jealousy, class divisions, and discrimination, instead of the more desirable benefits of encouraging people to better themselves.
How about we first demand Donald Trump reveal his tax returns as he promised to do before he was elected, if he was elected.
LIAR! Just as has been proven a multitude of times.
This obscene person has no place in the U.S. government.
4
Absurd idea, especially in an era where privacy and the internet is becoming a serious issue that needs more regulation.
3
MYOB. My taxes are none of your business. Nor are any politicians taxes, D, R or I.
This obsession creates reasons why normal people refuse to run for office.
You have no business sticking your nose in my tax returns, nor would that help you understand whether or not I'd be an excellent elected person or not.
I cannot respect your type of thinking, truly.
1
It’d surely help voters figure out if a pol was lying, if they could see the evidence.
4
@common sense Under the law, your statement is not true. The Chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee has authority to request the President's tax returns from the IRS. The IRS has no authority to say no.
3
@Robert- we learn just as much from them if they refuse to disclose their returns.
When I read this Opinion, words like hogwash, baloney or give me a break pop up. Much of today's NYT Opinions are about privacy. One is called "Whose watching you?" Some are outraged that FB or eBay know and share with advertisers marketing data like what type of toothpaste we use. There was a time when our medical information was pretty safe in a doctor’s chart and office. Now it is electronically stored where external access is easy to tap into. Here, Mr. Appleton touts being able to examine and browse the tax returns of everybody who reads this. You can believe that such information would be of huge value to companies as well as nosy neighbors and gossips. The income tax is between ourselves and the U.S. government through the I.R. S who we hire to make sure people are paying the right amount of tax. It is no one else's business my health costs. One thing about this Opinion is transparency and the motives fuels this opinion are transparent and crystal clear. The real reason for Applebaum’s and of course the Democrats’ interest in our tax returns, is Trump. They want to pour through Trump's returns to find some little item that can be blown out of proportion. They are willing to expose all of our returns to anyone or everyone just to try and get something they can use on Trump. Another article today in the NYT is about polarization. This is the poster child for polarization. Trump has every right to not release his returns. And I want that as well.
In the first place, Trump has a long, long history of making grandiose claims about how he’s got this document or he’s got that document and is going to release them so there—claims that he never has even once made good on, as far as I know.
In the second, he’s based a lot of his brand on claims that he’s a self-made billionaire who’s made his loot fair and square, claims that he’s never had to prove, claims that are probably a big fat pack of lies. And every time we’ve gotten any info on where the loot actually comes from, he’s been shown to be a massive liar.
In the third, that also applies to his shouting about owing nobody nothin’ even though we generally know that he’s had a number of weird dealings with D-bank, the Russian government, and the Saudis. And the Chinese.
In the fourth, HE promised to release his taxes. And then reneged, with lies about audits as his alibi.
You may be fine with this sort of stuff in a President (let alone a born-rich greedhead), but I am not. Nor should I be.
And by the way, fellow, every government worker, and anybody who works on a public board in most states, has their salary, benefits, and financial indebtedness published for all to see.
6
It would have been a better article, if the author disclosed his own taxes, but he didn't. In short, it is a ridiculous idea.
The only relevance of this is that people running for a public information or assuming a politically appointed position should be required to disclose their taxes. That would be sufficient, I think, for our needs as a community and as a democracy.
Better yet, would be to actually have a tax system that was fair. How Kushner did not pay any taxes for the last 7 years should be investigated. Let's work on that before we implement any wacky new ideas.
3
RE. transparency: I was struck by the taboo surrounding salaries in the civilian world when I retired from the military and went to work for a corporation. In the military everyone's salary is easily known, based on seniority in rank, marital status, and extras like flight pay or incentive bonuses. It's not an issue at all, unlike the civilian world where it's downright paranoid.
13
@Rupert Laumann The reason such things are hidden in the corporate world is simple, it makes it difficult for employees to negotiate with management. It makes the invisible hierarchy visible. Prevents the lower paid but hard working contractors in giant tech handle the Orwellian cognitive dissonance of "we're all equal, except some people are more equal than others." It let Jobs and Schmidt suppress the compensation of "their" people.
6
@Rupert Laumann
It provides for the "good-old-boy" network that rewards under the table trade-offs rather than productivity.
4
There is another benefit to making income public: People who purport to represent a moral authority, or lay claim to being committed to social justice, who suggest they are "woke" far more than their less politically correct compatriots, could be called out for the many times they also happen to be people who hoard wealth. As a live long liberal myself, we all know the type. They are often very vocal liberals who have no problem living off their spouses income or their parents' inheritance but who want to claim superior moral ground too. But you can't be wealthy and "woke" in a system where we still have people dying from poverty. Social justice comes with sacrifices. Are those who claim to be the fighters for social justice willing to forgo their wealth in order to be consistent with their ideals? Of course they aren't, and a public report of income would uncover the hypocrisy. If people want to keep their money, that's fine, sit down and be quiet. Claiming to be more morally evolved than everyone else while you hoard your money is just another form of selfish elitism, and nothing would be better than an opportunity to reveal the hypocrites for what they are.
9
@Tintin:" could be called out for the many times they also happen to be people who hoard wealth."
You would determine whether or not someone was hoarding their wealth by looking at the adjusted gross income and the federal income tax paid? Not all expenditures are tax deductible. And there are limits to the amount you can deduct for charitable giving.
There are other ways of determining someone's political hypocrisy. For example, the next time a social justice warrior speaks out against racial segregation take a look at their own public and private school systems. There's plenty to go on there - right on the pages of the NYT OP-ED and comment boards.
1
@Tintin- just wait until we apply the same scale of values to your and your returns. And yes, in the right light, you look just as hypocritical as they do.
I'd save my outrage for causes worth fighting. Not this one, which ultimately tells us nothing and may get a lot of our fellows in trouble for nothing.
I'm ok with this.
In my family we never talked about money, aside from basic financialtraining, and I never knew how much my parents made or what there expenses were.
So color me uncomfortable.
But if everyone discloses, curiosity will soon be sated and we can concentrate on the public policy aspect of income tax without having to guess who pays what, and how much.
4
The clincher in Mr. Applebaum's argument is his mention of real estate taxes. In that case everything is public except that sometimes ownership is disguised. Ownership should be public, too, in my opinion, and in all cases. He's right. Why should income taxes not also be public? Why isn't it everyone's right to know if some neighbors down the street aren't paying their fair share for government services? And why shouldn't people know how much money fellow workers are making both in their own workplace and in competing ones? I'm for complete disclosure.
10
Right. Add tax returns to all the stuff Amazon, Facebook, and Google already have on most people.
1
@Rupert Laumann All three of those companies likely already have a pretty good idea of how much we all make. Publishing the hard data might actually reduce their power over all of us.
5
I love it, it would drive the evangelicals crazy.
11
I do all I can, by modest living, to not let people know how wealthy I am: relatively inexpensive car, a modest home, avoid buying expensive stylish clothing, (except for top end running shoes), and rarely dining in restaurants.
I don't want to be nudzhed by sales people or real estate agents or credit card companies or car dealerships because of the realization that there is a lot of junk I can afford but don't want or need.
8
@Peretz David
I can assure you that they already know. Banks, credit agencies, etc. are already selling data about how much you are worth and how much (and what you buy). They may not be marketing to you because they perceive you as frugal.
7
@ADR- terrible reasoning. It doesn't matter if they are. It shouldn't be allowed to go any further than that, and a lot of that should be restrained and curtailed as well BECAUSE IT SIMPLY ISN'T ANY OF THEIR BUSINESS!
Some points to consider with this idea.
Medical bills are deductible once they reach a certain level, but must be documented. Do you want what doctors you visited or what prescriptions you bought to be public knowledge? I don't.
We are concerned about putting our children's names and ages up on the internet; yet we are fine with listing them on what would become publicly accessible tax forms as dependents? I think not.
Do you want which charities you donate to, and how much you gave, to be out in public? Great information for scammers to have to personalize their approach to your wallet.
We think of this as applicable to the ultra rich and the powerful and salivate over having the salacious details of their lives laid bare; what we need to consider is that it would also lay bare the details of our own lives as well.
6
@mikecody
This was addressed in the article, but not particularly clearly:
"Property tax records provide a reasonable model. Local governments disclose the name of the property owner, the value of the property and the amount of taxes owed and paid. The same information should be available for income taxes — nothing more is necessary."
For income taxes instead of 'value of the property' it would be some total income figure, e.g. the Adjusted Gross Income figure from a 1040.
5
@mikecody
When taxpayers itemize, they are not required to list the names of doctors, dentists, psychiatrists and so on. Only the amount. The same goes for donations to charities. The only time this information may come to light is if the IRS wants proof of the deductions as in when someone with a relative small income claims to have spent a large percentage of their income on medical expenses or charitable giving. Even then, audit results are not being considered here.
4
Obviously, details such as those would be withheld or obscured.
3
I understand the impetus for this suggestion, but I think the desire for transparency doesn't necessarily outweigh an individual's right to privacy, particularly if they are not a public figure or a politician. It's really no one's business how much money my family brings in or has invested. We pay the taxes we owe.
I think a better use of the public's time would be to close tax loopholes that allow companies making billions in profits to not pay any federal taxes through off-shoring and other tricks that greatly suppress that company's taxable income.
And if you want to recoup more of that tax gap from individuals, then raise the individual tax rate on the super-wealthy and treat investment income the same as wages.
8
There is an already unhealthy obsession with the wealth of others in America, especially the income and wealth of celebrities. Publishing income tax details will only feed that and cause more envy and unhappiness.
Social media leads to too many people knowing too much about the lives of others - knowledge that brings nothing of value and only subtracts from contentment.
3
I am a public employee and my yearly earnings are publicly available. A few minutes using Google should provide my marital status and the amount I pay in real estate taxes. Using all of that information a quick back of the envelope estimate should give an accurate figure for my federal and state taxes.
5
@Bastardus Markus
I'm guessing you don't have any investment income or income from sources outside of your position as a public employee. How about the rental income from your tenant ?
1
@SSS- ... or, as along as we're at it, your medical history, medications, or health concerns e.g. high cholesterol/cancer/hypertension/osteoarthritis. After all, it's the public's right to know if they are going to pay more in medical taxes if you eat that next slice of pizza, or replace your hip soon.
And yes, it's all coming out in the end if we start down this road.
1
My income is none of your business. As long as the IRS is satisfied that I'm paying my fair share (which is probably too much since I don't have all the tax shelters of the wealthy) then the matter is settled. You don't need to know anything else.
7
I think that the degree of what can only be described as sheer panic and righteous indignation from my fellow commentators indicates what a great idea this is. As the author patiently points out, it works for the Finns (a feisty independent people if there ever was one), but it's his example of the response of the rich in this country in 1924 that confirms to me that this would be exactly what this country needs right now in this era of rapidly accelerating income inequality.
11
@nilootero
The target of such a proposal would quickly and quietly avoid the assault, just as many Finns do.
1
I would suggest those who oppose disclosure have something to lose by disclosure. If you are honest, you have nothing to hide. Yes it is as simple as that.
9
@LaPine So you are fine with everyone knowing what doctors you visit; if you deduct medical expenses? What and how much you give to charities, if you itemize deductions? Consider how much information you give the IRS in order to justify your tax bill and ask yourself if you want that published.
@mikecody
No one gives doctor's names or charity names on their tax forms -- any documentation of those, if requested by the IRS, would obviously not be part of released information, if only because they are not part of the original filing.
2
@Eileen Hays- unless of course it is. This is after all the "Age of Transparency" the author calls for here...
And BTW if you ever have an audit, you'll find that it ALL becomes part of the readily available public record.
1
Most people I know are more forthcoming about their sex lives than their incomes.
4
John Keyser from Tokyo says, in a favored comment, "Your taxes are the government’s business. The US government is the American people‘s business. That makes your taxes the business of your fellow American citizens."
OUR government is supposed to protect our privacy, Mr. Keyser - not give it away.
Good grief. What in the world are people thinking these days? When did personal privacy become so unimportant? Just wait until people's bank and retirement accounts are drained because the crooks got your information. It will be too late then.
Please, Good People, wake up to the danger before it's too late. BIG tech must be broked up into tiny pieces that cannot share OUR private information and seriously regulated and taxed. This information free-for-all that the 0.01% are profiting from must end.
3
How about we fix the problem. We were promised new tax code that would be simple and easy to understand. Let’s do away with all the silliness and go to a straight tax.
1
I can't believe this article appeared on the same page as one advocating spaces in our lives that are protected from the internet! This surely has to be the worst idea ever. How would my life be improved? How would my neighbors'? Co-workers'? The benefits would only go to the already powerful, who would surely use the information to increase their wealth at the expense of everyone else. If you run for public office, perhaps, but otherwise mind your own business.
2
I think that is a great idea and very helpful from practical point of view. For example, one year evaluation of my property was unreasonable high. Because evaluation is in public domain, I was able to get info about neighboring properties and their history, which helped me to successfully argue the unreasonable increase. If I would not have such information, I wouldn't even know that the increase was unreasonable. Same with tax return. I am applying for the job I want to know how much I should expect. Right now I have no way to know that, what put me in disadvantage because my potential employer know how much I made in my last position. Why shouldn't we level the field?
4
this is the worst idea I've seen in a long time. the information in a tax return is essentially private information and making it private. this would clearly raise serious constitutional issues.
1
@Brian
After what you have just read, why do you make such a foolish and unreasoned statement?
1
@theox- I don't find the comment in any way foolish or unreasoned. Rather, i find the criticism here way ill considered and over the top.
1
All who file tax claims indicating they’re either so poor or so rich they owe no payment at all should be named on a public billboard (digital, presumably) so that all who claim they don’t owe anything because they’re so rich can simply send money to those who claim they don’t owe anything because they’re so poor—which gifts, taxed, should be public information, as well. Furthermore, this should apply to all persons, legalistically defined, including corporate and other business entities.
3
So that we can force politicians like Donald Trump to provide income information, the rest of us should suffer. I am not running for public office, the information on my income tax returns should be private. I have closed my Facebook account because of my privacy concerns and lack of trust in what Facebook does with my personal information. Presumably, the whole point of The NY Times series on privacy is to cause all of us to reflect on trade-offs between privacy and the benefits of the internet. If Mr. Applebaum would like to make his tax returns public, that is his business as it is my prerogative to keep that information private from prying eyes.
4
@Steven Shapiro
If the law changes, it is NOT your prerogative, holding your public affairs(your DUTY) to pay taxes is an insurance of no skulduggery
1
No.
Except:
—those who seek out political office or senior political advisory positions.
—those who accept executive or board positions in publicly-traded companies.
—those who accept executive positions in tax-exempt organizations.
—those who who accept executive positions in 501(c)(3) organizations.
The above reflect choices to have impact on or benefit from the public weal. They ought be accountable to the public.
1
My income and my deductions are my business as a private citizen. I'm not a public corporation.
5
Government is a public business, and we all as a shareholders have to know where the money come from and where the money went. Therefore, your tax return is matter of public scrutiny as a one of revenue sources for the public corporation.
3
Not everybody, just those above a certain income should have their tax returns open to the public. I think that would inspire a lot of improvements in how things work in our country.
1
First things first Mr. Appelbaum. Before we talk about income tax payments being made public, let's discuss whether those who post comments and statements on social media, which can often be hurtful and damaging, should be permitted to do so while hiding behind a fake user name. At least there the poster is putting out something for public consumption and should have no expectation of privacy.
3
Are you kidding me, Mr. Appelbaum?
Why in the world would the NY Times promote the idea of LESS privacy in this data-stealing digital world.
I cannot believe you would even suggest this.
Yes, people who want to manage OUR governments must make their tax information public because BIG money is involved and WE THE PEOPLE have a right to know who is profiting year-to-year from the trust we give them.
People at the top of public corporations should be reuqired to make their tax information public as well because they profit most from OUR democratic/capitalist society.
WE THE PEOPLE must be protected by OUR hired/elected officials from the 0.01%. They are the ones to watch.
7
This would surely lead to less divisiveness in our society -- not.
While there is a good argument for requiring disclosure of income taxes by candidates for high office, this article is another example of an inability by certain political types to be able to make distinctions. If one person has to disclose, then all have too. Whatever is not forbidden is required, etc.
But i would like to see Mr. Appelbaum's income tax returns .. . And i'll then show him mine, sometime thereafter. i promise.
1
The reason Trump's tax returns should be made public is because, as president, he has a tremendous amount of power over how some federal money is spent. Hence, he is vulnerable to being exploited or we are at risk from his corruption. Ditto with other elected officials. The majority of us do not have this kind of power. We only have one vote among millions to elect our government representatives. I see no reason to invade the privacy of the average individual.
5
Would the income disclosure extend to the 45% of US households that pay no federal income tax?
1
You obviously mean the working people whose AGI is low enough that their deductions, credits, and possible EIC bring their taxes to zero.
You don't mean the people who are able through sophisticated tax structures or aggressive use of business deductions by small business owners or income earned through tax exempt bonds or creative business organization that allows business "losses" to pass to a "taxpayer" without the financial loss to avoid paying taxes?
Possibly those multinational, billion(s) in income, corporations that are traded on the stock exchanges that pay little or no income taxes. And if they do pay taxes the effective rate is below many in the middle class.
Stop buying into Republican talking points.
5
@randomxyz
Maybe it should so you could see just how little money these people make relative to what it costs to live in this country.
Funny how same people who want the government to extract blood from a turnip are also the ones who get so indignant when that turnip needs a blood transfusion.
4
@randomxyz Please quote your statistic! That,s foolish, and Trump sounding
If Trump’s taxes are made public we should demand that the tax returns of all members of Congress and all lobbyists are also made public. Why would anyone object?
9
People think nothing of putting suggestive photos of themselves online for all the world to see, but disclosing income is controversial?
9
Those people are choosing to post those photos of themselves. The article did not suggest that individuals would be able to opt out of their tax info being disclosed. Fundamental difference.
4
I think that there would be at least a but of a fuss if everyone required by law to post naked selfies on a government website.
2
When I worked for a university, all salaries over a $75,000 threshold were published on a public website every year. So, I pretty much knew what many of my colleagues and managers made.
This made pay decisions more transparent, aided in salary negotiations, exposed some gender-based disparities, and I’m sure caused some business units to keep parity in mind before lavishly rewarding managers with big raises.
Keeping the threshold at $75,000 meant lower-paid workers didn’t feel embarrassed about having their salaries made public. I think $50,000 is probably a more reasonable minimum but I think overall this is a very workable proposal. I know because I’ve experienced the benefits.
313
@Metoo
Having a threshold effectively extends transparency to all - if your salary is not published then everybody knows that you must have been paid less than the threshold.
Also, such lists can be misleading - eg. a part-time board member may be paid $74,000 for attending a single meeting in year - that would not make the list. But a full-time worker paid $75,000, including overtime, would.
20
@Metoo This makes the life of a department chair more difficult. I always intended to reward faculty members based on merit. Sometimes that would result in the dreaded "salary inversion" as a productive assistant professor would earn more than a moribund (but tenured) associate professor. I made those decisions at an institution that published salaries, and caught holy hell for it from the retired-in-place. That's why they paid me the big bucks ($5K increment to be chair).
8
@Metoo Public employees salaries are public, and they should be for political transparency, and so the citizens can watch the public fisc. My military salary is public. But that's a far cry from my income tax return, of which my salary is but one part. You saw benefits to salary transparency, not public income tax returns.
4
Beware the law of unintended consequences.
Releasing tax information would allow:
(i) marketers to increase their targeting of individuals - we all need more spam mail and catalogues
(ii) scammers, who already prey on the elderly, to target anyone with a decent amount of income or who perhaps had a windfall in a given yer
(iii) cyberhackers by identifying the most potentially rewarding targets so they can steal money from online accounts
(iv) political parties - let's go after someone we don't agree with and sow divisiveness even more
(v) those who may be down on their luck - let's advertise it to the world so we can pity them
(vi) sycophants - hey that friend or family member is doing better than I thought. I'm going to ask them for a loan or borrowing.
To name the ones that come to mind. Not a surprise that a journalist would want to increase the fodder for their agenda.
The government's job is to ensure people file accurate returns. The answer is to better fund the IRS and get their computer systems up and running. Not to disclose personal information that could compromise relationships or intrude on privacy.
168
@Andy
Is there anything to suggest that Norway and Finland are experiencing an epidemic of consequences (i) thru (vi)
35
@Andy All you would have to do is keep it in the admin buildings. Once upon a time, people had to go the those buildings to find out information. Most people didn't want to be bothered with the trip so they didn't go. Leave it off the internet, make people actually have to go get the information and that would solve many of the problems you are anticipating.
23
@Andy In your list of those who would benefit from the publication of incomes you fail to mention the gangs who make a living through kidnapping and extortion. Maybe Mexico should publish these lists first and see how it works out for them.
4
This column is not well thought out. The ramifications of public knowledge of the economic condition for an individual not in public life are entirely negative.
NYT publishes this while decrying the loss of privacy in our lives.
8
What a great idea. Too bad it has no chance in the US, as we pretend to value our privacy above all else. But, I'm sure we would have be no objection to requiring our elected officials to make their tax returns available for public scrutiny. Unfortunately, as with gun control and so many other issues in our broken democracy, what the public wants and what the public gets are two entirely different things.
3
@Jack Edwards--Disclosure could become a new way to brag. Rich folks would love to show off their high incomes and rub it in the faces of their rivals who don't quite measure up. It's been suggested that Trump's problem with his tax return is that it would prove he's not as rich as he claims to be. That would be a universal concern among the rich and one reason why disclosure will not happen. The rich will fight tooth and nail, like Trump is, to preserve their illusion of wealth.
1
Donald Trump mentioning his wealth all the time to show how successful he is, and we have to believe him, because we have no way to know that. Same applies to any other person.
1
I agree whole heartedly. We badly need more understanding between us, and not hiding what we make is a first step.
I don't need to read Mr. Appelbaum's column to know what I think. We already are tearing our country apart, destroying needed government services, permitting fiction to replace facts as we try to pretend we're becoming great again thanks to our current occupant of the oval Office. Are readers supposed to think this is serious, or is it a spoof of the government's inability to know the current president's tax returns?
The NYT may daily be "preaching to the choir", but it must try better to address the ignorance that surrounds us in the public sphere. I fear for the country I've lived in for 9 decades.
4
The most sensible way to deal with government spending is to first come up with a rational budget that appropriates funds according to our national priorities.
Then, we should adjust taxes to raise necessary revenues to pay the bills. Something nice and simple and transparent.
The government can send an annual postcard showing your tax hit. If you agree, you do nothing.
But... Congress gets paid to pander to Intuit and H&R Block and tax attorneys and make both the laws and IRS funding priorities byzantine and opaque.
There is no way I'd want anyone to know how little I make. I'm already unable to get a mortgage or a car loan. I can't even move to a different rental because they want proof of income 3x the rent in the form of paychecks or taxes. I pay my rent, I pay my taxes, but I'm barred from moving up in the world because I don't have a paycheck and my income is pathetic. The worst is that I'm in a profession where most are high earners, so I have to hide this. This all started when I was assaulted by a superior, thus was never able to make it. At least no one knows.
8
@sigh--I only made $28,000 last year, but so what? I don't care who knows it. I live a perfectly nice life, own my own home and have everything I need. Everybody thinks they need lots and lots money to have a good life, but that's just not true. Quality of life isn't measured in dollars.
2
@sigh
I am so sorry that happened to you. Life is very unfair to too many people. I hope your situation changes for the better.
1
You may be fine with that disclosure and are free to publicize your income (as you just did.). That does not mean everyone shares your attitude...
1
All Americans' tax returns--yours, mine, everyone's--must be released, if that's what it takes to get Trump's.
1
@areader--to be quite honest, I dont care enough about trump's returns that I'm willing to release my own. And it's not up to you to tell me that I should. Feel free to release your own but keep your nose out of my business.
1
So we should all sacrifice even more of our privacy because our fearless leader is stonewalling. No thanks.
7
Unfortunately the Republican party, which would be needed to pass this type of legislation, tends to be both corrupt and wealthy; otherwise they would not so vigorously defend a leader who is both. Therefore this pie in the sky idea has no chance for passage, regardless of its merits until Americans learn to value decency and ethics more than money and power.
Mr. Applebaum, if you think everyone's taxes should be public, regardless of what role they play in the public sphere, you are out of your mind.
11
My income taxes should be made public, meaning online? So I can be further shamed and humiliated. Please no!
4
@Steven Pinkerton
Why are you shamed and humiliated?In a proper functioning government you should have judicial assistance and relief. If your cause is not just...get over it..that, is meritocracy! Do not bote for a dictator to make it right no matter the circumstances.
I'll say this about Mr. Appelbaum's opinion: It's timely, given the NYT's recent focus on privacy issues, and suggests where the NYT and its editorial board will stand when a citizen's privacy rights are portrayed as furthering income "inequality".
7
The NYTimes can lead by example. Publish all salaries in next week's paper. I would love to see how much Mr. Appelbaum makes compared to the men and women who drive the delivery trucks. Also, he can also make his Alexa public and live stream his bedroom. In the name of fairness and transparency. Orwell would be proud.
11
If Trump and his advisors and Republican Party leaders oppose handing over the president’s tax returns, then could they at least coordinate their message? I’m imagining such an attempt, which likely has already happened:
Republican Leaders: “President Trump, since it is common knowledge that being under audit doesn’t prevent release of tax records, how about using the ‘not mandated, and risky and dangerous precedent of future political abuse to opponents’ argument? That way, we are all on the same page and communicating the same message.”
Trump: “OK. I can try that.”
Trump Advisors: “Um, sir, we don’t think its a good idea to change your message.”
Trump: “Why not?”
Trump Advisors: “Well, remember how easy it is for you to talk about the audit at your rallies? And how people applaud when you say it? A new message might confuse your fans...oops, we mean supporters.” {Advisors nod knowingly to each other, out of Trump’s view, hoping to
God he will agree since they know he would mess up the more complex message.}
Trump: “Good point. Let’s stick with the audit thing. I always nail it.”
Republican Leaders: “But the audit thing isn’t true. And what about us coordinating our message....oh, never mind.”
1
The question begs not, "What were you thinking?" But, "Were you thinking?"
No thanks to things like databases (among others), there's collectively already too much information, that should otherwise have been nobody else's business in the first place.
5
Just how much do we owe the U.S. government and our neighbors for the right to live here?
Where is that happy line?
This provocative article shows that we citizens radically disagree with each other on this issue. Both sides have some pretty good arguments, too, in my opinion. Each side has strengths and weaknesses. Someone wiser than me needs to weigh them, but then what? Let us hoi polloi vote on the decision to be made? That rarely works out well; cf. 2016 presidential election. Let Congressional sages decide? The ones who gave billionaires a huge tax cut that added significantly to our national debt? Well, maybe not.
So even if we have the truth, we can't handle it wisely or well. We're in a bit of a pickle here: We really can't govern ourselves properly and efficiently. But it must be done.
(It's a bit like giving yourself a haircut or doing your own dental work on a scale of 325 million.)
1
This is just the logical extension of the Trump-haters' demands for the President's tax returns, which was entirely predictable. Although Mr. Appelbaum tries to put forth individual and career reasons for making tax returns public, it is clear that that the real purpose is political when he makes the leftist argument about exposing economic inequality, as though we already didn't know. This would enable also the use of anyone's financial information as a political weapon by politicians trying to foster resentment as an electoral tool. One may think that's o.k., but the trouble is that the target could be you! So, no thanks. I have never paid attention to the annual news reports about any Presidents' tax returns and I haven no interest in knowing the same about my co-workers or neighbors, or anyone else. Tax returns should remain nobody's business except the individual who files them. The danger of changing that is too great.
4
@David Godinez
*You* do not have sweeping influence over the commerce, financial oversight and international relations of the most powerful nation in the world, with over 300MM inhabitants.
The president does. He also runs a huge international privately-held business at the same time he determines international and financial policies and appointees. He also has a long and verifiable history of self-dealing and bad faith transactions.
That should be an American concern, not a left/right thing. If he is aboveboard, why should he fear disclosure when "crooked Hillary" voluntarily posted decades of hers.
I watch what they do, not what they say.
1
Publishing the amount each person pays in taxes goes too far, for the reasons raised by other commenters. A better proposal would be to publish each persons effective tax rate. The real public policy issue is not how much each person pays, but whether they are paying their fair share. Publishing effective tax rates would accomplish this goal without limited impacts on privacy.
5
I had a job several years ago surveying lots of personal information from random people on holiday. They were very willing to share all kinds of stuff about themselves, including their sex lives, on my promise of anonymity. Over 50% balked at giving a ball park range of family income.
Releasing EVERYONE’S tax returns would generate a similar reaction as eliminating social security.
3
As the article points out, in most states it's possible to go online and find the assessed value of property and the property tax owned and paid, and there are no calls to end that. In most states, it's possible to go online and find out the salary of every person who works for state government, and there are no calls to end that, either. It's possible to find out the salary of executives at public companies by reading annual reports. In most states it's possible to find out the name and address of drivers by filling out a form at the DMV and using the license plate number. Making income and income tax history available shouldn't cause any more problem than this other information being available. And, with the amount of information about us all online already, what difference would income information make? All of a sudden, that's where people draw the line?
1
@Ms. Pea- "Making income and income tax history available shouldn't cause any more problem than this other information being available."
Boy are you fooling yourself.
And if you really feel so strongly about it, then go first. Publish your returns and financials on FB in the next 5 days, for the last 5 years. All of it. And then tell us, 6 months later, just how how many times your identity was stolen, to begin with.
1
This would be terrible for privacy and it seems like this could make it easier to find targets for identity theft, kidnapping, burglary, and insurance fraud. My neighbors have no right or need to know how much money I make and how much I pay in taxes. I imagine the advertisers and data brokers would love this information as well.
The author wrote "disclosure could help to ensure that people pay a fair share of taxes." You cannot expect people to pay more than they legally have to pay. This seems like a way to exert peer pressure and cause public shaming. If we want people to pay more in taxes, and by "people" I think the author means the rich, then tax laws need to changed and various loopholes closed. Anything else is a half-measure that will have undesirable unintended consequences.
The author also wrote "Disclosure also could help to reduce disparities in income, as well as disparities in tax payments." as a reason for disclosure. It would be straightforward for the IRS to release an annual report detailing various statistics. No need for public disclosure if such a report existed.
4
Maybe in some halcyon past, but not now, where this information would be too quickly weaponized (if I were a kidnapper- this would be dream information), or worse. More privacy, not less.
12
You think kidnappers can’t identify rich people now? Also, you must have missed that part about recording the names of anyone who looks up someone’s record. That’s a hell of a lead for the cops in the event of a kidnapping.
Perhaps we should also make public our medical histories, internet search histories and GPS locations for the preceding year.
This op-ed isn't endorsing something that will facilitate greater liberty, or enhance democracy. And frankly, this is a far more irresponsible perspective and threat to democracy and liberty than anything that has been proposed by the Trump administration.
Privacy, which includes the right to associate with whom one chooses and the right to spend money as one sees fit is essential to a free and open society. Democracy may die in darkness, as the Washington Post tells us, but it also dies when there is no darkness and privacy becomes a luxury reserved only for those in power.
13
@Middleman MD
A person who runs for public office has, in effect, waived privacy.
A person who sues a physician has waived privacy as to medical records and depending on the circumstances, tax records as loss of income is part of the claim for relief.
2
@Middleman MD
There was no mention of not being able to spend money as you see fit, just how destructive it can be when people hide this information from the broader society. Money and taxes is part of a social contract that we all agree to do business fairly with each other. There is nothing lost in the general public knowing the amounts that each of us are dealing with except for those who wish to cheat and exploit.
3
@Al- Great. Then you go first. Publish your last 5 years of returns and financials on FB, as PDFs. Nothing is stopping you.
In 6 months, you can tell us how many times your identity was stolen, among other things.
And to be clear, Locke and Rousseau specified the social contract as the consent of the governed to enfranchise the leader, by their consent and nothing else. It had nothing to do with "money" or "taxes." That was made clear in our laws the last time a poll tax was abolished, and when women got the right to vote without benefit of owning property themselves, or without being married to a man who owned any.
To really get an accurate picture of someone's finances, it is not enough to have their income tax returns disclosed. What is needed is full disclosure of WEALTH -- all assets, trusts, etc. This is especially true for the top 1% of the population.
5
With a veritable plethora of information available, fifty percent of my neighbors voted for the current President. What kind of conclusions will they be capable of drawing through analysis of my tax returns?
Folks, calm down. The writer suggests making public: Name. Income. Tax paid. That's all. Not schedule D. Not how much you gave to charity. Not filing status, age, address (or even state you live in). Not number of dependents, source of income, medical expenses. Not any actual tax document, actually. Just name, income, tax paid. So, for example, John Doe, $45,550, $2790. Hardly the death of privacy as we know it. And before you jump my case, in an earlier post, I did put my own actual information out there.
15
My first 22 years of life, was spent in the military where everyone's pay was not only publicly available but displayed every day on everyone's sleeve and shoulder. The openness had a very positive effect. Military people tend to have higher moral standards and much more dedication to the larger good than do the civilians I have seen since over the subsequent 50 years. America would be a better country. Definitely!
Thank you for this perceptive, courageous comment. There are of course, the vast majority who look at it from a NIMBYite perspective. They would get over it.
Our biggest issue is discrimination in all aspects. Openness is our best hope.
Sincerely,
6
@David Bue: Compensation of military personnel is not nearly as simple as described .
Military basic pay can be determined based on rank if years service also is known. Special pay, such as for various types of hazardous duty or skills is less easily determined; they generally would be known to many of those stationed on the same base or ship but not so visible to others. Allowances, many not taxed, as well as income from such things as reenlistment bonus payments or continuation pay would be fairly private. And income from such things as personal investments and real estate transactions associated with periodic permanent change of station generally would be knowable only to the extent and degree that a service member or family member elected to disclose it. Those real estate transactions would be tax-deferred in most cases, but at least through 2008, could result in serious wealth enhancement.
2
Excellent idea. This will effectively eliminate the rich from government service. They like to brag to each other at the country clubs and yachting clubs about how successful they are at cheating on their taxes, or golf game or whatever. Now, it will be public knowledge. Bragging that you paid no taxes this year to a crowd of factory workers paying 28% or more won't win elections.
6
@Rocketscientist- yeah but we were talking about your tax return, and your neighbor's. Not some rich guy.
How would you like your returns being gossiped about at the union local office? At a general meeting? And yes, that is what it will come to.
If you want to people and corporations to pay their fair share of taxes, then we should get rid of the income tax altogether and start taxing consumption instead, with no exemptions for corporations. There are ways to do it that do not unfairly burden the poor, and it would put an end to the absurd practice of taxing people's time and energy, which is essentially what an income tax does.
It would also most likely lower consumption overall, which would hardly be a bad thing for our planet.
57
@Kristin That's called a VAT tax. There are arguments for it, but few as a substitute for income tax. Also note that an income tax is not a tax on "people's time and energy." Someone working a minimum wage job or, as is often the necessity, working multiple minimum wage jobs works just as hard and long as millionaires and billionaires, if not harder and longer. Income is a valuation the market places on one's work, not a measure of one's time and effort. Conflating income with personal virtues is an old canard, typically deployed in blaming the poor for being poor.
29
@RRI labor = the amount of energy expended over a set time period. We are definitely getting taxed on the use of our energy over time. But the biggest travesty is that in exchange for energy expended over time, two things which we will never get back, we all get pieces of paper known as fiat currency.
1
No that is not a VAT tax which layers tax on each level of production. A consumption tax is one flat tax at final purchase. Very different from a VAT.
6
I'm sure it will work out just as equitably as drug testing has.
7
I'll go first...Name: Diane Copeland. Income: $105,460. Federal tax paid: $12,839. There, that wasn't so hard.
14
@Deft Robbin Well done. Myself, I wouldn't want to offend delicate sensibilities and stagger everyone's imagination by revealing how little I made, yet I can still read and write. But I will, right after Trump shows his.
4
@Deft Robbin
Jeff. Income: $2,500,000. Federal tax paid: $800,000.
3
Effective rate 32%. You are paying your fair share for sure!
1
It appears that the desire to get access to the the President’s tax returns is so overwhelming that even requiring all Americans to disclose their tax returns sounds to some like a reasonable price to pay. That’s not a twisted interpretation; that’s what the author is saying:
“Democrats in Congress are fighting to obtain President Trump’s tax returns under a separate 1924 law, written in response to related concerns about public corruption. That issue could be resolved, at least in part, if Congress embraced the broader case for publishing everyone’s tax bill.”
7
Many of the commenters express that while they don't support publishing of private citizens tax returns, they do support the disclosure of politicians returns. Why? Do they want to prevent private citizens from pursuing political office and continue to cultivate an elite political class?
6
@SSS To the extent full disclosure of a politician’s tax returns would reveal wrong doing on the part of the individual, I’m all for it. If a private citizen running for office doesn’t feel comfortable disclosing, that might indicate that they don’t meet the bar e.g., they are not an honest broker, in which case I would just as soon have them continue to be just a plain old private citizen. We should have an expectation that political candidates, and office holders, be squeaky clean.
@Juud
In a representative government, I prefer to have representative politicians, warts and all. I'm a bit wary of "squeaky clean" as it seems to always be a false facade.
1
If indeed there is 450 billion in uncollected tax every year, the matter at hand should be to beef up the IRS, and hire enough auditors to go after the tax cheats. Everyone can get on board with this idea, vs publicizing people’s taxes, a cause surely to be divisive.
5
An eight-year campaign to slash the agency’s budget has left it understaffed, hamstrung and operating with archaic equipment. The result: billions less to fund the government. That’s good news for corporations and the wealthy.
https://www.propublica.org/article/how-the-irs-was-gutted
2
Love it. Great in most states. But I fear that for NY, the idea is naive. We already know that New York collects a huge amount of its tax revenue from a few people at the top of the income scale. Those taxpayers know it at an abstract level, but when they see the disparity in taxes paid - not so much income earned, that’s already publicly disclosed in many instances - I suspect they will react. And not be sharing wealth voluntarily. They’ll just accelerate their migration (for tax purposes) to other venues.
3
Why not? Salaries, job titles and names of government employees at all levels (city, State, Federal) are published online. I've been on those lists, including now. I haven't had any problems or noticed any changes in amount or type of advertising, charity appeals, and so on. I've looked up co-workers' salaries out of curiosity, but that's all. Having that information-taxes or salary- doesn't tell you the details of a person's/family's life-debt, health, family finaancial obligations, etc. I make a good salary now, but I put the max in retirement and am helping family members who are experiencing hard times. So what if your salary or tax info are out there?
4
@patricia- Every good reason not to, that's why.
I absolutely agree ... if it works in Wisconsin it can work for the rest of our states ...
2
The government (federal, state & local) literally takes a third of what I earn. I pay every dime I owe, even reporting several years ago the small profit I made on scrapping an oz or two of old gold jewelry (and I paid the 28% tax thereon). There was no 1099 for the sale - I could have not reported it - but I did because it was the right thing to do. However, my wife and are not a public corporation and I am not an elected civil servant. My finances, wealth, income & tax paid are not the public’s business.
16
What the reactions in the comment section illustrate best is that the US is a low trust society while in Norway and Finland people have a much higher trust in their fellow citizens and their government.
Some people here claim that publishing tax returns would result in an increase in envy. Although in some cases that might apply - CEO salaries are an infamous example - I doubt that would be the overall result. Jealousy can be irrational: people may envy their neighbor for his new Porsche while they forget that they themselves spend much more on their house.
7
@Wim Roffel:"the US is a low trust society "
The direction of "low trust" changes directions periodically in the the US along with the political winds.
50+ years ago you would have seen progressive minded students protesting and chanting "Hey, hey LBJ, how many kids did you kill today?".
Today many of those same progressives and the NYT are in the process of deifying LBJ.
One day the Fed is one side's friend, the next day it's the enemy.
"people may envy their neighbor for his new Porsche while they forget that they themselves spend much more on their house."
I wouldn't apply that case to most Americans. Interesting perspective on the US though. I'm curious. How much do you spend on wooden shoes?
1
"Tax data also is a rich source of information about American life … One can only imagine what others might learn from the data … income taxation is an act of government, not an aspect of private life. The same information (as is now available for property taxes) should be available for income taxes — nothing more is necessary."
Indeed -- one can only imagine, not only what can be learned, but also, inevitably, what can be inferred/assumed. Collecting the information is a government act but we are required by law to submit it, and the returns show sources and amounts of income, the existence of claimed dependents, deductions for major purchases and if itemized, medical expenses and charitable giving -- quite a lot about what many would think is private life. What is "necessary" is a very subjective and fluid metric and certainly not reliable as any kind of control. I would expect that checking income tax returns of job applicants would become as standard as crime background checks and credit reports. This proposal is a slippery slope and I would be alarmed if it gained traction.
That said, it's different when someone chooses to run for public office … candidates' returns should be readily available for public review.
4
The information on individuals' income tax information would greatly assist those with computer skills and a vocational interest in Identity Theft.
As Willie Sutton has taught us, "I rob banks because that's where the money is."
Were he alive today, Willie would be writing his Congressman to urge quick adoption of making income tax data public. No more would his band of burglars need to rely on darkness and Zip Codes to steal. IP addresses would be all he would need.
Meanwhile, data miners would greatly improve their ability to target potential customers to ads that would be tailored even more tightly to your income.
Unlike Willie, I think only people who want to engage in "public life" like aspirants to elected or appointed public office should be required to disclose their income (both before and after they hold public office.) They can keep their beer preferences private, but gambling losses are a different story.
That information would make it easier to understand why they say and do the things they do, make decisions, or enact laws or regulations affecting their fellow citizens.
We could just "Follow the Money."
8
@JMT
Your on to the best objection to full disclosure. Good for you!
@JMT: Honest democrats (note the lower case 'd') should be expected to trust the voters to decide about the qualifications of elected public officials. In the United States we have a free press to ferret out things in candidates' backgrounds that merit voter consideration.
That free press did that well in the 2016 election, to the point where there probably is little of consequence unknown about either the current President or his chief opponent that would bear on their capability or public policy inclinations. There is no more reason than in most other elections to think the voters did not know what they were voting for, or what they were getting, irrespective of which candidate won election to the office. There also is no reason to think that publication of Donald Trump's tax returns would have given them enough more information that it would have changed their minds.
As it happened in 2016, a majority of the voters thought the wrong candidate was elected. Yet the same would be true if the other main candidate had been elected. That sometimes happens with elections, and the basic democratic agreement is that everyone accepts the result, albeit sometimes grudgingly.
Even with my doubts about privacy, I do have to admit that this would result in less tax fraud and more fair revenue.
People could see that your lifestyle far exceeds the level of your taxes and collect under the IRS whistleblower reward system.
Most likely to be caught are those who take cash and don't report it - like corrupt politicians and contractors.
5
@Bob in Pennsyltucky
Fine with me, as long as that same law also says that the whistleblower who has wrongly accused someone of falsely reporting their income now has to pay restitution for damages to reputation, lost time during audits, etc. to the falsely accused.
After all, the system is supposed to be fair, right?
4
Do the people now get restitution for 'damages' from IRS audit? I don't think so. Why should it be different with the whistleblowers?
3
Whistleblowers do not get protection for false, I.e., untrue, accusations against a private person. If you accuse a private citizen of a crime as a private citizen, you better have a lead pipe cinch case. That is defamation and would be libel if written.
1
If I were in the 1% I'd say "go ahead," and move my wealth to other countries.
Whatever ethical justification exists for such a system. a level playing field should not be one of them.
1
How frightening to see all the naysayers in this usually progressive readership. As the article says, this works fine in Norway and Finland and several other countries as I understand. What's the problem? This is not, as one commenter says, private financial information. It is a matter of public finance. I'm not sure there is such a thing as private financial information. In any event, I look forward to having our own national Jealousy day .
6
@Mickeyd- actually it is "private", and you yourself benefit from that very privacy.
But go ahead. Disclose first, if it's so important to you. Post the last 5 years of your returns and financials on FB, as PDFs. In 6 months you can tell us all how many times your identity was stolen, and how your health insurer no longer wants to pay for your potential heart attack from the next slice of pizza you eat.
And yes, that is where this is all going.
The salary for state employees is already public record at least in some states.
In my experience, it isn't doing people much good. Those who are fretting about what their colleagues make are almost invariably the same people who are failing themselves and who now spend even more of their little energy not on their work, where it would be sorely needed, but on being jealous of their "neighbors'" success.
Personally, I have never looked up that information on my colleagues, precisely because I do not want to clutter my brain with that kind of nonsense and rather focus on being as good as I can as a professional.
7
I am a state employee where salary is published. When I look up a coworker’s salary, it isn’t because I am jealous - it usually is to bring to the negotiating table information about how my male counterpart makes thousands more.
I would like to say this has resulted in pay equity, but it has not. However, it is at least a way to start.
Voyeurism is now a virtue?
Tax returns include more than just income information. They can include, for example, how much a tax payer spent over the last year on healthcare, which could lead to all sorts of inappropriate inquiries and assumptions by .... just about anyone!
Let's leave the taxes of private citizens private, please. My neighbor has no reason - whatsoever - to see my taxes. Neither does Mr. Appelbaum.
13
Why not? Imagine the guy living in your neighbourhood, having huge house, several expensive cars and paying no taxes. Don't you want to know how such things happen? How guys with luxury life that you could not afford are paying zero in taxes, when you have to pay thousands?
1
@yulia Nope.
2
@yulia I have a real life story here. I retired from the work force at age 42, then proceeded to buy a home in a nice subdivision. I also bought a brand new car. I was single with no children. Now, one of my neighbors (married dual income, grown kids status) came up to me and point blank asked me how "could I afford all of this?" to which I responded "I saved my money during my career". I admit I was a bit taken aback and now wonder if she secretly thought like you did - that I had cheated on my taxes or found loopholes so that I could live as good as her married, dual income status in a nice house and not ever have to work again.
1
"The sad reality is the super rich, not 1%, but the .005% like Amazon, possibly Trump..don't pay taxes."
Everybody pays taxes.
It just so happens, some people don't owe any taxes.
That's not the same as not paying taxes.
Smart people try to arrange their affairs to minimize their taxes.
With Monday's April 15 deadline, this weekend Americans are working overtime to minimize their taxes.
Oh, by the way, the IRS is a big operation.
They keep an eye out to make sure everyone pays the taxes they owe.
So, you don't have to lose sleep over whether Trump pays his taxes.
7
@True Observer If you're in the 1%, or the .005% and you don't owe taxes then you are not paying taxes. If the same rules applied to everyone your statement might make sense, but given how much power the wealthy have to write the rules in their own favor there's little surprise that the very wealthy can pay so much lower an effective tax rate than a teacher or a janitor.
4
@True Observer
The IRS's understaffing prevents it from auditing the majority of the super rich, allowing the 1% to overstate the depreciation of their assets and underevaluate their income in addition to hiding money in overseas accounts; this makes any distinction between not owing and not paying taxes irrelevant.
4
When I lived in Sweden, the Head of a company I worked for, asked me whether we could keep his compensation private. This is because he was a foreigner, and his compensation was well above the locals. My CPA, explained that he could get my compensation, or anyone's, by text message. Or buy for $10 a booklet with the compensation of all my neighbors. This was 10 years ago.
We need to balance privacy with a bona file reason to know. I do not believe we would collect more taxes by publishing private person's tax returns. Those elected officials serving in office, however, for the privilege we give them to serve us, should make their tax returns public or not join public office.
5
The author is just another advocate for weaponizing data.
If tax returns become public information, then people will not provide the report out of a fear of persecution.
Would you chose to do business with someone who wasn't earning enough to pay taxes ?
10
Would you? Wouldn't that be a red flag? If he cheating IRS, what stop him treat you in same way?
1
I would append one item to the list of taxpayer information to be disclosed. In addition to the taxpayer’s name, income and taxes paid, I would have the government disclose the amount of benefits received, labeling all of them as “welfare.”
Saved $10,000 off your taxes due to the mortgage interest deduction? That’s welfare. $5000 saved due to a 401k or pension contribution? Welfare. Tax savings due to charitable contributions, or non-monetary “expenses” like depreciation? All welfare.
Every dollar the government spends through tax expenditures by way of deductions and credits costs all of us just as much as dollars spent on benefits like social security and food stamps. Maybe if middle class and wealthy people realized how much in welfare “entitlements” they themselves are receiving, their attitudes towards “entitlements” for the young, old and poor
would change just a bit.
5
401K and pension contributions are not “welfare.” Social Security and Medicare taxes are taken from any such contributions and ultimately taxes are paid on the contributions.
3
@Someone
but they are "welfare" in that you are not paying taxes on the contributions at the time you earned the income, instead deferring the tax payment at the expense of everyone else currently funding government expenses.
2
Dear Unbalanced, I hope David Brooks reads your comment -- but I doubt he'll read it and doubt even more that he'll mend his ways. For him, entitlements never mean corporate welfare, only Medicare, Social Security, Food Stamps, etc.
2
It's easy to find out what your neighbors and fellow citizens are paying in property taxes for deeded properties, unless the title is held by an "ABC" or "XYZ" corporation. After all, "corporations are people" and have their own set of privacy and limited liability rights.
But the greatest value in public access to other people's income tax data is to answer the age old question, "Am I making more than my brother-in-law?"
5
It's pretty funny to see how the Dems flip-flop all over the place to suit their political whims.
About 25 years ago, it was argued that is a Constitutional Right of Privacy and thus a woman's Right to an Abortion. As the famous quote from Justice Douglas put it there is a Right to Privacy based on the "penumbra" formed, by "emanations" from the Bill of Rights.
The current Liberal thinking as now come 180 degrees so that everybody's tax returns must be made public.
9
@Amy The author already met your objection head on:
"Calling for more disclosure may seem discordant at a time of growing concern about privacy. But income taxation is an act of government, not an aspect of private life."
You might have acknowledged the author's position and responded to it, rather than going for the cheap shot of supposed liberal hypocrisy, as if that were an argument that went to the merits of the current case. Any law to make tax filings a matter of public record would still have to pass Constitutional muster under Roe and subsequent rulings establishing a penumbra of privacy rights. That's not a "flip-flop." Any right, including the right to privacy, has never been supposed to be absolute. It is not a "flip flop" to qualify the nature and extent of any right in consideration of different circumstances and different areas of application. That's what legislatures and courts do. That's not a "flip-flop." That's called thinking and due process.
6
Deflection and false equivancy never win arguments. I'm guessing you care nothing of Trump's tax returns but want to see Clinton's emails:)
@Amy
If the none of the information the government collects about citizens can be private, then I guess all public school and public university work by students must be public, all ez pass records, all social security records, and all public hospital records should not be private either.
1
To Mr. Appelbaum and those commenters who are in favor of public tax returns, even for private citizens: Take the first step and tell us, what was your income last year and where did it come from?
13
How about let’s just start with if you want to be the singularly most powerful people individual on the planet...
7
Privacy is about respect. If your life is so dull that you need to know everything about mine, seeing my tax return will not make your life more fulfilling...you'll still be dull and needy.
11
Maybe, but I'll have a true picture of the World, rather than imaginative one, based on incomplete information. And if you are bright person leading interesting life, disclosure of your taxes will not change that. So what is the problem?
2
It seems odd that the New York Times, after an increasing (appropriate) drumbeat of advocacy for internet privacy reforms, would boldly suggest that privacy doesn't extend to personal financial data.
But because Appelbaum's call for releasing personal tax data is a product of the left's Trump Derangement Syndrome, and because the Times is the one outlet most responsible for that affliction in America, perhaps it isn't so odd.
15
It's nice that conservatives now don't care about Clinton's private emails. so refreshing!
2
Wrong. They would be weaponized just like background checks are as another form of legalalized exclusion.
16
We had a Catholic Church called St Patricks in Nicholson pa. They printed a yearly record of it members and what they gave . They handed it out in church and it was suppose to be private. When we left the church you saw your name on the forms littered in the parking lot and neighbors yards. Taxes should not by public because there are to many hot heads out there today in the GOP who will come after you if they think you need to pay more. I agree any political leaders in America must show their taxes .
Wow! How long did that pastor or maybe the parish business manager stay? At least in catholic parishes, the focus now is on people not on the list. The people on the lists, maybe only 50% of regular attendees, actually give a lot of money. Seeing other people’s stories blown around the neighborhood does not motivate many people to get on the list. The rules in Matthew 6:2 apply to both giver and receiver.
Great idea Mr. Appelbaum. Perhaps you would also like the federal government to place cameras strategically throughout our homes and stream our everyday lives on social media. Our friends and neighbors need to know if we are living the life of good little comrades.
14
I think it will be OK, when we will he required to report our daily activities to the Government every year.
This publically accessible table has my teaching salary: https://www.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/uploadedFiles/departments/ersc/employees/pay/schedules/FY19%20MCEA%20Salary%20Schedules.pdf
I'm in my 12th year of teaching, and I have a Masters Equivalent plus 30 credit hours (two Masters Degrees).
Our county publishes the actual salary data for all county employees. There are firefighter captains that have more than doubled their salary in overtime, making more than $220,000 a year.
2
@Jack S.
sure, that shows your salary but doesn't show your investment income, health expenses, loan expenses, gambling losses, and other details of your life.
1
@Jack S. all state and federal public employees salaries are public. Your salary may only be a small part of your total income and is not an accurate picture.
Many suggest politicians reveal taxes - how about reporters?
3
Interesting and ironic that the article right below this one on my tablet is titled “Time to Panic About Privacy”. Indeed it is.
13
Possibly one of the more hyperludicrous ideas I have seen published in the NYT. The social impact of making one's income public would be extreme with no positive side whatsoever - those with low incomes will be embarrassed, others with large incomes targeted by scammers and/or vilified as '1 percenters' by the have-nots.
I think many of the other reader comments posted here make similar points..and therefore speak for themselves.
12
Surprisingly, but such transparency didn't cause any downside in Nordic countries. Of course, they are also less corrupt. yes, I do want to know what people make in my field, to see how fairly I am compensated. To know what kind of salary I should ask of my employers. I do want to know why my neighbour who lives in such luxury that I could not afford paying less in taxes. Is it because his income is smaller or because he knows loopholes that I don't. Yes, there are great upside of these proposal: transparent World that will allowed us to see what kind of policies we should support in order to better it for everybody, not just for few.
Welcome To Tax Day
Precipitous rise, my profits are up,
I report losses because I’m corrupt,
Corrupt from the get-go through to my toes -
Enjoying the fruits with no money woes;
Hire accountants with outa sight pay
Worth the excess while you’re making hay,
Under-reporting – what Caesar knows not
Is what wise men do – it’s hardly a blot,
No character flaw in a world of corruption,
It's pennies I've hid; there is no injunction
To tender your profits at their request,
But hire a lawyer; the state will contest
Your dishonest reporting and send you away,
A lesson to others who don't want to pay.
The right wing, anti-tax, "drown the government in the bathtub" folks, like Grover Norquist and Americans for Tax Reform, should love this idea.
After all, if taxes are so inherently unfair and confiscatory, it should be helpful to show them in all their monstrous glory.
What do you say, Grover? Grover?
I would never hire a contractor without knowing their character and financial information. And I would never be able to get a loan or mortgage without banks requiring the same. Why would I hire a President without knowing the same information? Duhh
5
No contractor is going to open his or her business books for your personal inspection as part of bidding on your next home project. I’d expect most would tell you to find another contractor. As they should.
3
We do check on contractors through recommendation and through certain sites that collect this information.
While the writer gives us all his financial info and makes himself a target of criminals, I insist he also tell us about every sexual encounter he has ever had. Oh and also any illness he has or has had.
8
Are you required to report your sexual history to the Government every year? Do you want the Government to collect such information as it collects info about our income? Or you think that the Government should not collect our income information and rely purely on our good nature to pay our fair share of taxes?
Reading these comments on an idea that is fair and moral says a lot about the lack of community in the US compared to say Finland. With globalization, sadly, Finland is going to be more like the US. Sad because community is what makes a society. Sad because the comments expose a level of greed and narcism that I normally expected in Arab or African oil potentates. The Times commentariat sound largely Trumpian. We get what we vote for.
3
I imagine this author would also like everyone's physical and mental health records to be in the public domain as well. That would be interesting. It would enable all readers of this opinion piece to get a clear understanding of the author.
12
Why would he? We are reporting tax to the Government, but we do not report the state of our physical and mental health? Do you propose that the Government stops collecting information about citizen's income, because it is as private as citizen's health?
@yulia Imagine if every criminal had access to the amount of money each person had along with their address and where they work. What do you think a criminal can do with that information. Physical and mental health information is captured through insurance programs and the government is a participant in the overwhelming majority of those.
"Everyone’s Income Taxes Should Be Public"
Let's start with your Tax return.
When will you publish your returns on this page?
9
At a moment during which multiple columnists of the NYT are complaining about the lack of privacy, Mr. Applebaum apparently is moving in the opposite direction. I do not want details of my private life exhibited like livestock in a barnyard and so I have no Facebook account, no Twitter account, and I certainly have no enthusiasm for sharing any of my personal data.
Perhaps Mr. Applebaum would like to set an example by first telling all of the readers his annual income.
4
Reducing economic inequality is neither in the Constitution, nor in our tax laws. Reducing fraud is not your responsibility either sir, nor are you a CPA (or so I imagine).
Your goal is to embarrass Donald Trump.
Are you concerned about the Clinton's mega-wealth? How did they acquire it? How much came from overseas patrons such as Qatar? Tis a mystery, a disturbing one.
10
Reducing fraud as well as any other crime is responsibility of every citizen of the States. It is our duty to report a crime we witnessed otherwise, we could be charged as an accomplice to the crime
let's start with AOC's tax returns. I bet the Queen of 70% tax rates didn't declare all her tips when she bartended before becoming a congresswoman. oh right... high tax rates are only fun when someone else is paying.
6
You see, if we had the publicly available tax return we would know it by now, and the your accusation wouldn't be so baseless like they are now.
This is why I subscribe to the NYT: just to see what the wackiest ideas of the day are. Mission accomplished! Thanks, Binyamin.
10
In an effort to justify a system that is patently unjust, unconstitutional, and anti-America you prove beyond a doubt that there is no longer any effort by the liberals to not be unjust, unconstitutional, and anti-American.
What every person earns is covered by the Constitution and every effort to post that in public must be fought tooth and nail.
7
If my taxes were made available then everyone could see the tax breaks I take advantage of that Elizabeth Warren personally told me I was a 'job creator' for taking advantage of. I haven't paid taxes in years !!!
Thank you corrupt politicians and people stupid enough to vote for them !
(I think this is a great idea, BTW, but as another commentator noted jealousy is the greatest of the seven deadly sins and neighbors making 50K a year will turn on those making 75K a year and the people making 10 million a year and more will continue laughing at the rest of us)
We are ashamed. We are ashamed that we make too little money. We are ashamed that we make too much. We are ashamed that we fail to pay our taxes. We are ashamed we fail to pay our religious tithes. We are ashamed we lied about how much money we have.
But that's the only consequence. And we would all be in it together.
2
How about just imposing term limits on all politicians instead? This may be one of the worst ideas ever published.
2
It is actually great idea contrary to term limit which promote politicians to behave irresponsible in his last term, because who cares he could not keep the job anyway why even try to be good?
@yulia
term limits are a campaign by the unelected bureaucrats to cement power in their own hands by regularly removing the elected representative responsible for their oversight.
@SSS no, it’s a way to stop career pols from avoiding making difficult decisions in hopes of cementing their pensions. If legislators actually did their jobs, and wrote thoughtful legislation...instead of punting on hard issues like immigration...the bureaucratic state would be less important.
But Mr Applebaum didn’t tell us his salary? Surely this piece is satire. Advocating making public everyone’s income but the author advocating this practice doesn’t include his own salary. If this is a joke is really not that funny.
5
We must make sure the IRS is honest. Then trust them. no infractions then no one gets to peak... and fishing by disgusting shamers.
Part of me thinks when writers like Shoshana Zuboff, in "The Age of Surveillance Capitalism," argue that the contemporary political-economic system is sliding toward fascism, such authors must be exaggerating a bit.
After reading this article, I think Zuboff utterly naive about fascism's actual momentum in this country. That a mainstream paper (or even an op-ed in one) could suggest something so blithely disrespectful of privacy and basic human dignity is obscene, and the proposal itself utterly deranged.
Yes there are some legitimate aims (exposing inequality, reducing fraud etc.) that would be served by publicizing people's incomes and tax information, but oh my goodness, talk about a medicine worse than the disease!!!! And I say this as a liberal sympathetic to Sanders and the Occupy movement! There are other ways to combat fraud and inequality!!!
Yes, there are other ways to attack (and ATTACK we must!) fraud and especially inequality!
We are already moving too much in the fascist direction. We need less Big Brother, not more.
5
Before the attack, we (and I mean everybody) should have clear picture of the World today to know which attack will be most efficient, and convince the citizens it is right line of attack. Right now we are relying on the words of politicians rather on firsthand knowledge, and therefore, are subjects of bias. If we can see by own our eyes what politicians talking about it will be much more convincing.
Are you willing to abolish the right of privacy enshrined in the constitution from which - among other things - the right to abortion springs?
3
Are you trying to say that tax return is unconstitutional because of privacy law?
Just this week a coworker learned that another’s base salary was significantly higher than his. He was furious, hurt and angry. Corporations hire based on what you earned for your last job, not necessarily what this job is worth...so base salaries can vary widely. The lower paid worker now wants a raise - there is drama and anger and it is a total mess.
3
@Deirdre
More transparency in pay would avoid that inequity in the first place. If every employee knew what every other employee doing the same job was paid, employers would need to pay more equitably or have good and defensible reasons for paying differently.
2
There should be drama. What possible reason is there to pay 2 people who do the same job different salaries?
You make it sound like drama is bad - it may the only way for a person to be treated equitably.
1
@Laura
You want to destroy the free marketplace for labor. The marketplace increases compensation when there is a shortage and decreases compensation when there is oversupply.
I've always believed if you receive a check from the U.S. Government Treasury you and all your neighbors should be able to see that payment.
What easier way to shine a light on fraud?
1
@John state and federal employees salaries are already public knowledge.
@Mary Yes. I was thinking more along the lines of benefits such as social security, etc. Anything paid for by taxpayers.
I prefer that my wife and children don't become a target for kidnappers. This is a terrible idea.
4
I hope the NYT editorial writers can find a more substantial way to justify their opinions other than citing that Norway or Sweden do so therefore it must be good for the US. The world would be a much better place if more countries emulated what the US does. We are not perfect here in the USA but we eventually get it right.
If we were to disclose tax return information, why stop there. How about religion, sexual preference, voting record, driving record, internet search history, movies watched, etc.
4
We still haven't got 'right' the healthcare, the gun violence, the inequality and many other thing. Maybe, if we were willing to learn from other countries, our lives now would be better. We do report our income to the Government, we are not reporting our health state, our religion or our sexual preference to the state, that is why the proposal of public access to tax returns is acceptable, and public access to health is not.
1
Thank you for this. I have long been struck by the fact that income secrecy conceals exploitation, criminality, and bad policy. It should end.
This can only work if we get rid of guns.
1
It should therefore it will not be.
I’d like to see Amazon’s taxes! “They don’t pay them” Well then why did they get a 129,000,000 Refund?
How do you get refunded what you don’t pay?
Absolutely no, I don't want my neighbours to know how much we make, or close friends. This is an invasion of privacy. For the Democrats it's a political games instead of dealing with the most important issues.
4
I look forward to the author publishing his income and then visiting a poor, gang ridden suburb in a poor country or a post conflict situation!
6
What a great idea! Gary Shteyngart apparet from "Super Sad Love Story" could finally be realized. Call the new dating app "Goldigger:" point it at a prospect in a bar, add a little bit of facial recognition, and filter out those with uninteresting Gross and/or Adjusted Incomes. Better yet, link in Zillow, and Tinderillow and a little predictive analytics can help you figure out to go for the hookup or more.
2
Reason this idea is crazy: identity theft. Imagine dealing with the problems that will arise because Clyde the ID thief half-way across the country got your income tax filing information. There was no internet in 1924, no real identity theft problem. Welcome to the 21st century - we don't need hundred-year-old solutions to our problems. Or do you support "wall" too?
4
Is the identity theft more prevalent in the Nordic countries where public tax disclosure is normal practice?
If we were able to hide less maybe we would have less to hide?
1
I sure only people with good intentions would look at our returns. Should we give them the anti fraud PINS we get every time someone files in our names as well?
5
Please remeber the constitution guarantees that it {government} will not invade any person's privacy. That's it. I tell the government how much I earned and how much I need to pay the government as a tax. It cannot tell public anything unless a crime has been committed and successfully prosecured. Only the criminal action needs to be made public. Nothing else. The politicians make their taxes public to assure me that the are hinest. TRUMP is DISHONEST> But he got elected because of the constitution that was written 300 years old to protect the rights of white men and also by small states. We are not a Nation of people but a union of states that are consideered equal, Hmmmm.
3
yeah, but you are required to report your income to the Government. You do not require to report you health state, your sexual preferences or your religion. So one of two, either the Government is breaking the Constitution by collecting tax return, or tax returns are not considered to be private matter.
Totally disagree. Individual income taxes are no one's business but the tax payer and their accountant. This editorial is ludicrous and the writer's argument does not hold water or make any sense whatever.
5
Sunshine cures all ills if the source is corruption; making tax returns public would shed light on the ever present danger of inequality. It would certainly reveal Trump, among others, to be a crook, and cheating the system at our expense. But good luck with that, as the 'rich and powerful' would fight 'tooth and nail' to prevent their cheating exposure.
Obviously Mr. Applebaum isn’t panicking about privacy!
1
I guess you don’t believe in privacy.
4
I wonder if The Donald has filed tax returns in Wisconsin. They might prove to be interesting reading.
1
Wow - talk about invasion of privacy. With humans' capacity for envy, this is a terrible idea. Some would be so jealous of others' wealth that they would want to kill all the upper class folks (sound familiar?) while others would be embarrassed that their salaries were not higher. Are you planning to make everyone's sex life public as well?
4
Making everyone's income and taxes public could also cause a big spike in anti-Semitism. Be careful what you recommend, Mr. Applebaum.
1
So you want to run for political office? Then put up or shut up.
I would have no problem disclosing my tax information, but it would be like pulling teeth to get most politicians to disclose theirs. Basically not a bad idea though for office seekers who rant about transparency.
I doubt Mr. Tramp would have been elected if his tax forms had been available for voters to see his bankrupts.
Everyone may be too many, but Members of Congress, Federal Judges, everyone in the White House, Joint Chiefs, Fed Board Members, and probably CEOs and Chairmen of publicly traded companies all should have pubic filings. This might make for a less corrupt, more equal and transparent society.
2
The IRS should publicly celebrate and thank the top tax payers each year. Streets and public schools should be named for them. Full page ads and internet banners expressing appreciation seems appropriate. Currently people are celebrated for evading taxes by giving to fashionable causes and foundations. But taxpayers keep the water flowing and the sewers clear. Thank You!
Norway has done this forever. It has yielded little beyond hate and discontent. There is now growing opposition to the practice, including allegations that it has fostered stalking and worse crimes.
Please Read: https://www.newsinenglish.no/2019/01/10/kidnapping-shocks-naive-norwegians/
5
You know, in the UK, when you take your exams at Oxford or Cambridge or Saint Andrews, your grades are posted in Public also. I bet that makes people study harder too!
This would greatly increase elder abuse and would help criminals know who to target. Think about it...
5
One reason Binyamin Appelbaum wants income and tax information public is to make sure all pay their fair share of taxes. Consider a thought experiment where you decide how much to give to the government?
Would it be relevant to you to know whether it was run by a racist Islamaphobe?
Would it be relevant to know that it separates families, or that it threatened 26 million with "total destruction"?
Or, that it kills unarmed black people, and that they formed Black Lives Matter to dissuade it from killing them?
Or, that it puts innocent people in jail?
Or, that it exterminated millions of innocent people around the world over its history?
Considering its myriad victims, could ethical people become part of it, or give any aid and comfort to government?
Appelbaum seems to be working with a grade or high-school view of government. But, after learning more history and political science, it is obviously evil and illegitimate.
4
Tell me that the left wing does not have its goofy, far out, weird ideas too.
needed a sane source of discussion.
1
No, no they shouldn’t. Let’s keep somethings private.......silly idea.
3
When the Times publishes the salaries of its employees and the schools they graduated from then I might begin to consider this idea for everyone.
Has the NY Times gone on a journey to see how anti-(Trump) establishment and (left) populist they can sound?
If the publishers and staff really believe this nonsense, then let's see all your tax returns first.
Then you should really lead the way, and publish your health records, legal histories, and lists of all friends ever.
Oh, and quit the editorial whining about privacy.
4
If the goal is for everyone to pay “their fair share,” simplifying the tax code by implementing a flat tax with no mortgage interest deductions, philanthropy, charitable gifts, relocation, job searching, technology purchases, education expenses, healthcare spending and other write offs would be a good start. Of course, that would put a few hundred thousand tax preparers out of work.
If the goal is to be able to see your neighbor’s and co-workers income, that’s a little different.
Perhaps you should look at today’s NY Times front page. Read the multiple stories on Google, Apple and the other companies that are tracking our every move and handing that data over to law enforcement and advertisers. Read your paper’s expose on the end of privacy as we know it and the very real creation of Orwell’s “big brother” surveillance state.
Do you really think less privacy is a better solution?
64
Yes, I do.
Furthermore, your scheme is less fair,rather than more. It pretends that the disenfranchised poor benefit from living and working in the U.S. the same as do the well-connected wealthy.
12
Appelbaum wants everyone's income and tax made public so that the government would collect more tax money. This is based on a benevolent view of government belied by the facts.
One example is the harm of ICE and Border Patrol agents on immigrants -- especially children. Another is the wrongdoing published by journalist Julian Assange such as the Collateral Murder video. Also the spying on innocent people uncovered by whistle-blower Edward Snowden.
Once Appelbaum makes a complete list of harm that government imposes on humanity, what economists call, "Negative Externalities," the question becomes, what should we the people do to protect society?
16
@Philippe M. E. Somewhat disordered view of government. Are you willing to make a list of the "positive externalities" of government for a fair comparison? Is there even a "we the people" without our government? Doubtful.
10
Terrible idea. The writer claims disclosure will help us correct today's extreme income inequality. But the reality is that the potential for misuse of this tax information is greater than the proposed benefit . . . which would require law and public policy to realize. Meanwhile, my competitors would have an x ray of my business.
2
The people who advocate for knowing everybody’s taxes are the same people who object to citizenship disclosure on the census questionnaire.
2
Maybe the age of privacy is over. Everything about you will now be freely available on the internet. There are good things and bad things about that. We'll just have to adapt. Life goes on.
Can't imagine how the TECH companies would mine this data and sell it.
1
Privacy of income tax information has always been a concern of the wealthy. In the early twentieth century, during discussions at the League of Nations on the subject of double taxation and capital flight, industrialists and. Their conservative representatives requested the confidentiality of tax information in fear that their employees at home would learn how much them made. It was not a privacy concern, it was a political one: fear of spreading labor movements.
For those concerned about keeping the private data safe, in the computer age our privacy is already compromised. Most Americans give their private information to companies who file their tax returns on their behalf, without knowing if the data is kept secure. In this context of lob sided secrecy, a major breach in the confidentiality of tax data is inevitable. The question is not if it is going to happen but when.
Secrecy of tax data has never been about fraud. One can argue that transparency would be a better tool then secrecy to fight scams. Secrecy of income tax information has always been to conceal the wealth of a few.
3
Like it's easy to get good people to run for office already? If we had the sense to elect people worthy of our trust, we wouldn't need to see their tax returns. Demanding that our leaders prove their bona fides by something other than a well-earned reputation of probity is an admission of failure.
1
While I oppose Binyamin Appelbaum's idea as a violation of privacy, in some cases a person's income should be disclosed.
For example, one issue of the 2020 campaign is how to solve economic inequality. Yet the proposals made by candidates won't achieve equality of income and wealth in four years, let alone in our lifetimes. We can go online and find out that these candidates are richer than the Average Americans and are putting their own selfish interests ahead of social justice.
But, what about the columnists who proclaim their opposition to inequality, yet won't support the needed remedies? Could it be that their income and wealth exceeds that of the Average Americans? Are they hypocrites motivated by greed?
The NYT could address this for its columnists by disclosing their wealth and income so we can see if that is influencing their views.
3
How about we just simplify the tax code for individuals and businesses alike? No deductions for this-and-that for personal taxes. Business pay taxes on US revenue. Yes, revenue. No depreciation or other tax shenanigans. I pay taxes on my revenue (income) business should pay taxes on theirs.
The tax rate may change, but suddenly you have a very simple tax structure.
As far as progressive tax policy? Please. It’s a shell game that the rich and corporations leverage. If you disagree please explain why it is progressive that Warren Buffet pays less taxes than his secretary and Amazon pays nothing.
1
@Paul Your idea to tax businesses on revenue is essentially a sales tax. While the tax would be a pittance to the services businesses that do not have a cost of goods sold, it would ravage retailers, like grocery stores, that have high revenue but very low profit margins.
1
@Paul
You lose all credibility when you declare that Warren Buffet pays less taxes than his secretary.
PS. Warren Buffet has stated that he pays a lower tax RATE than his secretary, not taxes.
1
@SSS Thus he pays less in taxes than his secretary. It was your assumption I was speaking in absolute terms.
No. It is no one else’s business what a private citizen makes or pays in taxes.
If you choose to go into elected public office, then yes that should be a concession you make as a stipulation in regard to public trust. Going into elected public office is a choice.
4
Luckily, the politicians clamoring for publishing private information, legally protected by IRS section 6103, can do this thing called- their job. If they actually cared about it and weren’t just participating in political theater they could change the law. Then again it’s not shocking that the NYT is suggesting infringing on my personal liberties. Only silver lining would be that certain people could no longer deny that over half the country doesn’t pay federal income tax, and the other half pays 100% of it.
3
This should only be required for someone running for public office, so as to make sure that that person is not beholden to another power and is selling out the country, the state, the city or whoever they are serving.
7
We’ve lost our privacy, but the onus is on those who knew or have known the plight of others and have not stepped in to help. All along they knew and did not offer to guide or help?
1
One thing that probably should be done is to publish without names or other identifying information a data file that simply shows every taxpayer's reported income, net income after deductions, and taxes paid. That would at least give us a sense of how income, deductions, and taxes are distributed through our population. Congress could then selectively audit odd looking returns to just ensure that our tax laws are working as intended and also that the IRS is keeping up with its own normal taxpayer audits to eliminate fraud.
3
Everyone's income taxes public, WHY?
Enforcement of the tax laws created by Congress is the Executive Branch's responsibility. Public disclosure to ensure compliance with the law indicates one of only two things:
1) The law is unenforceable and therefore needs to be revised by congress.
2) The Executive Branch and in this case the Internal Revenue Service is not executing its' duties in accordance with the Constitution and therefore in violation of constitutional law.
Tax returns for politicians and the general citizenry are private and should remain so.
Each political party postures and the Democrats crying for Trumps are no different and simply trying to deflect after the paper tiger which MAY be the Mueller Report.
Clearly the electorate did not care in this race or in any race before Nixon whereby no President disclosed. Not our beloved FDR, Kennedy, Johnson, Eisenhower or Truman.
2
I feel the author lives in a dream world in which kidnapping does not exist. Does the author feel all American citizens who are better off should have to risk their safety to satisfy his zeal to end income inequality? What would be the possible motivation ever to work one's head off to achieve more security for one's family if one also had to risk being a target for criminals? Is the author aware of how many personal sacrifices devoted professionals often make to work very long hours serving others' needs in return for some economic return too? Doctors for example, often give up decades of their lives working late every evening, and can go from modest circumstances to more comfortable ones. I totally fail to get the justice involved in redistributing the earnings they sacrificed for to others who did not make those sacrifices. I know of people here who came from other countries after experiencing child kidnappings for ransom. It's naive to think you are not enabling kidnapping by publicizing personal income.
5
@LW
Does the person with high income live in a dump so that no criminal might guess the potential for theft? Does the wealthy family drive used jalopies? Eat in fast food joints, buy clothing at Walmart, do the wash at the laundromat? Get real.
And no one is talking about "redistributing the earnings." It's about knowing who's maybe not paying taxes most of us are paying honestly. About fairness.
1
@Rea Tarr In answer to your question, my comment IS real and is informed by the life experience of acquaintances whose children were kidnapped for ransom. How can you possibly say no one is talking about redistributing the earnings? Do you read the news? You're from New York. Do you read what Mayor De Blasio recently said repeatedly?
Furthermore, not all wealthy families advertise their wealth by behaving like conspicuous consumers. It's clear you hate the idea of security for people who happen to have earned their wealth, by not taking my very factual account seriously. Elect representatives who favor the kind of fair tax system you favor, with my blessing, but don't sacrifice the safety of innocent individuals to your unjustified lack of respect for the safety value of privacy.
I write from Sweden, with my ikon showing you the place in my USA that Bernie and I would like to make more like Sweden.
I thank Binyamin Appelbaum for introducing Norwegian and Finnish tax practice to American readers but have to reveal that I cannot report on Swedish practice for one basic reason.
I have lived here since retiring from the University of Rochester in 1996 and I have just filed my Swedish tax return which shows that my income here is very small, just that from my Right English translation and manuscript review work. I live on my TIAA-CREF and Social Security so perhaps if Sweden reveals tax payments they never told me that.
Sweden collects substantial taxes via 25% VAT and high tax on gasoline and diesel among other things.
I did Google my neighbors and I can see what they paid for their homes next to mine but no clues about income or taxes paid.
I would not care if certain elements of my tax return were made public since it does not matter much when you are 87.
I would like the IRS to follow Swedish practice, as I believe Barack Obama wanted it to do, maybe step by step. At tax time we get a paper copy of the forms we will submit. They are already partially filled out. The nightmare system of the IRS is not used here. Filing is very easy. I just log in using Bank ID, fill in the pdf forms on line, and send.
Wish Mr. Appelbaum as an Editor would use data as plural as many medical journals require. Irritating.
Only-NeverInSweden.blogspot.com
2
@Larry Lundgren
Although I agree with your pointing out the fact that 'data' is the plural of the Latin word 'datum' and thus should be treated as such, I cannot help but mention that I see at least 4 similar mistakes in your own comment...
@Kara Ben Nemsi - Thanks, I will find them. Typing in NYT comment box is one reason for a fair number of my errors but there are other reasons as well.
Will be fun to find the errors and explain them for myself.
Larry L.
I have taken a first look and have not found them. Blame this on being tired. Will look tomorrow.
My Gmail is at my blog so you are invited to send me a reply there pointing out the errors.
I agree 100%
The economy is a public space, tax returns are government records, and the freedom to see government records are very important.
6
One of the great tools of US cultural repression is the taboo capitalism puts on discussing salaries.
Since everyone looks for work, it should be common knowledge, useful to everyone. Some industries publish salary guides.
But to ask someone what they make is considered rude beyond belief. Clearly, something is up. And the oligarchy wants you to keep your inequality to yourself.
7
Many commenters are caught up with the apparent incompatibility of disclosure against inherent privacy concerns.
Models already exist for publishing sensitive, anonymized information while still delivering useful insights. We can reap the benefits described by using ‘taxpayers like me’ to better understand how my income, federal benefits recurved, and taxation rate compare with my statistical peers.
Politicians and executives of publicly traded firms, on the other hand, deserve no such protections.
1
Our privacy was eroded in the wake of 9/11 due to government overreach. How much more are we willing to give up in the wake of Trump. We don't need to blame immigrants for changing the country - we're doing a fine job ourselves.
4
The psychological desire to keep our income secret is a curious phenomenon. I suspect it says a lot about American culture—and the significance of income and wealth in determining where we stand in a social hierarchy. In more egalitarian societies—or societies where financial success is less equated with a person's true value—revealing income is likely less emotionally wrenching. In the US, where wealth is very unequally distributed and highly important to determining how valued we are as people, being able to be deceptive about our wealth is a useful social tool. We can exaggerate our wealth to gain greater respect from others or, in some cases, we can minimize it to gain greater sympathy or feign solidarity. Trump and Sanders are good examples of both sides of this —Trump wanting to inflate his wealth to be admired, while Sanders apparently wanting to deflate his to appear more like an ordinary working person. Of course secrecy about wealth (and taxes) also enables us to cheat—hiding what we earn and what we pay so that maybe we can get away with activities that might be embarrassing if widely known. And, as some have mentioned, there are also things revealed in our tax returns that others could use to cheat us.
I like Appelbaum's proposal. I think it would put beneficial pressure on our society to become more egalitarian, less focused on judging people by their financial wealth, and less prone to scamming and cheating. But it would be a huge cultural shift.
7
Yes let’s disclose it for the greater good, why not. While we are at it, let’s disclose everyone’s medical records. That way we can see who’s skipping on their vegetables and physicals. So we can also public shame those irresponsible individuals too. We could drive down the cost of healthcare that way, wouldn’t it be grand? What’s next, put a listening device in each house so that if needed everything that was said could be audited? Crime rate reduction! Oh, wait, they are already doing it and it’s called Alexa... seems like we are moving in the right direction. Time to dust off my copy of 1984.
12
@Sophie K
you truly want to ignore the problems that hiding income taxes creates and you want to do it by snarkily conflating privacy issues like health records with government data like taxes. shame on you and your mindset.
1
@Sophie K
Where you live, where you shop, what you own -- your lifestyle -- pretty much tells us how much you earn.
Your income can't be used against you. Your medical records can.
@mike
Income taxes are government’s business, and the government already has full access to them. They are not my neighbor’s business though, and it is not my neighbors concern to police tax evasion, ergo my neighbor has no reason to have access to my taxes. There are plenty of private info in tax returns: charities one supports, medical deduction, business interests, family situations, etc. not my neighbor’s business.
Interesting that few want their own taxes published but many support having the President’s taxes involuntarily available to Congress...& data won’t leak? No fan of Trump but if he ( or IRS) is required to release his taxes then where does that stop? The fact that other candidates or Presidents released their taxes voluntarily is not reason to make it a requirement. Every member of Congress? Political opposition can always find some embarrassing item...medical deductions...child support...charitable donations.
Would any mature successful person ever run for President in the future.
3
@Gailmd "Would any mature successful person ever run for President in the future."
All I can say to that is who we have in the White House is far from mature, and we can question both his level of success and the legality/morality of how he achieved it.
5
@Gailmd in almost all areas we distinguish between public figures—those who seek public life, power, celebrity and the $ that come with it—and private citizens. Journalists have wide latitude, rightly, under first amendment to report on public figures, including every detail of personal and professional
relationships, finances, etc., than those whose who do not seek public life, for example. Trump made a choice.
4
@Gailmd
nixon and trump are the glaring reasons for elected officials to release their tax return.
The argument can be made that the local florist or garbage man has insufficient income or power to have anything worth hiding, while the President, Governor or Mayor is a target for bribery and could easily line their pockets at taxpayer expense. That potential theft from citizens outweighs any right to secrecy on their part.
There are a lot of complications between the right of privacy and the shining light on various levels of incomes and the taxes paid by citizens. I understand the risk involved when private citizens have their financial status opened to the public. The criminals, fraudsters, disgruntled relatives and marketeers can narrow their targets pursue their unwanted attacks more easily. On the other hand public servants for elected office should be required to publish their financial positions broadly to expose any potential conflicts of interest they have. Income tax filings are a simple way to do it. Decades ago the Stark Law was passed that requires all licensed physicians to disclose all medically related investments. It also limits investments by physicians to potential referral entities. Granted this is specific to conflicts of interest within a citizen’s profession. When a person runs for public office the potential for conflict of interest increases greatly because the elected leader will be making broad policy decisions and it is important that the public knows whether the leader will be profiting from any new policy. When it comes to political donations and political action committees a similar light should be shown. If this dissuades some citizens from running for public office that is fine by me.
1
Perhaps a compromise would be to publish the percentage of income paid in tax.
This would avoid many of the problems and potential risks discussed in these comments while drawing attention to low taxes paid by those known to be wealthy.
7
Nope. All salaries and wages for every company who employs a worker be (s)he a contract laborer wage slave should be made public. That would ensure fairness. I'm quite sure my daughter, employed by a Fortune 500, as an upper level manager is paid quite a bit less than her male counterparts.
Tax returns? I don't think so, for the same reasons as others have mentioned. It's not my neighbor's business to know any other sources of my income besides above-mentioned employment wages; it's not my neighbor's business to know my deductions; it's not my neighbor's business to know the addresses of my rental properties, etc. It most definitely is NOT the business of marketing firms or my employer.
1
@Karen K
Does that go also for the janitor at an abortion clinic or the single parent that does the books for a strip club? Betcha they would be thrilled to have this disclosed to everyone.
1
What's missing in the argument this op-ed makes is the same recognition of a tax collection reality that underlays the largely ho-hum response to the Republicans' "overhaul" of the federal income tax system last year.
That reality is that "income" tax is just one of the ways that government is getting money from the public--for a growing number of Americans--and the government--that way is not even the biggest chunk of their income.
And for many people--including everyone who earns less every year than the federal cap on income subject to Social Security taxes--those taxes can hit as a larger share of their annual income--than people earning substantially more.
A doctor or lawyer earning $300K every year pays a significantly lower percentage of their income in Social Security taxes then the average Joe or Jane--who if they're self-employed, have to pay 15% of their income in SSI for every dollar the earn.
Far more revealing than just what everybody pays in income tax would be an annualized accounting of what every citizen pays in taxes overall--from sales and use taxes, fuel taxes, property taxes, license and concession fees.
The reality is that the rich and the well connected have shifted an ever greater share of the taxes government needs to operate downward onto the less well off.
4
The sad reality is the super rich, not 1%, but the .005% like Amazon, possibly Trump..don't pay taxes. Who wants to show that? Showing their returns wont shame them to not take advantage of the current, or past laws, that allowed them that luxury.
Not a chance that public disclosure of individual Federal tax return will pass congress and become law. From a much lesser importance, I cannot even find via public domain the actual sold price and date of desirable houses in Houston. "Secrecy is of the greatest aid to corruption" is very true in Houston housing market especially after the oil price boom and hurricane Harvey bust.
1
Texas has no stamp tax on real estate transactions so no disclosure of sales prices.
@Fred Shapiro Yes, there is no stamp tax on every states. But that doesn't mean this kind of information shouldn't be in public domain. Otherwise, we are the hostages of real estate agents. When a friend of mine in Seattle Washington showing me on a PC that the amount and date he bought his residence couple years ago surprised me a lot. If Washington state can do it for public good, why can't Texas?
The time has come for this. There is so much complaining about privacy but everyone is aware that corporations already know everything about them anyway. Experian, Equifax and TransUnion for payments, banks for income.
But how much do we know about these corporations and the executives who run them? They can see the salaries of their staff (Jamie Dimon knows how much he pays junior tellers) but they cannot see his.
Nor do we know all the loopholes and legal tax avoidance schemes used by the rich. The year I made the most money, I paid the lowest effective tax rate and I'm sure others are in the same boat.
Let sunlight be the best disinfectant. For those who are nervous, you are not going to be interesting to the media. Or if you are, think why and perhaps you should be concerned!
1
Maybe a better plan would be to eliminate federal income taxes in their entirety by revoking the Sixteenth Amendment and instead have the states pay their proportional share of the federal burden as originally provided for in the Constitution. Elected US representatives would be more aware of spending their constituents money instead of “the other guy’s” money.
4
@Bill Weber
that is a non-functional claim. Beggar States like Alabama and South Carolina would have on going debt obligation to the Union but still be legally allowed to grift the rest of the Donor states contributions to meet Federal Obligations like Medicare and Schools
Everyone’s tax return should be confidential. If a politician wants to release it voluntarily, fine. Otherwise it is no one else’s business.
19
So the ends justify the means. I'm not wealthy but what I earn is none of your business. Period. Hire enough IRS agents and utilize technologies to ensure I pay my taxes fairly, but my neighbor does not need to know my finances.
14
@Eric Fleischer What are you hiding Eric? The heck with hiring a lot of costly personnel; shame, and the fear of exposure is much less expensive.
I would assume, as do most the of comments here, that public disclosure of our tax payments is a bad idea.
What we need is full disclosure of the Certified Public Accountant profession,which in order to maximize its remuneration has provided the United States with the most convoluted, complex and incomprehensible tax system on earth .
2
I’m a CPA. I didn’t write the tax laws. Congress did. Early on in my career, I worked in the tax department of a national accounting firm. We assisted clients in the compliance with tax laws. Wealthy clients have the resources to hire smart people to reduce their tax liabilities as much as possible. They don’t need to cheat; they are doing just fine working within the rules of the tax code. If you don’t like the tax code, blame the slugs in Washington, DC. And elect people who will create a more equitable tax system.
4
@John Q
Our elected Representatives write/wrote the code.
2
@Jake You're right, Jake, and yes, we have many honest, hard working CPAs out there helping us with our taxes.
None the less, our tax system is designed to benefit them by being the most complex in the world.
I worry about the coming civil war. But only because I fear I'll be too old to fight by the time it gets here.
3
“The question is whether Americans are willing to endure a little sunlight in the interest of fairness and equality.” Any downsides to public disclosure are overblown. It would certainly drive a further discussion regarding fairness and equality in this country. Something long overdue.
5
The article by Binyamin Appelbaum in the NYT of April 13, 2019 appears to be a clear and strong advocay in favour of Big Brother. I was aghast to read that a (new) member of the Times Editorial Board would openly plead in favour of the introduction in the USA of of a significant feature of an orwellian dictatorship.
Authoritarian regimes always endeavour to abolish the right to privacy in order te maximize efficient surveillance and control of the population. To make tax returns public and easily accessible constitutes an important infrigement to privacy rights.
The protection of the private sphere represents one of the crucial bulwarks against the emergence of totalitarian political systems.
28
do finland and norway's tax forms have the same information that ours do, one wonders.
3
Yes, everyone's income taxes should be public. And any and all public benefits paid for by those income taxes should also be made public.
5
Nonsense.
Every elected and selected public officials incime tax returns should be made public.
Avoiding even the appearance of impropriety or any conflict of interests is essential to a thriving robust humble humane empathetic society.
The American Constitution creates a divided limited different power constitutional republic of united states that is very focused upon protecting individuals from the power of the federal government.
2
@Blackmamba. Do you really think corrupt politicians report kickbacks and such to the IRS??
It's hard to believe, but one person that has refused to publish her tax returns is Nancy Pelosi, number three in line to be President in the event of a national catastrophe. Shouldn't she be leading by example since her party is so adamant about seeing Trump's returns? What about the other Democrats that have been clamoring for Trump's returns? Have they released theirs, since they are also in the public arena?
16
Studying other cultures provides a rich trove of data - instead of us re inventing the wheel per se look at Norway’s experience - this is something a smart people need to do more of - comparative international studies - provides the merits of this system. Both pros and cons - those taking advantage of others would be fearful of this system while others would welcome the knowledge it provides,
3
Interesting choice of editorial. At the same time the Times is publishing a series on Internet privacy, it advocates a blunt public mandate to disclose highly personal information including items like personal medical expenses. This information would be weaponized by the faceless Internet hoards. It would lead to counter-measures, like much more widespread marketing of privacy protection mechanisms (as in the countries cited). I could see the Times Ed board reversing its position after kidnappings increased. I fear the Ed board lacks the policy competence to even understand the disclosure proposal issues.
28
@Bill Bluefish
I'm thinking that big data conglomeration companies can already figure out generally how much you spend on medical expenses. And groceries. And electronics. And everything. They don't need to see your tax returns to get that information.
4
Recent experience shows the Times editorial board doesn’t understand objectivity in journalism any more. That it would call for public disclosure of tax returns is fascinating. I suggest that the Times require all of its employees, including Editors and Reporters, set an example by doing so immediately. Perhaps they could also volunteer to pay the higher taxes they always support. After they experience the downside of exposing their private finances, it would be interesting to see how they feel after a couple of years.
1
This feels like a reach. It is one thing to use tax returns to monitor public employees where income could reveal corruption. It is another to demand that every private citizen share their intimate financial details with every neighbor, salesman, marketing company and a press corp waiting to vilify success. Being rich is not illegal and should not be seen as a problem that needs to be fixed. If the means were legally won or transferred then it is simply none of anyone’s business. As a country we may wish to instill rules and laws that make it easier for more groups to attain wealth-great but that’s not going to work by trying to steal wealth from those who currently enjoy it in the form of putting targets on legitimately successful individuals. Let’s never ever use Finland as an example for good lawmaking, very hard to compare them to the US.
13
This is a great idea if your wages are paid by a government entity, ie fireman, college dean, senator. That accountability is necessary. Everybody else? Not so much.
7
@Mark
I think you miss the point; such transparency as the author proposes only makes society better if it is universal. Otherwise you are just unfairly exposing some people to scrutiny while allowing others to continue criminal, exploitative or just plain dumb practices in the dark.
Nope. I worked at a Fortune 500 company and the salaries of everyone in the building were leaked (mistake by admin) and printed out and posted for all to see. The hostile reaction to the data was overwhelming. Friendships were shattered, sarcastic sniping became a regular phenomenon (usually associated with work performance evaluations), etc. In today's America houses would be burned and people shot if tax returns were publicly available.
13
@Beazle
So, just so I understand: The pay schedule prompted outrage becuase it was so unfair (or so different from what they were led to believe) and your response is “we shouldn’t let people know we aren’t playing fair and/or shooting straight with them” and not “we should really have compensation that treats everyone’s contribution fairly and that we are happy to explain and defend?”
I think I begin to understand why so many of the Fortune 500 have been so diminished over the last few decades.
8
The irony of this piece sharing the editorial page with your series on privacy in the internet age is just precious. I agree on the privacy concerns of course.
19
@Guido Tamburini
Theat isn’t irony, it is depth. The point is what ought to be private and what ought to be public.
I think this is a great idea. I’m proud as an American to pay taxes. I am dismayed by the many Americans that will do anything to get out of paying taxes. They should be proud to help support their country. Many of the commentators worry that some relative will ask them for a loan if they see their tax payments, but publishing tax returns evidently works well in other countries so I don’t see why it wouldn’t work here. Just say no to that dead beat relative.
8
@Mary don't confuse the reluctance to expose tax returns to not being willing to pay them.
Mr. Trump likes to flaunt his wealth. However, he chose to keep his returns secret. Two apparent reasons:
1) Trump has far less wealth than he claims
2) Trump could not possibly have been elected if he had released his returns. Most likely he would not even have survived the primaries.
No major company would hire a CEO with cloudy financials. The job of president is more important and the American people need to know what is Donald Trump. It appears that New Yorkers knew more about Trump than most of the country. Clinton won in the City with an 80% plurality.
Possibly Trump could even survive disclosure of his tax statements for the past two decades. However, if disclosure would affect a possible 2020 campaign the American people deserve to know now than after another quirk in the election system would put Trump into power for 4 more years.
6
@Vid Beldavs I'm also an advocate of a background investigation for the presumptive nominee. If trump had been subjected to the security clearance check that any federal employee with access to sensitive information goes through, our political landscape would be radically different today.
2
Everyone has always known my wages as a matter of public record but I’m a private person. Private businessmen always liked to throw the numbers in my face. I’m all for sharing.
5
Salaries of Congressional staff and members of Congress are already published quarterly. This info is routinely scoured and used by staffers to push for more equitable treatment given what their peers are making. Members and key staff also must fill out financial disclosure forms listing assets and liabilities but the ranges and categories are so broad that precise information is impossible. I imagine salaries of most elected officials are public as well. So we have some precedent for invading the privacy of people in positions of public trust. It probably makes sense to take the additional stepof requiring taxes of elected and appointed officials be made public as well, especially given Trumps example.
I can also see an argument for publicizing taxes of people whose incomes are above a certain threshold. That would need to be decided by Congress and the rationale would be to ensure fairness in the tax code, combat fraud and tax evasion which is rampant among those at certain income levels. Perhaps social scientists already know which income level would require the most scrutiny. Or the cutoff could be the top ten percent of taxpayers in terms of before tax income. Such a policy would be deemed unfair to those affected, but the present system is grossly unfair to people struggling to make ends meet. If those on top have to give up some privacy for the public good well I know a lot of their fellow citizens who would love to have that problem.
3
This is not the brightest idea. Neither my neighbor nor my collegues need to see my returns. But for elelcted public officials the issue should be moot: they all should release the returns.
6
@GMO
But the whole point is that your colleagues DO need to see your income just as your neighbors need to (and already do) see your home value and sale amount. It is relevant information for their own life and decision making, not just nosy parkering.
@Cormac
No, they do not need to see my returns any more than they need to see my medical records or grocery list.
3
@GMO
Maybe Appelbaum and his Times colleagues will lead the way by publishing their own returns, including info on any illnesses or romantic liaisons that might make them vulnerable to blackmail, and undue influence on what they write.
3
While I think this is a good idea, I'm am concerned that the Willie Suttons of the world will be working overtime on this list looking for targets. After all, this would be a road map to "where the money is".
And I don't think it would be hard for the hackers of the world to connect high incomes with elderly taxpayers and we all know that the elderly are the favorite target of scammers.
I support the making income tax records public but the problem of scammers would need to be addressed. I'm not smart enough to suggest how the system could provide protection.
The Federal government does not encrypt data and our tax returns have our Social Security number included.
5
Mr. Applebaum's proposal also could be useful in hiring decisions. Job candidates with pre-existing health conditions will often have high deductions for medical expenses.
7
No one' income taxes should be public. Only the IRS should be have access to a person's taxes and if they are out of order to audit the filing. We don't need to police each other ad nauseam. What needs to be reviewed closely is how much other people are polluting the environment and causing climate change and affecting our planet. If a person is a chain smoker, driving gas guzzlers or private jets around or driving a vehicle that is polluting the environment a lot more than an average American they should be reported to the environment protection agency (EPA). The EPA should be an environment enforcement agency.
4
I thoroughly agree—provided that the tax system itself be overhauled and made equitable. And that ain’t gonna happen.
1
Most of a citizen’s interaction with the government are a matter of public record by default with only the most sensitive of them being locked on a case-by-case basis, a major exception to this our tax returns. When we consider what a tax return actually represents, in its most fundamental sense, it is ridiculous that these are a public secret.
A 1040 is the most direct method to determine where our government gets the money to operate. It states in clear terms who has contributed to the government coffers and how much.
Some people will claim that this is a matter of privacy, because they see a different purpose for the tax return; in a capitalist society, where success is defined by wealth accumulation, people view their standing the ranks as possibly the most personal secret they have. The tax return lays bare, in cold unfeeling numbers, the scoreboard of capitalism. However, this is only an inferred importance of the tax return.
The primary, and really only, importance of the tax return is as a record of the funding of government.
People will be curious and initially there will be many pouring over them as if they were the latest gossip column, but at the end of the day, wouldn’t it be better for clearly reporting the source of the government’s income and more importantly, where the government is losing income?
8
This proposal by Binyamin Appelbaum for full public disclosure of income reported and taxes paid by individuals, and by both publicly held and privately held corporations, needs work.
There is no doubt that such disclosure would solve many problems involving corruption, helping voters weed out elected officials who feed illegally at the public trough.
Also, by shedding light on who is cheating on taxes, the disclosures would result in increased tax revenues, thereby helping the government shrink the annual deficit and meet its ability to pay for needed programs.
The obvious problem with the Appelbaum proposal is its requirement that all Americans, not just public officials and not just tax evaders, voluntarily relinquish an important right of privacy.
Financially successful Americans who diligently file honest returns and pay the income taxes they owe would find themselves with targets on their backs – even more than is true already – for overly aggressive charities and investment salesmen and for larcenous scam artists.
Why not limit the Appelbaum income and tax disclosures, for now, to elected public officials and high-ranking public appointees – people who previously made decisions to live in the public eye?
5
@sdw
Perhaps you missed the nuance: You have no right to privacy concerning your tax information. Just a current government policy to keep it confidential adopted on the argument that it would increase compliance and good will. As the author points out, tax informatIon is not, historically speaking and currently, in our society and others, considered private. Even here, only certain tax information—income tax—is treated as confidential.
Privacy, real privacy,is under siege. You do it no favor by creating a faux right extending to taxes paid.
@Cormac
Although you are right that privacy is “under siege” in America, Cormac, the siege is a result of abuses, ironically, in the private sector. It comes when tech companies provide retailers and others the ability to track our movements, purchases and preferences. It comes when we foolishly participate in social media like Facebook.
As far as disclosure of our tax returns, showing income earned and taxes paid, you seem to miss the point. Binyamin Appelbaum is advocating that the I.R.S. publish that data for everyone, either by making it available on a Treasury website or through public newspapers, although the latter seems unwieldy. At the present time, Cormac, the I.R.S. is NOT legally permitted to do that by Congress or by any court decision.
My comment suggested only that elected public officials and high-ranking appointees be required to make their tax returns available.
Perhaps the top executives of major contractors with the federal government should be included, as well as registered lobbyists.
It must be nice to be on the Nytime editorial board and simply throw our anarchistic, populist ideas without consequence and have them read worldwide. The problem is that this will have the effect of further weaponizing personal data but only for the 99%. Even without this being in place, 75% of my personal assets are held in trusts and no longer owned by me with the trust as the taxpayer/owner of the assets. Instead, it would be the average person who would have their personal income, their choice of investments, their family hardships, their family windfalls, their private matters the fodder for neighbors, employers, insurance companies, and for others, the press, marketers, creditors, etc.
Instead, I would like the Nytimes editorial board to be the first to offer their tax returns to the public. Let's see how the coat fits.
23
No one’s tax returns, including politicians, should be public.
It is no one else’s business.
18
@JQGALT. There is a compelling reason to disclose the tax returns of People running for office. It can indicate situations were someone would be vulnerable to manipulation. If the candidate owed millions to a foreign entity could pressure be applied to gain favor? I was going to say do you want someone with multiple bankruptcies handling the nations money... oh wait, that’s exactly what we now have. How’s that working out for you?
1
Yes, my neighbors would just be thrilled that we can find out the juicy details of our income and expenses. This is a bad joke.
14
For all the commenters that think this would a "hackers paradise" are wrong, hackers already can get all the information they want. And not only hackers but ordinary people.
Want to see who has high wealth and income, just look in the towns and cities that government says are wealthy. While not everyone would fit that mold, most would be.
I was working in a very large bank where the head HR person left the salaries of all the people in a 400 strong division in the copier one night. This certainly caused some pay fights and exits over the next year, but life went on.
Transparency works in Norway for income and taxes paid but it extends to the budget process and debates, often televised. And the tax code is simple enough that meaningful comparisons are generally possible. http://expatnorth.com/2019/04/12/i-love-paying-taxes-in-norway/
6
Here’s how you tell a serious pundit from a non-serious pundit.
A non-serious pundit will float a radical idea for reforming our society and laws in a well-written column, and then lay back and wait for the page views, comments and controversy to come in. Since the idea is so radical, he knows he will be immediately hailed as a deep thinker and given lots of attention, and that on the other hand he faces essentially no risk of ever having his theory tested or seeing the consequences of his idea, particularly as it affects himself, materializing.
By contrast, a SERIOUS pundit will float a radical idea for reforming our society and laws in a well-written column, and while doing so will also PROVE TO HIS READERS that he believes in his own idea, by showing himself actually facing the consequences of the idea he is advocating. For example, if the idea is “everyone should have to take the ice water bucket challenge”, the serious pundit knows that he cannot expect others to take him seriously without taking the ice water bucket challenge himself at the same time he is floating the proposal.
Which kind of pundit are you, Mr Appelbaum?
17
@Math Professor
In fairness to Mr. Appelbaum, public policy is much more difficult than math. Solutions are always imperfect, so putting out a flawed idea for debate can be a good conversation starter.
2
Somehow I don't think this idea will catch on.
3
I’d like the author to publish his taxes for the last ten years, then I’ll think about his proposal.
11
How can you have to think about this more than 2 seconds?? If you want public office position, that’s the first thing. Like a cab driver has a drivers licence. That help your thought patterns?
1
What a revelation! And a great idea, too!
5
For most Americans, having their tax payments made public would very probably be a resounding NO!!!
Those running for federal office should be obliged through legislation to make public 10 years of tax returns as should those presently serving, updated yearly.
It would also be wise to have executive branch nominees for cabinet positions prior to Senate confirmation hearings do the same.
Of course, the Democrats would have to win the Presidency, the Senate and keep the House in 2020 to accomplish this, so vote in 2020. Even reluctant Democrats can be shamed into doing the right thing. That never seems to work with Republicans, all the more since Trump. They've become as shameless as he is.
4
A clearly written description of the advantages for the nation, economically, and for our democratic system, politically, socially, etc. for public, transparent disclosure of paid/unpaid taxes. It would have
been useful to also, briefly, note some of the legitimate concerns which we need to be aware of when so much information about each of us is “at risk” for misuse. Exploitation by ranges of individual and systemic stakeholders.Putting potential and actual ethical and technical issues aside there is also merit in raising the issue of disclosure for a range of populations and behaviors of individuals and systems. Consider: after delineating the criteria, boundaries and content of “reasonable, timely, personal unaccountability,”- harmful voiced and written words and done-deeds, as well as those needed for implementing necessary wellbeing which were not expressed by words and deeds- what is the UNACCOUNTABILITY range and index for ALL public policymakers; elected and selected.At all levels.Local.Regionally. Nationally. Challenges to democratic processes, values, norms, ethics, such as civil interchanges, mutual trust and respect, caringness and mutual help, when and if needed, could be focused on as well, balanced by non-intrusiveness underpinned by anchored, consensualized, menschlichkeit. Will there be flaws? Even G’d “failed!” Not ceasing with the botany of the fabled Garden of Eden.Disclosure, as well, for not voting?Complacency? Wilfull blindness.Deafness.Ignorance?
1
Few editorials are as bone headed as this one. I can’t even begin to think how many ideas scammers would have for uses of this information. I don’t want to know my neighbor’s, ex’s, or anyone else’s income and they have no right to see mine. None of the arguments provided in support of this idea are compelling.
6
In thinking about making everyone's task return public, please consider how companies like Cambridge Analytica, Facebook, Google, etc. are trolling our 'meta-data' in every way possible by any means necessary. Being digitally naked in glass houses is bad enough without us having our financial hard data trolled for any edge strangers can gain on us. Expecting a higher standard of public employees like Trump is one thing, but exposing some seniors living in nursing homes as high income targets for scammers is but one example of all the things that could go wrong.
5
Would you approach someone and ask them how much money they earn? I was taught that it is never appropriate to ask that question with the understanding that it is equally inappropriate to ask someone how much they paid in taxes. My taxes are my business and the business of the IRS – period. I would liken a requirement for citizens to make their income taxes public to making their personal health records public. What's next among people's private affairs that you'd like to stick you nose into?
3
The Times appears to be focusing it's editorial content this weekend on the loss of privacy. Yet, here we are with an editorial that advocates for giving up more privacy. I am in favor of some of the ends the writer hopes for, but I disagree with the means. This is a dumb idea. If I ran for president, I should expect to disclose my tax returns. As a private citizen, forget it.
7
Sure thing, Mr Applebaum. Let’s include contact info and home addresses, as well, so ‘progressives’ can harass tax filer who, in their righteous opinion, didn’t pay enough.
The personal is political, ad nauseam.
(And all this time I thought leftists found a right to privacy in the Constitution but that appears to be situational.)
6
The opinion Mr Appelbaum expresses is not well thought out although his intentions are probably noble.Many proposed rules start with good intentions and end up being farcical and in the end idiotic.
Transparency and shining a light are great reasons for tax disclosures but that is not the entire story as we all know.We should then also publicize the income, the wealth, how the wealth was gotten, the family circumstances, their expenditures, and also to make it really fair the finances of the people close to them in their family tree.That's when we realize that we are slowly entering crazy land.
2
Tax returns should be private. The temptation to use tax returns for political purposes might be irresistible to politicians. But in the case of this President, information that a foreign government has a material financial hammer over the president is of grave concern. If Mueller did look for this, he is a phony not looking for truth.
1
This is one the poorest thought out suggestions I’ve read.
With the dearth of means to protect personal data abuse; identity-theft, phone scam calls, wealth management scams, elderly financial abuse, credit card/score abuse, auto loan abuse, even gold-digging mates - your really suggesting putting more data points out there for people to mine and abuse?
Something that works in Benelux or Japan isn’t remotely comparable to the dynamics of how the U.S. functions.
As far as political candidates Tax Returns, that’s a whole different issue. With campaign funds and public pensions - candidate financial disclosure is a means to dial in potential corruption.
3
The problem here is I believe the concensus is if you make money and do not pay taxes you are a crook. Our tax laws are very complex and the more you make the more you can massage them to you benefit. To be honest I bet 99.9% of tax payers do all they can to lower their tax bill so in the end the amount you pay means little. The benefit might be to shame congress into reforming our tax code to stop the big giveaway to the better off.
2
Bad idea. As a means of gauging income equality, disclosure would be useless. Many have income from other sources, joint returns combine income, cafeteria plan and 401k contributions are not included in taxable income, etc. and these don’t show up on your 1040. Mr. Appelbaum must surely know this. I smell ulterior motives.
1
Con artists and telemarketers would love this idea. People who still value their privacy would not.
4
Wow, there are a lot of objections from people who must be tax cheats and or drug dealers. Don’t want your friends to know that instead of being the charitable person you claim to be you’re a tightwad?
Medical deductions, if you have a ton of them it would be obvious in your appearance, that is if you’re not falsely claiming them.
I bet that Mercedes you drive that you let everyone think you own is a lease.
@Paulie -----" if you have a ton of them it would be obvious in your appearance"
Are you kidding? There are many medical maladies that you can't tell from appearance!!!
I’m surprised that Mr. Appelbaum neglected to include his tax returns as part of this op-Ed. Not that I have any interest in reading them, or those filed by anyone else.
I suspect the people that don’t want their taxes made public are hiding something, probably that they are deadbeats. The argument that your income would invite scam artists is absurd. Most jobs salaries are available on Glassdoor. Any union job wages can be seen by googling the union contract.
The only reasonable argument for hiding your income taxes is that you are a cheater. Any other objection is a lie.
My neighbor is a pilot at American Airlines. I know which seat he sits in (co pilot) the equipment he flies and that he works international trips. I know exactly what he makes a year, I checked the contract.
3
@Paulie No. I think most people don't want their income made public, especially to their nosey neighbors.
3
@Paulie You can have objections other than being a cheater. You can have income outside of your salary that you're paying taxes on. Sure, people would know your salary range from Glassdoor, but what about investment income? Sharing tax returns is a terrible idea x 1000
1
@Paulie yes but that is out of context. There is a lot of other income that can go well beyond the salary, so you don't know what your neighbor makes.
My military pension is public knowledge. however, that is only part of my annual income. The other parts come from investments that are not public knowledge.
Interesting the change of tone in the more liberal readership of this paper when they are faced with transparency in their own livelihood. If you come by your living honestly, why would you feel shame or harassment in others knowing it?
Transparency only serves the interest of a more just and equitable society. Obfuscation implies a truth that you are afraid of. Let the light shine on the kleptocrats and open the books! Most of us will see that we are not all so different as a shiny new truck or fancy vacation might make it seem.
1
What an absolutely ludicrous idea. Just because the government forcibly steals money from us doesn't mean we also must consent to having our entire lives published for all to see.
3
The writer should go first. 10 years of all financial records. Also, since he’s an influencer, please add medical and intimate relationship info that might make him subject to blackmail. All in the public interest, of course.
We must properly vet such powerful people before we allow them to occupy such important positions.
8
Open tax returns and open borders. Good grief what has this country come to.
3
I hope that Democratic presidential candidates adopt this proposal as part of their platform. It will ensure a Republican victory.
3
Disclosure is not only a good idea, with today’s digital age it will cost very little with online reporting and access. I have been advocating for online instant government reporting of revenues and expenditures. Charities should also report every dime. We would have hundreds of citizen watchdogs looking out for waste and fraud. It is worth a try and, with the internet, it is practically free.
1
Citizen watchdogs? I think the Twitter mob is bad enough already. Maybe it’d be best for everyone if we adopt the Chinese system of social credit and start dinging points off the not so well behaved and force everyone to become perfect little model citizen boy scouts in a perfect New Moral Order. Then, we’d finally live in true paradise and be about as free as Winston and Julia. Seriously, it makes my spine run cold.
1
Do we really need to have more vulnerable people, like seniors or those suffering illnesses, targeted for fraud?
Does anyone think the criminal underbelly of our society will expose what they actually make and are worth?
I'd rather see more investigation into and exposure of holdings in overseas tax shelters and investments. And public release of financials should be a necessity when running for high office or when convicted of financial crimes.
1
I fear such a move would open Pandora's box and lead to all sorts of unintended consequences, including actually depressing some people's wages. As a pastor and professor I had significant income from both inheritance and investments. When I used an accountant from the church, he illegally revealed my income to the church. The response was not against him, but against me. They felt that I didn't need my salary and was cheating them!
5
@kingfisher1950
Well, sounds like you didn't need your salary.
A church should be a place where inspiration comes from a person dedicated to his work, and if necessary and the congregation likes him/her, they would be willing to support that person as needed.
Apparently you confuse being a pastor with having a regular job. The next sermon practically writes itself!
1
@Sannity Read 1 Corinthians 9:1-12 before you pass judgement on me.
How many thousands of additional government employees would this require? How many opportunities for further erosion of what little privacy we have left? How much corrupt opportunity will there be in manipulating the data? How much easier for crooks to find targets? For a public employee, I'm okay with making that info public–it's part of the contract of taking public money. But as a private party I'm not. To improve our tax collection there are two steps that will make a huge difference: make it simpler to file and hire enough auditors to do a better job of catching scofflaws.
3
After Medicare for all is pushed through, does this mean my medical charts and prescriptions will be published? That would be an act of government, too.
Privacy matters.
3
If you're worried about your medical privacy being breeched look no further than the private insurance companies. I've had SSNs, medical info hacked into with two big insurance companies.
1
At minimum, publicly held businesses should have their income taxes - both federal and state - disclosed to the public.
2
@Nancy
Public companies already have their financial statements reported quarterly and annually in a public format. You can get any and all information financially about a company, including how much they pay in cash taxes from these reports. The tax returns would literally be Greek to most people with the complexity of the rules. The current financial reporting format required is still complex as well, but much easier to understand than trying to interpret a tax return.
1
I feel something like this would add to the reality TV show atmosphere which has overtaken our society. Additionally, doing something like this is mega fodder for all the fraudsters, hawksters and con artists out in the digital world. Perhaps for those running for political office and highly compensated public employees or public pension beneficiaries.
75
I'm okay with this as long as everyone has to file an income tax return each year and everyone has to pay some fraction of their income as federal income taxes. As it stands, approximately one out of every two adult U.S. citizens pays zero federal income tax. As a result, we have far too many people voting themselves all sorts of goodies from the government despite the fact they have no skin in the game. I understand that, under the current taxing regime, people pay different amounts of tax depending upon where they are in their earnings life cycle, i.e., little or none while in college or their early career, lots in their peak earning years, and then little or none in their retirement years. One way to fix income tax avoidance would be to do away with the income tax entirely. Replace it with a broad-based consumption tax and then tax payers will have skin in the game roughly in proportion to the goods and services they consume.
7
@Earl W. Because they make less than the minimum required to pay federal income taxes. They still cough up payroll taxes, sales tax and state taxes. The others are people like trump who cheat.
1
@Bismarck
Yes, and I'm arguing that we should change our tax code to correct that shortcoming. Payroll taxes don't count because low-income people get back much more than they pay into Social Security. It's also doubtful that someone who doesn't owe federal income tax would owe state or local income taxes. Bottom line: too many people are getting a free ride from paying their fair share of taxes which incentivizes them to demand more government goods and services. From their perspective, it's free money because someone else is footing the bill. That perspective needs to change.
1
Why stop here? Why not publicize people’s Browser Histories, credit card statements, cell phone call logs, emails (what to do about those that destroy them under subpoena), text messages, FB posts , Tweets and other social media posts.
This way we can see if they people we vote for are really who they say they are.
Having the government erode our privacy is not the answer in anyway, shape, matter or form.
7
Our browser histories are no longer private thanks to Republicans (as of March 2017). If you really don't like that kind of thing, vote Democrat.
"In a party-line 215 to 205 vote, the House of Representatives has approved legislation to allow internet service providers to sell information about their customers’ web browsing histories to advertisers and other third parties. The legislation has already been passed by the Republican-controlled Senate, so it is now headed to President Donald Trump’s desk for his signature.
“We are one vote away from a world where your ISP can track your every move online and sell that information to the highest bidder,” wrote Kate Tummarello of the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a group that advocates for online privacy rights, ahead of today’s vote."
What a refreshing column and idea for reducing corruption. There is barely a corner of our lives that hasn’t been affected by corruption. It might seem counter-intuitive, but I imagine disclosure of income and taxes would eventually create a more trusting atmosphere, in a society that is hidden about money.
5
This idea would cause more problems than it solves (if it even solves any). I could see so many work colleagues looking up what others make and then screaming foul when they see the disparity. Most people think they are worth more then they are when in reality they are a combination of their ability to negotiate their salary, market conditions, age , experience and the corporate need at the time of hire. All of these variables shift over time. Get ready HR to face a slew of very angry employees. Forget what FB would do with this info as well.
This is worse then the Green New Deal and the ill thought out idea of repetitions combined.
The Times, writing interesting and thought provoking ideas recently about the erosion of privacy and then advocating for this...
5
I meant reparations not repetitions ! Autocorrect strikes again.
Taxes are the dues we pay for living in a free, wealthy society. How do I know if others are paying their fair share of those dues? How can we know if others are following the law are abusing the law? How can we know how tax loopholes are being legally used but may have consequences we do not want?
The only people who oppose transparency, I would suggest, are those that are either doing something illegal or someone who is "gaming the system".
One example is given in the book "Commander in Cheat" by Reilly. He points out that a Trump owned golf course in NY bought a small flock of goats to wander over parts of the course. By doing this, they were able to take an $80,000 tax break designed for FARMERS. Legal? Yes? But this is the kind of bending of the tax laws that reporters would discover if all tax returns were publicly available.
Of course those who are abusing the system want it kept secret. But this is money owed to the people. The people have a right to transparency.
5
I don't mind if my taxes are public as long as the information can't be used by someone else to impersonate me.
I think that paying your taxes is one of the most patriotic things a person can do. I don't mind paying my share.
Taxes support your local services. They support our federal government. I like having police, fire, EMTs, schools, etc.
Our country really asks very little.
Pay your taxes and vote every 2 years.
Every American should be proud to do both.
8
Perhaps a more palatable suggestion would be to make public what percentage of income everyone paid in taxes.
This might assuage some of the concerns of commenters while still highlighting how rigged the system is.
7
I would argue that we already have enough information to know that we are now living in an era of extreme income inequality. Knowing everyone's tax returns isn't going to enlighten us further, and it certainly isn't going to solve the problem. I do support all having all public officials release their returns. That includes you, Mr. Trump.
Perhaps the greatest contributor to tax cheating, aside from the dishonesty of the person doing the cheating, is the very complex nature of our tax system with its many exclusions, loopholes and write offs. Treating everyone equally, including taxing ALL income the same, will go a long way in solving the problem of tax cheating.
7
@RF A very major part of the reason we "have enough information to know that we are now living in an era of extreme income inequality," is that researchers used tax data as evidence. I see no reason for secrecy about incomes earned (and unearned income from capital gains), or about taxes paid.
"The question is whether Americans are willing to endure a little sunlight ..." The question is actually whether our GOP rulers are willing. We already know the answer. Sadly, it'll never be allowed. (I'd even settle for requiring just that all candidates for federal office be required to endure such sunlight. But it won't happen).
5
This is nothing more than a backdoor attempt to view the presidents tax returns. In that effort this idea would violate the privacy of 330 million Americans. Imagine all the vain school children engaging in this google search (using their parents access codes) that leads to teasing and bullying of kids whose parents are struggling or unexpectedly poor. No that would never happen. The only people left whose privacy would be secured in this country would be, ironically, illegal immigrants who do not report their income. Not only will nosey and jealous neighbors have access to our private data so will corporations and the already too powerful central government and state governments. What could possibly go wrong with this idea?
13
Based on this thinking, everyone's sex life, everyone's Internet usage, everyone's daily interactions should be made public (including whether they've ever joked about the IRS or any government body).
So that they can be vetted - whether it's about running for public office or otherwise.
As well, a system should be developed whereby each person would have immediate access to the other person's full background. If the other person wasn't good at sharing toys in Grade 4, we should know.
5
Someone running for public office maybe should made to disclose their taxes. But not everyone. You want accountability, then make it a flat tax or a gradual flat tax that rises with income. Everyone pays, that's it. Probably could get close to balancing the budget in a few years with that system. And things would be a whole lot easier.
5
Most flat taxes reduce government revenue — they'd worsen the deficit and debt — and are regressive. They favor the well off and wealthy. They'd love to pay even lower percentages, while those on the low would end up paying more. Don't fall for such proposals.
No, the reality is that we need truly effective progressive taxation, restoring high rates, taxing short-term financial stock transactions, capping mortgage deductions at a much lower rate, and making Social Security taxation progressive, too, while eliminating its cap. While we're at it, we should dramatically reduce defense spending, a huge drain on the economy, bad for the planet, and a major source of corporate welfare.
Sometimes the end doesn't justify the means. Privacy seems to have decreasing value in the digital world, but it is not worthless. For politicians there is a compelling argument that their financial affairs are everyone's business. But for the rest of us, that's simply not the case.
3
This is a bad idea, and one reason is simple: If a person has a great idea and is trying to create a new company, as they try to sell their product, especially if it is a service, prospective buyers can simply check their IRS returns to see how successful they have been with the product, how big their company is etc. It puts these new entrepreneurs at a huge disadvantage against the bigger players, thus stifling competition, and that's bad for everyone in society. Terrible idea.
@Izzo
Why would it put new entrepreneurs in a bad situation? You win by providing better products, not by lying about it.
Note, your competitors will also be in the same situation.
2
@Izzo Presumably that inventor or entrepreneur would be filing a corporate tax return on form 1120 and not a personal return on form 1040. At the very least it would be a schedule "C" filing for sole proprietorship, but anyone who has any interest in truly building a company is going to at least go ahead with the effort to create an LLC.
At no point in this article does the author recommend releasing CORPORATE tax returns. The inventor you cite is going to be paying himself a salary from the income of the corporation, and if it's a startup - as you say - then he is probably going to pay himself relatively little in order to keep the valuation of his company high.
Seeing the personal tax return of the owner of a startup will almost certainly tell you nothing about the income of his startup.
2
@Izzo
Keeping this informtion from potential investors looks like FRAUD to me.
1
Thank you for this very enlightening and timely editorial.
It is not really tax returns that are available in Norway, just net income and net wealth. Norway had to make adjustments to the internet when the wide-scale publication by digital media made it easy for thieves to google their prospective victims. That was when they took the data off the internet and created the necessity to register when you asked, which meant that if your neighbor put your tax statement on an anonymous Facebook page, at least you can find out who did it. Newspapers investigate the very rich and frequently publish the data on them, but nobody else really cares. Most of the very rich hate it, of course, as the author points out, but some of them seem to enjoy the competition to see who can pay the least taxes on the most gross income. Every year, the press crowns Norway's 10 richest, which can be found on google. Others less so. If they don't like being there, they can give some of it away - the first 50000 kr. of charitable contributions (about $5800) is deductible. Norwegian billionaires are quite generous.
8
net income, net wealth and taxes paid - available to all citzens.
1
Perhaps a start should be bands rather than details
A : no tax paid
B: under 100k
C: under 1m
D: under 10m
etc
I suspect one will find that most of the apparently wealthy are not personally wealthy and do not pay much personal tax other than on salaries, if they even work at all. The real assets and by extension income from those assets are tucked away in tax efficient structures and locations.
5
I feel like I am reading poorly-thought comments at HuffPost. This is a horrible proposal. The US tax code is so complex and convoluted that summary tax information (e.g., salary and taxes paid) is frequently meaningless without context of circumstances like investment gains and losses, health crises, disabilities, details about dependents, etc. Without the full picture, nosy neighbors can only engage in fact-free speculation about apparent incongruence between income and taxes, which doesn't serve any useful societal purpose. Disclosing all details, on the other hand, opens taxpayers and their dependents up to any number of risks: identity theft, fraud, extortion, nuisance lawsuits, blackmail schemes, public shaming, targeting by predatory lenders, etc. If we want to reduce fraud and inequality, untangle our bizarre tax code and invest in enforcement and collections.
30
@Chef: I cannot comment on the comments you have read, but one of the problems with the US system is the complexity of the taxation. If income and taxation information were available (not tax returns) then it would be possible to identify whether the tax system is actually gathering money efficiently.
3
When mega-companies don’t pay taxes, it clearly isn’t working. Fix that first.
5
Many comments opposed to open records show a desire to keep dirty secrets hidden from family and friends. Sunlight is the best cleaning product. Let's air our laundry and clean our house.
1
@Real Human
Think of all the joy this will bring to workers at abortion clinics, parents and teachers who moonlight at strip clubs to make ends meet, etc. when THEIR dirty secrets are made public.
In Norway, our tax information is available to Norwegian citizens. One has to log in to view. If your nosy neighbor has looked at your info., you know that they have.
8
I call for Mr. Applebaum and every other member of The Editorial Board to make public their last 10 years of tax returns and reveal all of their assets and investments.
Members of TEB are unelected but have enormous power and influence. We need to know their financial details to keep them honest.
25
@Frank
Perhaps they should also include details of their medical histories, as well as any affairs they have had that might make them vulnerable to blackmail that would influence what they write.
11
@Frank But the Board doesn't enact, judge or enforce laws. Elected officials - and judicial appointees - however ought to be required to disclose. (But to single out only newspaper publishers for disclosure sounds like a GOP Santa's list. Of course Ruppert Murdoch's empire would be exempt under such a GOP law).
1
@Rethinking
Frank is responding to the writer ‘s call for having all of us reveal our private financial info. If Appelbaum thinks it’s such a good idea, Frank merely asks him to go first.
5
Thank you for covering this issue. I strongly support open records, and especially IRS records, to reduce corruption and inequitable conduct.
11
I don't think my returns will be that interesting to anyone, but I will tell you that I payed a lot more this year than last, even though I only made slightly more money.
And I'll also admit that I'm curious to know if Trump's big tax cut had the same effect on others....
11
Companies are starting to be transparent about salaries, and it is helping women get more equal pay. Our societal secrecy about money keeps the rich that way, the poor at the bottom and myths like "welfare queens " thriving. Why should our collective debt to each other be secret? BTW I tell anyone who will listen that I pay $15,000 in insurance premiums for my individual healthcare. Numbers like that need to be known too.
5
Thanks, but no thanks. My personal finances are my business, and the IRS.
12
Income tax paid, ownership of property or corporations, and who pays for political advocacy should be public knowledge. At our nation's founding, among a much smaller population, similar information was obviously available. The information would lead to a large decrease in our current tax avoidance. The policy works well where it is practiced today. As our out of control inequality becomes more widely known, shame and anger might start limiting it. Greater information would help bring us together, more like we were a couple of centuries ago, and help us work better as a community.
4
While I can see the appeal in requiring those seeking high public office, to be supported by public funds, disclosing their tax returns, this remains a bad idea for the rest of the taxpaying public. As an elder law attorney, I know that our citizens over age sixty often manage the retirement funds and other pools of savings required to get through retirement in America with some level of comfort.
But as the brain ages, science has shown a decreasing ability for seniors to recognize predators and threats. Our seniors are being hit by both family, and non-family, elder financial abusers from all over the globe at crisis levels already, which I witness in my practice every week. One of my clients came to me after losing almost $1M to scam artists, his and his wife’s entire life savings.
Having our general adult public disclose their now private tax information might be a fun intellectual exercise for some, but it would be disastrous in practice. Family, local, and international criminals do not need a new road map to help them target our seniors with even greater efficiency.
31
Tax returns are not public in Finland. Only aggregate taxable income, name and municipality. Roving bands of kidnappers are not a problem.
As many commenters have vehemently demonstrated, it would never work here. The issue is not privacy.
People in Nordic countries despise cheaters. Americans love them. Cheating demonstrates hustle and greed, the greatest civic virtues.
14
@SKK It's not about cheaters, it's about revealing your whole income and alienating everyone you know due to that, since they will react poorly if you have a lot more than them, even if you are also paying your fair share of taxes. People have investment income outside of their salaries.
Public humiliation is not the right way to correct wrongdoing. If some millionaires are evading taxes illegally, then it is the responsibility of the IRS and not the public to bring them to justice. If they are evading them legally ... well then, they are doing it legally, and the public can't do much about that except feel envious. Income taxes are a private matter between the individual taxpayer and the IRS. No one should be forced to make his or her taxes public.
9
This is a fabulous idea. Real property tax bills and payments are public record and easily obtained online in Florida, why not income tax payments as well?
4
One cannnot help but wonder about the timing of Mr. Appelbaum's essay, and how come this idea never occurred to him before Donald Trump became President. Would he have argued for the same pubic disclosure had Hillary made it into the White House, what with her rather shady foundation, not to mention all those other Democrat lawmakers who entered political life relatively penniless yet miraculously managed to become millionaires while ostensibly living on government paychecks.
8
You’re right: Trump has inspired this call for tax transparency because he appears to be incredibly corrupt, and his corruption depends on secrecy. Hillary Clinton, on the other hand, voluntarily released many years of tax returns, so there would not have been a need for this proposal. Please get your facts straight.
2
@JJ Gross blame the president. If he'd released his tax returns as has been done for decades we wouldn't be having this discussion.
@JJ Gross. “But, but...Hillary.” Let me fix that for you. If HRC had been elected President, would the Republicans not be agitating to get her tax returns? Oh wait, she already disclosed them. So all the GOP can do is huff and puff and collude with Donald Trump to keep his financial dealings private, even when said financial dealings may present a very real conflict of interest in terms of how he conducts himself as President. Nice attempt at deflection.
I see a lot of heated responses about not wanting their tax returns made public for a whole host of reasons. Just want to point out that the 1924 example that leads off the article says that the income and taxes paid by the individual were made public...not the actual returns. That’s wildly different. I get that making tax payments public information would give strangers insight into what your income may be. However, it’s most definitely not the same as publicly publishing full tax returns, which are far more detailed, nuanced, and needfully private.
7
I see few comments about the harm that publicizing salary information could inflict.
.
I'm concerned that tax data about two people doing the same job with discrepancies in their taxes clearly also points to different compensation which in turn infers that the quality of their work is not the same. Publicizing that data would damage the public reputation of the person receiving the lower salary.
1
@HH Two people doing the same job with tax discrepancies, possibly means they have different spousal income, different investment income, and different deductions and credits. If the reader is going to assess tax bills in 10 or 100 dollar increments they will pul their hair out. My effective US tax rate is very low, because of foreign taxes Paid. Thats just how it works.
@David
The overwhelming number of U.S. residents pay inconsequential foreign taxes.
You are an obvious exception.
How much money do all of the people writing for the NY Times earn per year and how much do they pay in income and property taxes? Also, what did they pay for their homes or condos and what are their addresses?
I'm sorry but I think putting people's financial information online is an invasion of privacy and would give potential scammers too much information about people. A member of my family was a victim of a grandparent scam where the scammers called them up and pretended to be their grandchild. They instructed the elderly family member to go to a certain Walmart store, purchase gift cards and read the scammers the numbers off the back of the gift cards to that amounted to the total amount of $1,500.
There is already too much personal information online. People are already vulnerable to scammers calling them and fooling them into handing over their retirement funds and many other schemes. Maybe the NY Times could do an article about that topic.
5
@Sam C. What they paid for their homes and their property taxes is already a matter of public record.
6
As an American who immigrated to Norway 7 years ago - I fully support public disclosure of income, tax paid, and net worth. I found the whole thing shockingly outlandish when I first moved and realized this was something I had to live with here.
When I first moved, they didn’t track who viewed your information. I think that was more effective than the system now where they do track. Under the old system I looked up more people - now I rarely do. The newspapers still publish the top 100 people in the three categories for their given area so you can see that without it registering that you have.
Overall, it’s given me great comfort that I’m getting on about like my neighbors. I’m also aware of the salaries of the senior/executive management of my employer and that has helped me in career planning. In addition- unions are much more prevalent over here - even white collar, engineering/business folks like me are unionized here. The largest unions publish detailed salary surveys on the biggest employers so every year you can see where you stand relative to others in your discipline at similar start years and experience levels. It’s been enormously helpful to me when negotiating promotions.
Finally, as a woman in a stem field - I can easily verify that I’m paid the same (actually better!) than most of my coworkers with similar experience. There have been no downsides as I’ve come to embrace the Norwegian way.
88
Everyone who likes this idea should move to Norway. Problem solved.
4
We live in a society that measures your worth by how much you make (or, perhaps, by how much you consume). Transparency makes sense in Scandinavia, say, because those societies take care of their people. We don't do that. We have a political party itching to take away healthcare and Social Security from millions of citizens, just to pay off the debt incurred from the tax breaks given to the wealthiest 1%.
The writer does not take the American system into account in his thesis, and what it would mean to essentially stamp a social value score on every American's forehead by making their income public.
Instead of income tax transparency, let's make campaign contributions transparent. When politicians make laws, let's know exactly how much dark money went into those laws, and which oligarchs and business entities paid for those laws. Let's see some transparency there.
8
Thank you for sparing me the trouble of exposing the not merely flawed, but fraudulent, assumptions in this disgusting proposal-- disgusting for the exact reasons you enumerate. It is obvious to me that while Mr. Applebaum purports to be concerned about fraud an inequality, in truth he wants to advance the money religion and brand each person exactly as you describe-- and as Applebaum himself basically admits.
No one writing in good faith could suggest a rule like Wisconsin's or Norway's specifying publicizing "who's nosing around" would offer any protections. The moment people's tax information were made publicly available in any way (even with Wisconsin's/Norway's provision), for-profit companies would be peddling that information on the internet. And it would be just a matter of (very little) time before that information would automatically appear as addresses in White Pages listing when a name is googled. Especially with the hacking community jumping all over this to circumvent any safeguards (which would be minimal given that the info is to be basically public to begin with), is utterly naive.
Sorry, Mr. Applebaum, we're already too much of a quasi-fascist money-religion society at this stage. We're not going to adopt your proposal to take us the next great leap forward in that direction.
@Alex I don't really agree with your suggestion that this would be used to "stamp a social value score" on people's heads. This would help to shame tax dodgers and others. While America might not be a country that "takes care of its people", as you say, this measure would help to change it into the kind of society that does, by exposing the hypocrisy of the super-rich.
I am of two minds about this proposal; it seems to have a lot of negative side effects as well as the positive ones. The proposal wouldn't decrease inequality at the macro level - the large scale data is already available - but would at the micro level: it makes it harder for a company pay different wages to employees at the same level. This is not necessarily good, as it is economically inefficient, and seeing what their work neighbors make makes employees less happy.
@Ernie Cohen The fact that this data would allow tax-dodging individuals to be named and shamed would help to prompt more change. Quite apart from social pressure, this measure would make cracking down on illegal tax evasion much easier, and so it would also have a "macro" effect there.
With regards to the micro, I don't really see how you can possibly claim that paying people the same for the same work would possibly be bad. If they are doing the same job, then they deserve to be paid the same. There's nothing economically inefficient about that. Sure, it might annoy people to know that their coworkers are being paid more than them, but as you said this would also encourage to pay their workers fairly, which renders that point obsolete.
In short, your objections seem to be little more than mirages.
3
@William
William, what you say about the micro "the micro level" is mostly correct. My concern would be that the information about two people doing the same job and being paid differently, clearly infers that the quality of work is not the same. Publicizing that data would damage the public reputation of the person receiving the lower salary.
Public disclosure of all income tax returns would mainly be detrimental to the many who file on-time and valid tax returns year after year. This is the way they do it and it has been one of the mainstays of our trust in each other and our ability to share benefits and responsibilities equitably.
Perhaps it is endemic among humans, regardless of their economic standing, to, to some degree…and this degree could show a relatively small percentage, say 5% —15% of those taxpayers and others participating, while large in some sense, still a small group of the total; perhaps it is endemic among these to be skeptical of the others that their returns could be valid.
Further, it defies our beliefs i n due process that the person shall not be convicted before being suspect and adjudged of a wrongdoing. Perhaps our faith in others is diminished by our seeing some of huge wealth be allowed to pay, yes huge fines, but to suffer no further disadvantage of incarceration, nor admonition further.
Still, it isn't that sunlight is necessary when the 99% by and large are transparent in their so standard tax returns, while the 5% or fewer are the ones who should be publicized (hate the word). Especially the incident is one person who seeks almost totalitarian power, freedom and authority is the only one to be allowed to abuse the long custom which person seeking to be president pf these United States have adhered.
2
"Not paying taxes, that makes me smart"
I don't know that public disclosure of taxes paid would have the effect of making the wealthy pay more. Seems more likely that this spin from the Liar-In-Chief would be made into the public standard of conduct. We'd probably get "You have a legal right to minimize your taxes any way you can..." being sold as the way of being a good citizen. Trump's way - cheating - would be applauded and envied. Meanwhile, the compliance enforcement budget of the IRS gets cut yet again, despite having a great ROI. I wonder why that keeps happening... or maybe I don't.
4
The American Income Tax regime is based on a system of self assessment. To a very great extent it depends upon the honesty of individual taxpayers. That being said, there is little reason to know one's neighbors income and deductions. Certain things are private and that is rightly so.
The Income tax was imposed to raise funds for the government's operations. To use the tax system for social leveling is not something that the majority of Americans would support. If someone believes that he or she is underpaid they have different options than to demand that everyone's income tax be made public.
One final note. The U.S. Constitution requires the President or Vice President to be natural born citizens who have attained the age of thirty-five. it does not require anything else. That means that there is no requirement to release one's income tax returns to the public, no mater how much it might amuse the media and gossip mongers.
Tax returns are private. That is how they should remain.
5
@Garry Sklar Your final paragraph is irrelevant and little more than grandstanding. Yes, there's no requirement that the President make their tax returns public in the constitution, but the subpoena of the President's taxes is fully compliant with Federal law, and by no means unconstitutional. What's your point?
As for the rest: Why should taxes be private exactly? Would you argue that Norway and Finland are tyrannical and totalitarian societies where people chafe against constant surveillance?
Also, how is making taxes public the same thing as social leveling, and the confiscation and redistribution of public property? With regards to people being underpaid, it doesn't matter if there are options for people who believe that's the case. The whole point is that they don't know they're being treated unfairly, after all.
Making taxes public is something that would directly help to clamp down on illegal tax evasion. It would also help to illuminate and expose the various means by which certain members of society game the system unfairly, and to the detriment of others.
Your point about America's tax system being based on self-assessment is moot considering that most countries are perfectly capable of handling taxes without it. While it's an entirely separate argument to this one, there's actually no practical reason or advantage for why people should have to file tax returns as they do in the US.
6
@William
Finland and Norway have nothing in common with the United States. Their history and development are totally different than ours as is their constitution and culture. That they are democracies is irrelevant. Democracy does not require lack of privacy.
But most importantly, who determines who is paying their fair share, gaming the system or, indeed, what is a fair share. The fact is that , as famed Judge Learned Hand wrote many years ago,, taxpayers can arrange their affairs as needed for their best interests, not the interests of the government. There is no obligation to pay more than the law requires. If you feel that the tax rates are too low, or you object to various deductions which people call loopholes, the solution is simple enough. Change the law, if you can, but do not castigate people who arrange their affairs to pay the least amount legally required.
My last paragraph is completely relevant. The article certainly was written in support, however obliquely, of the House Ways and Means Committee's effort to obtain the President's tax return.
Other countries use indirect taxes to extract revenue from their taxpayers, via, for example, the Value Added tax, or various consumption taxes. Do you favor abolishing the income tax and replacing it with such taxes? That would be an interesting debate.
@Garry Sklar
Exactly what is it endemic to tax returns that they are required to be private? Because you say so.
There's a law right now.
So we change the law. There USED to be a law that said they were PUBLIC. In fact TWICE before tax returns were public. So there is absolutely nothing morally, socially, or intrinsically necessary about having tax returns private except that they are now.
Change the law.
In 2017, Republicans literally threw away huge portions of the tax code with writing on the back of napkins. Many of the changes were horrific for taxpayers (I know, I'm a preparer so I see effects across income groups) It's not like changes cannot be made. Changes, even ill thought out, idiotic ones (like putting the 1040 on a postcard), can be made.
You don't have to agree.
Good idea as long as the only identifying information were zip code.
Ages, address, place of employment, should all be redacted, but this is the only way to understand how the rich gane the system in taxes.
@Djt So, do you think that you will study all the tax laws and figure this out?
Yes! I’ve always thought so. Great to see someone explain why.
4
This idea certainly would put a crimp in the style of those states that have banned employers asking a candidate what they made at their last/current job -- now they could just look at their tax returns and figure it out.
Also, employers could now figure out if an applicant is married or single, if they make or receive alimony payments, if they have excessive medical expenses, how many kids they claim as dependents, and to some extent if they are well off (although tax returns are not a great way to determine the latter as people who are quite well off sometimes don't show much income for years at a time if they don't churn their investment portfolio). They could also screen for deductible contributions to groups they may not like (such as LGBT causes or churches).
This could really make it so much easier to screen candidates for employment. What could go wrong.
The general public has no business knowing what I make or how I spend my money or being able to infer what my assets are.
Imagine the robocalls that people who seem wealthy would endure.
9
@Bob Richards -- On the other hand, much of what tax returns could reveal is also being voluntarily shown to the world on Facebook by many of the same taxpayers who would object to public disclosure. Married? Look on Facebook. Kids - see Facebook. Pets? Facebook. Or perhaps study the Google search history... vets, pet foods, and kitty toys suggests pet ownership pretty strongly. What could go wrong, you ask? What are you seeing already; there would just be more of the same wonderfulness we have already.
1
No, I do not agree. BUT, I do think each political party should rule that it will support no candidate who does not voluntarily release his or her tax returns for the previous six years. Thus, if Trump runs in 2020 he would need to release his returns or forego running as a Republican.
2
@MR
You never looked at Hillary's tax records, and neither did the MSM. What was the point?
I am totally not down with tax and income disclosure. Gives busybodies as well as criminals too much information. Also violates Constitutional right to privacy. Maybe tax exposure for citizens works in advanced democratic republics like Norway and Finland but not in the USA when even without knowing my inherited income acquaintances have approached me for "loans." In the reverse, when I made close to poverty-level wages working two and three jobs, I did not want lower-than-average income to be exposed. Potential for busy bodies and all kinds of social problems.
12
@EarthCitizen Finland and Norway aren't alien planets. You're putting the cart before the horse, as the precise reason why the US isn't also an "advanced democratic republic" is because it doesn't adopt the policies and laws of one.
1
When we, as American citizens, believe that we no longer have a right to privacy, then we are inferring that we are no longer protected by our constitutional rights.
22
This is a truly horrible idea. It will turn neighbors into spies ... the very foundation of a totalitarian society.
The parallel with property taxes is fallacious: the county determines my property taxes, not me. The parallel with the Scandinavian countries is fallacious: virtually nothing is deductible so revealing tax returns is almost the same as revealing income. The parallel with revealing salaries is fallacious: there is a lot more information in my tax return than my salary (which, because I am a State employee, is available on a publicly accessible website).
60
@WZ Ah, of course. I'd forgotten that the people of Norway and Finland chafed against the chains of a totalitarian Orwellian surveillance state. Truly, how they clamp down on tax dodging is just disgraceful.
1
Given today's political environment, in which Republicans and Libertarians get up in arms about even the slightest suggestion of reasonable regulation -- consider gun safety or protection of environmental pollutants -- this strikes me as a theoretical idea that has no chance of being implemented. We are not Norway. Even if a Democratic Congress, President, Senate and House of Representatives takes power in 2020, all with have to withstand the howls of the Right and their persuasive ideological extremism. I'm afraid we will have to find other ways to address inequality and tax cheating.
1
@Knowledge Is Power
Republicans and Libertarians do not get up in arms about the slightest suggestion of reasonable regulation. What is disturbing is when no environmental laws are passed by Congress and unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats create regulations out of thin air.
Democrats are upset that Obama's breathtaking regulations were imposed without any direction from Congress. He ruled like a dictator. Democrats loved it because he wrote new law without regard to the best interests of the country that would never pass even a Democrat Congress.
Democrats had the presidency, a House majority and between 58 and 60 Senators during 2009-2010. They did not pass immigration reform, the House passed carbon cap and trade but Reid refused to put it to a vote of his 60 Democrat Senators.
If Democrats took the Congress and the presidency in 2020, we would have a repeat of 2008. Do nothing because they would fear losing Congress in 2022. Dreamers are of greater value as political pawns than as legal residents. The Green Deal would cost them the House and the Senate in 2022.
@ebmem
Oh yeah, sure. That's why Trump said that they must get rid of two regulations for every new one that is created, without even thinking about what the regulations are actually for.
It was Democrats GOING ALONG with your Republican and Libertarian friends that deregulated the banks and helped create the crisis of 2007-8. They did that because they were so afraid of supporting a party that looked like they believed in an activist government, because this country has become so anti-government that we basically no longer HAVE a functioning government.
Thank your Republican friends for leading the anti-government, anti-regulation, anti-tax charge for the last 40 years!
They've been brilliant!!
Oh yeah, and what did your party do about immigration the last two years when they had control of the House, Senate, and the presidency? Hmm, let's see......
2
@ebmem
P.S.-- The Term is 60 DEMOCRATIC senators.
1
Tax cheating would decease a great deal if the IRS was given a large enough budget to properly audit the number of tax returns it has to handle. But the Republicans in Congress refuse to do so. And the IRS could find larger amounts of withheld taxes if it concentrated on auditing the wealthiest taxpayers; instead they expend all their energy chasing down possible fraud committed by those who get he EIC.
I think the program proposed in this op-ed is too risky.
7
I really don't care about seeing my neighbors' tax returns . I do, however, want the appropriate committees of Congress to see Trump's tax returns as a means of determining whether he is engaging in public corruption. Just for starters, how much did his so-called "tax reform" bill benefit him personally?
41
@Celia Sgroi A politician supporting something that benefits them is not a sign of public corruption. Most individual voters do that every time they cast a vote -- most people vote their personal best interests over their principles when there's a conflict.
2
@Celia Sgroi
His returns through 2015 were audited by the Obama IRS. What are the chances he wouldn't be in prison if there were any irregularities?
The Democrats would leak his returns to the media for political gain. Particularly if there were no irregularities.
@Bob Richards Voting for almost every single Republican refutes that theory unless you are in the top 1% and don't have children.
I don’t mind the revealing of data, but I oppose the use of personally identifying information. I don’t want to be contacted by fundraisers based on a previous year’s charitable contributions, for example. If someone receives government benefits, they likewise might not want that information available to those who would, for example, attempt to scam Medicare recipients. I don’t use social media because of privacy concerns. Candidates for public office typically receive law enforcement protection. Who is going to watch out for the rest of us if our financial information has available on a government website?
13
Yes to transparency. Shine light into the shadows. There is no better way to reduce corruption.
5
This would work great if, as in Norway, as national public health service meant that medical expenses, as part of paying one's taxes, no longer appeared as deductibles in tax returns.
To make tax returns public, requires a wholesale change in the structure of of the taxes and how what we pay for is assessed.
3
Why stop there? Release everyone's tax returns, also pay, and the cost of goods sold. Same thing with corporations and non-profits.
There would be some very embarrassed people and companies, but once that phase was over, it would be the greatest single driver for equality there was.
13
@Bruce1253
FREEDOM INCLUDES PRIVACY.
@common sense
Freedom also includes the ability to make informed decisions. I'm not talking about forcing equal outcomes, I'm talking about being transparent about money. I'm talking about removing the secrecy that fosters corruption. I'm talking companies being able to justify their pay structure and the prices they charge. I'm talking about candidates publishing the lists and amounts of their donors. I'm talking about knowing who have influence with you Senator. I'm talking about saying "It costs us $1.89 to make that cup of coffee and we are charging you $4.50.
Everyone say they want an open and honest government/society. This is a simple way to have it. All it takes is courage.
@Bruce1253
No, that would be the greatest single driver for the most productive citizens to cut bait and exit the USA.
I think it's phenomenal idea, we can start small and grow, how about starting with those who are in public services and run charities?
13
Showing a candidate’s tax return is not a guarantee that they are honest.
5
It is true, but let us to judge of we believe the guy or not.
1
@yulia
The Clinton’s disclosed their taxes and look at how corrupt they were and still are. I don’t think people objectively would use these data point as you think. Supporters would dismiss them as criticism and detractors would hurl complaints.
What gets solved here?
1
In the mid 1990s, the populist (by 1990s standards) conservative provincial government in Ontario, Canada, wanted to stick it to the public sector unions. They imposed a “sunshine list”, to publicly disclose any public sector salary over $100,000. Since the government was trying—unsuccessfully—to break public sector unions, they thought salary disclosures would portray public sector employees as overpaid and out of touch. That of course never happened. Curiously, the conservative government never bothered to peg the “sunshine threshold “ to inflation. The conservatives were drummed from office, but the law remains to today. Rather than drive down public salaries, as the conservatives hoped, the “sunshine list” drove them up. Disclosure revealed widespread gender inequalities, interdepartmental inequities, and regional inequities—it was all there in public to see. Now more than 20 years old, and still unadjusted for inflation, the “sunshine list” has almost become meaningless, with tens of thousands of employees included.
Would a “tax remittance” disclosure list also drive up remittances? Possibly. I think it would certainly be in the public interest to do so.
8
@Norman
NYS requires all state and local civil servant salaries to be public record, and you can look up how much kindergarten teachers are paid.
@Norman US state and federal salaries are a matter of public record. You can look up the salaries online.
Local newspapers reported people's taxes decades before 1924. The La Crosse, Wisconsin, Nord Stern published the townspeople's taxes on 30 May 1868. The editor of the newspaper used the information to question the honesty of the other newspaper in town. "Last year his income wasn't over $1000 and this year it's just $800. From all of that he built a building that is worth about $30,000.. ," he wrote.
Mr. Appelbaum is on to something. Let's have more transparency on taxes. At the very least, we'll have an even livelier press.
8
@Alice Clark -- Those were property taxes, real estate assessments. They are public record today, and always have been. We vote the millage and the property value is real estate sales information.
That is an entirely different thing from income taxes.
Absolutely. What a person earns and what they pay in taxes should be a matter of public record. However, I cannot imagine Congress passing such a law, no matter who's in power. After all, neither Sanders nor Trump has made his tax returns public.
8
@Daniel Pinkerton. Gross earnings v. effective tax rate can be very deceptive without circumstantial context.
@Daniel Pinkerton
Pelosi and Feinstein have husbands who do a great deal of work with the federal government and they don't post their income tax returns.
On what legal bqsis do you imagine the what I earn working for my private sector employer, undet an agreement reached by two private parties, is everybody's business?
Definitely a huge change in mindset. Seems this would create a lot of bickering about who makes what, and then there are those pesky charities chasing after your money.
2
Once the records are public, why not offer bounty hunters a percentage for tax dodgers they find?
Why not ash can the Health Care and Education Privacy acts too, we'd probably find a few cheaters there too.
And why not put all the people who have handicap parking placards online, that would be interesting.
Bad idea, really bad idea. Like because we don't have Trump's tax info the solution is to go after everyone?
How about just people running for public office? I think most Americans would support that.
22
@Prodigal Son Might as well also publish the identity of every person who receives direct or indirect public assistance of any form and how much of each form they receive (including Social Security Old Age benefits, Medicare and Medicaid payments for their benefit, VA benefits, SNAP, section 8, student loans, Social Security Disability, student loans backed by the government, etc.).
1
Yes it's a real slippery slope once they make you reveal what you pay in taxes pretty soon you have... "bounty hunters out to kill tax dodgers." Yeah. That's where this will lead alright. That's what happened in Finland and Norway. When will we ever learn.
Why should not put the people with handicap parking permits on-line? After all, don't they are require a visible permit when they park in handicap parking?
Neither the current President or the owners of Amazon are shamed by not paying anything in taxes. What we really need, is a tiered straight tax, and to do away with deductions. The over 74,000 pages of the IRS Tax Code shows that it is just legalized extortion that allows lobbyists, lawyers, and a group of Congress persons, and their staff, that write tax credits, and deductions into law, for real estate holdings, businesses, and just about every groups in the country. Then, they give those with children more credits to medicate them, so they stop paying attention to what is really going on and forget about good government.
9
@MaryKayKlassen
Why should anyone be shamed for legally avoiding taxes? There's no law that says that can't legally avoid taxes. And frankly why shouldn't you pay as little as possible?
@James because we aren't collecting enough revenue to pay all the bills in the government that Congress passes legislation for, including over 30% each year going forward. Our country is basically bankrupt in case you haven't noticed, as are many cities, pensions, individuals, etc.
@MaryKayKlassen
Then the right thing to do is stop spending. However that has nothing to do with arranging your taxes to pay as little as possible, which is totally legal.
I do not care to have my personal income and tax information made public, but I do agree that there could be advantages to having such a policy. I would add some details. First, we should phase the change in over time. Perhaps we could start in 2020 with those born after 2000, then in 2021 add those born between 1990 and 1999, in 2022 add those born between 1980 and 1989, etc. That way our younger citizens who have lower incomes will start their working lives with the system while the rest of us have a chance to adjust to the idea. This also gives us a chance to work out problems with the system while a relatively small number of taxpayers are involved.
I also recommend not putting the information on the internet. Like others here, I live in a jurisdiction which posts real estate tax information and court records online. As a lawyer, I find this is very helpful. I am concerned, however, at some of the ways laymen have used this information. So, I favor making the information available in designated offices and allowing the curious to access it there.
4
@Barbara Kemery If it's public, it should be made easily accessible on the internet. Why restrict access to it to those that have the time and ability to go to a remote office? A disabled person may find it very difficult to get to such an office and very difficult to spend many hours in such an environment.
3
@Barbara Kemery
"I also recommend not putting the information on the internet."
.
How could you ever stop putting that information on the internet? Everything that is public - and much that is private - ends up on the internet.
@Barbara Kemery if the decision would be that income taxes are a matter of public record, then they should be online. Like property taxes and other registered events such as divorce, marriage, birth, death, etc.
Obviously, most people don't want to put their actual tax returns online for public viewing. But I think there's merit to posting salaries and taxes paid and no other details. I think it would engender more honesty and definitely help when negotiating salaries and reducing discrimination.
10
Making taxpayer's all transparent isn't half as important as making the IRS transparent. How come we have been paying into the so called "Locked Box" our whole lives, but will only get a fraction of what we paid into it, pretty much no matter how long we happen to live. It would be far more useful to understand which politicians stole that money over the decades. Clearly the idea that what we pay into it, we get back in retirement didn't work only because it was secretly taken out of that box. Now the entire entity of Social Security has been destroyed. Now it's just a ponzi scheme. So instead of piting the public against itself, how about the government becoming transparent. Who stole that moeny and where did it go? Furthermore, our benefits shouldn't be lowered. The government should be forced to shrink -- and pay it all back.
10
Wait a minute. You should say all who run for office, and, if elected they must continue to disclose their tax returns, and for several years thereafter.
4
The author suggests that a problems with tax fraud and other things can be solved with making tax returns public. This is preposterous! It's a shame he didn't bother to consider the downside of this kind of transparency.
I'm all for having our public servants disclose their tax returns including the president and cabinet and all member of the senate and the house.They are, after all, supposed to be serving the public interest, and many, as we have seen, have true conflicts of interest. Don't want to disclose - then don't run.
Let's not generalize the notion that while some public servants should disclose their returns, the same treatment is good for all tax filers - simply not true.
18
@Frodo What’s the downside?
Hits pretty close to home eh? Even us socially liberal NYT readers have an instinctive reaction to this! Nevertheless, this is the kind of out-of-the-Box thinking we need to move forward.
I like it; why should my taxes be non-public but my half-marathon times and penny-ante political contributions are all enshrined forever?
29
I think it is only fair to publish ALL tax returns. We all contribute to the finances of the Government and it will be only fair to know who contributes what. Health care is different. It is much more personal. That's why we are not required to file the health return every year.
8
Put it this way, I don’t want my wife’s deadbeat brother Joey finding out from the interest declaration on my tax return that my aunt Augustine left me a legacy. That’s my kids’ college fund and not his next loan. There is no public or governmental interest served in causing that confrontation or in making my poor wife cry, again.
182
Why not? Do you think if he doesn't know but suspects, it will make him to think better about you?
1
@Gerard
The article suggests that only total income and taxes paid be listed, not the granular details or the full return, so your fear is misplaced.
8
@Gerard - sorry to hear about your deadbeat brother-in-law, but there are larger interests at stake than yours and that of your crying "poor wife."
Like everyone else, I know what it is to have problems with relatives. But I would never selfishly presume that my own family issues should dictate the health of an entire nation.
6
So a trillion dollar company like Amazon does not pay income taxes because of losses attributed to investment and research and development. So, using the same principle, the vast majority of working Americans should also not pay income taxes because they are making an investment in their families and there is an insufficient budget to cover the day-to-day expenses.
15
Bring it on! No one should have anything to hide. Right?
10
You have the IRS for that. Since I'm a paid subscriber, do I get access to the Times editorial board, and its reporters' computers?
On the one hand you worry about privacy. On the other, you say making something public is a good thing.
Make up your mind.
21
Advice On Tax Day
Good golly, it’s tax day, who’s gonna pay
Every red cent, or to enter the fray
With government hacks that’ll take what you owe,
Make it their job to make interest grow,
Empty your coffers, with no stone unturned
To teach you a lesson painfully learned,
As victims are hoboed, homeless and broke –
Their lifeblood finances destroyed with one stroke;
Nothing to salvage, a jail term, oh dear,
For illegal illicits, something to fear;
Best not to pay but go underground deep -
Lawyers will cost you, the best aren’t cheap.
Public officials should be required to furnish their tax information to their employer, us, the tax payer for whom they work. They are charged with making laws and regulating businesses that require them to be free of conflict of interests. Everyday Americans? I think people are allowed to have some privacy, especially in this era of our personal information being used against us by marketers and scam artists.
5
It would help people immensely to know how much their coworkers are making across the board. Companies, particularly those that consistently underpay their employees might be forced to raise their salaries and face some very uncomfortable questions about how much the C-suite is paying itself. It would eliminate the idiocy we're living through now with a president who is refusing to release his tax returns.
We all have things we want to hide. Being forced to reckon with the idea that others could see our taxes upon request might force people to be more honest and could lead to a better understanding of just how much it costs to live. It might even lead to some corrections in how we are taxed and what for.
We pay taxes to have a functioning government. We pay taxes to have the roads in working order, an infrastructure that supports business and citizen needs, for research into cures for illnesses and understanding how our universe works, to have a government that works for all of us. Whether we like it or not taxes are the price we pay for a civilized country. Any elected official who does not want to release his/her tax returns should not be nominated for or seated if elected. We need to know that our representatives do not have conflicts of interest, are not being bribed, and are not involved in criminal activity.
12
What a horrible idea! People should have the right to their data. Forcing the disclosure of everyone's tax returns not only violates their right to privacy, it helps fraudsters target people. In your op-ed you cited an example of transparency in property taxes which helps neighbors gauge the fairness of their property tax. As a property owner I can tell you that I have not once reviewed my neighbors assessments and took any meaningful action upon it. What the disclosure law does do is to harm my privacy. The endless barrage of advertising calls I get for people and corporations trying to buy my property in cash. While disclosing property assessments of properties may be a good thing, disclosing personal information is not.
Imagine if the tax information would release in the USA, can you really guarantee this information would not fall into the wrong hands? Aside from the potential fraud, do we really need a national jealousy day? Supposedly, this kind of envy would promote competition to do better. In reality, when was the last time you made a good decision because you were envious of someone else? I don't know about you, but I can't recall one.
It may be practical to force politicians to release theirs, but there's too much downside for ordinary citizens with little benefit.
53
@Howard Z 0- well I guess you could see how much of a problem it is in Norway and Finland. It can't be too bad if they've been doing it all this time.
1
That is a violation of the 5th Amendment against self-incrimination. You can't require people to report "everything" including illegal income, and then use that against them. At least, you can't in the US. I'm very glad it is that way.
Does the Editorial Board really mean to discard this Constitutional right? Or only for their targets du jour?
14
@Mark Thomason
According to Unites States v. Sullivan, there is no constitutional right to refuse to file an income tax return on the ground that it violates the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. In United States v. Schiff, the court decided that questions in the income tax return are neutral on their face and protection may not be claimed against all disclosure on an income tax return. Arguably, the claim that public disclosure of information that is already legally established as neutral would be unconstitutional is dubious, especially on the grounds that it would incriminate those wishing to somehow indemnify themselves against prosecution for illegal activity by reporting criminal profits. Whatever the merits of the author's proposal (I happen to be for it), it is not a clear violation of the Fifth Amendment.
12
If it is so, we would not required to file tax return. After all people do not recriminate themselves in front of neighbours but rather in front of court, the part of the Government
@MJB -- Correct. That case is from 1927. It accepted a Federal law that basically said, "Trust us, we'd never misuse that information to incriminate, only to get taxes paid."
That wouldn't have worked with the Warren Court. Even today's Court wouldn't buy it. But it has been the law for a very long time.
The IRS is VERY protective of that law. If they were not, the requirement for a return could be overturned, based on the application of the law, and that would be the end of income taxes.
It hasn't happened. It won't happen, because the IRS knows this very well. The Court would not overturn something so fundamental, unless there was a new abuse that clearly contradicted the old assumption.
Hence, the IRS will be protective, and the Courts will allow that.
What this article lacks is the amount of information other countries disclose.
It seems that many commenters assume a full disclosure of all income sources which I feel would be overkill.
If it's only the amount of taxes paid, and not itemized income sources, then it might not be such a bad idea.
7
I think its a great idea, Mr Appelbaum.
9
People in this country are so hung up on ‘personal’, ‘private’, ‘individual’.
Get over yourselves.
There is not one thing you own, earn, or will own/earn that doesn’t impact at least one other person not included in your tax return—for good or ill.
It should be a given that if you are in a position to govern at any level, impact policy and/or legislate—turn over your taxes.
I’m all for the other ideas folks in the comments have said could combat inequality—what are they? Why haven’t they been tried? We need just one to combat income inequality?
Seems to me inequality requires a multi-pronged approach, why are people so quick to dismiss this one?
21
What a wonderful idea. It would certainly make a a lot of tax scofflaws pay attention, and perhaps change their ways.
It would make less than honest tax specialists, CPA's and tax lawyers, who some scofflaws hire to subvert the tax laws wherever and whenever possible, a lot more careful.
Submitting taxes to fool an understaffed and minimally motivated IRS agent is one thing. Submitting returns, knowing that your enemies will be looking for any cheating, and bringing them to the IRS' attention, wouldl make all filings far more honest.
Honest people won't care. Only the cheats, and those that are into illicit tax activities, would (and should) worry.
13
I had a college professor who said every business owner who had employees should post everyone's pay rate so that everyone knew what everyone else was making. He was no ultra liberal, by any means. He said making it public knowledge would create less discord amongst the employees and would also clue someone in who might be experiencing income inequality so they could possibly do something about it. We were aghast. Our initial response, one and all, was that that kind of information should be kept secret. I feel the same way about my income taxes. But I think he had a good point about posting pay rates. Having just slogged through another year of torture doing my returns, I become even more enthusiastic about the idea of a "flat tax". I know there are several versions, but I support the simplest one: 10% of your gross earnings (for private citizens and corporations) with no deductions for anything. Of course, if you are at poverty level, this would not include you. I also don't support different rates. One simple rate. Wouldn't you rather get 10% of Amazon's gross earnings than none, which is probably the status quo for most huge corporations? And it would come out of your regular paycheck, you wouldn't even notice it and, YOU WOULD NEVER HAVE TO FILE A TAX RETURN AGAIN, WOO HOO!
6
Interesting point. I'd be worried that this would be an avenue for abusers or stalkers to find addresses for people, but other than that it seems worthy of consideration, especially if those looking must also be named.
Since so many companies discourage employees from discussing salary, even to the point of threatening to fire them if they do, disclosing tax records might help expose wage discrimination.
5
@KimberlyInOhio
Those companies you mention that discourage employees from discussing salary are in violation of federal and possibly state laws:
https://www.dol.gov/wb/media/pay_secrecy.pdf
However the NLRA does not provide for strong remedies:
https://www.npr.org/2014/04/13/301989789/pay-secrecy-policies-at-work-often-illegal-and-misunderstood
QUOTE: Employers caught violating the law have to offer certain "remedies," which, according to Estlund, are typically "not very serious."
"It doesn't cost very much to violate the NLRA in most cases," Estlund says, "and so employers aren't so afraid of violating it." END-QUOTE
Instead of making tax information public, shouldn’t the IRS just work towards making the whole taxation system - both for corporations and individuals - as simple as possible, with elimination of the myriad of deductions exemptions, credits, etc. currently in our IRS codes? Maybe somewhat similar to a sales tax, with progressive rates based on income. Instead of struggling for hours and days, tax returns - if they are needed - could be completed in 15 minutes.
12
It is a great idea but not a replacement for the tax disclosure. They serve to different purposes. One is to maximize tax collection, other is to increase transparency. Both serve for good for society.
2
It is a really disturbing event when a New York Times editorial writer writes that individuals should have no privacy in, as Michael Blazin posted, "the very intimate details of our life". Protection of personal privacy is at the very heart of the U.S. experience, and I am very surprised, and disappointed, that the Times has come out against personal privacy.
The writer's editorial does, however, explain some of the oddball opinions that the Times regularly publishes, although my writing this is a guarantee that the Times will not post it.
17
It could not be sooo intimate if we are required to report it every year to the Government. What kind of other personal information we have to report to the the Government?
@carol224. How are finances intimate?
What an incredibly bad idea. I simply don't accept that we need to be so intrusive in order to tackle inequality. There should be financial disclosures for politicians, but not for the average person. Big Brother is already too big.
17
What ever happened to the notion of privacy, you know, the right to be left alone?
31
@Dave
‘Progressives’ think that the personal is political. Or else.
What privacy are you talking about if we must report this info to the Government? Are we require to report what kind of book we read. How many sexual partners we had? How many countries we visited? I believe not, but yet we are required to report our income, so why should we consider this info private?
I'm not sold on displaying everyone's tax liabilities, but officials elected at the highest levels should meet the requirements to disclose all tax returns and financial info. As in the case of our current president, it WOULD be insurance in determining if (as the House is trying to determine) there are conflicts of interest in representing our country. As a voter, I want to know that, and it should be a requirement as firm as an age requirement for holding a particular office. This is what I interpret "transparency" to mean when politicians use the word.
4
First, in the internet age, we don't have any privacy. So that objection is moot.
Second, in a democracy, we are all in the public sector. So whether we are running for office or just voting, we're in the game.
Third, we are also in the private sector, where income inequality threatens the foundation of our economy and democracy. Many believe that only the rich have access to political power. The problem is that they are mostly right. Grassroots campaigns face formidable, if not insuperable, obstacles. Goofy decisions like Citizens United steal power from ordinary people. We need to restore some balance.
Income and tax disclosure would force a badly needed nationwide debate on income inequality and the embedded distortions in the federal tax code.
It's time. Open the IRS database and let the chips fall. I believe we will come through the storm a better people and stronger nation.
25
Tax returns are private and personal information. The President has every right to keep his information confidential especially with the vindictive attitude of the politicians in Washington.
7
Not at all. His sexual history is private, but how he made his money and how much he pays in taxes are not
Why not indeed?
After all, anybody can go on line or down to the county court house and find out how much property tax we've paid . . . so why not let everyone see how much we pay in income taxes?
18
@Richard Collins
This merely exposes the arbitrary value placed on our residence which is determined by bureaucrats who have no other function than to line the public coffers. It then records the amount exacted from us to avoid foreclosure.
6
How about limiting it to just taxes paid? No income info, deduction info, or other.
As Joe Friday used to say, "Just the tax, ma'am".
If you didn't get any useful services or benefits, perhaps that justifies not paying anything.
4
@Mac There is not one person in the United States who has not benefitted from the tax money they have paid. There are only those who are willing to pay for the services they get and those who are not.
3
I'm very concerned about my privacy but I actually think this would be a great idea. And use the Norway model where you can see who has been looking at your tax information. A great idea.
20
Some of the argument Mr Applebaum makes regarding the public disclosure of income and taxes make sense. This would include instances of equal pay for equal work, such as laborers in a factory, and for shaming those sectors of the economy rife with tax fraud, such as the self-employed who may under report income and/or over report business expenses.
However, as someone working in a large organization with responsibility for finances, including payroll, this obsession with 'equity' is getting out of hand. Yes, there are disparities, especially historical ones based on gender and race that need to be addressed.
However, there are often justified disparities based on skills. Take for example engineers v human resource professionals. Engineers require advanced scientific and mathematical skills that they often apply to developing critical infrastructure or industrial processes. Good ones are hard to find and are duly compensated. Human resource professionals, on the other hand, have 'soft' skills that are important but are much easier to learn and develop as well as being fairly prevalent among job applicants with a commensurate impact on salaries offered. Too many people wrongly create false equivalencies between such jobs, when there are vast differences.
Salary disclosure should be required for senior managers of public corporations, elected leaders, public officials and for senior employees in the not-for-profits sector. All others deserve privacy.
3
Of course making tax records public would decrease economic inequality. So would simply confiscating people's money without due process. So would a lot of other measures. That doesn't necessarily make it a good idea. And the fact that some European countries do it also doesn't necessarily mean it's a good idea. Some other countries stone people for engaging in homosexual acts. Since when is pointing to the acts of others to justify your own actions a wise idea? Remember what your mother told you?: If your friend jumped off the Empire State Building does that mean you should too? Sheesh!
8
I would suggest that we are becoming more lawless. If the President doesn't pay the proper tax, wealthy income earners avoid paying taxes and the government doesn't oversee taxation, then the system of laws without enforcement is useless.
43
In Illinois, anyone can see what any state employee earns. I just looked up my last name, and could view the salary information of over 500 individuals - listed by name and department. So some people have no choice - their income is public information.
I think it would do a lot of good if the IRS made a lot more tax information public. I would like to see anyone running for public office, or holding a government position that might influence spending decisions, or essentially anyone involved with government and susceptible to bribery or conflict of interest, be required to make their tax information public. That would be a big help for anyone who really wants to 'drain the swamp'.
43
@D
Public Service salaries are public almost everywhere. That's a lot different from the info a tax return would show.
1
@D both state and federal salaries are public knowledge. The private stuff is not.
Great idea Mr. Appelbaum. While we're at it, let's make everyone's health records public as well. If I knew how my friends or neighbors were doing healthwise it could help me make better decisions about who should be treating me, plus better decisions about who I should be staying away from or who I should be more sympathetic to. Plus, publicizing health records would help identify patterns of minorities not receiving adequate health care.
If you actually believed what you write, I would have expected you to disclose how much you pay in income taxes. Feel free to do so by replying to this comment. I promise I won't spread it around.
68
I show mine if you show me yours. The health information of individual is a private mater because it depends on genomic background, and therefore, what your neighbor have may not help you, although I would love to know where my neighbour got the certain procedures and how much he paid for that. Don't you think it will be helpful? But, on the other hand it could be achieved by forcing hospitals disclosure their prices with details who pays what.
4
@Jay Orchard
You beat me to making the same point about equating disclosing salary and taxes with disclosing health records!
If everyone knew who has STDs, is an anti-vaxxer, has some form of communicable disease, has mental issues, has the gene for (fill in the blank), etc. we would all be much better off about knowing who to avoid. Better yet, we would be much better off about knowing who should be 'quarantined' so that we don't have to be exposed to them! What a beautiful world it would be - except for the +75% that would be thrown in the gulags that we would need to build to contain them! Or would we call them interment camps? Concentration camps? Border control facilities?
9
This op-ed ends with the following sentence:
"The question is whether Americans are willing to endure a little sunlight in the interest of fairness and equality."
Fairness and equality are not a part of the natural world. Humans are a part of the natural world.
9
@Eva
Huh?
I refuse to think I did not evolve from my ancestors who were apes. I am part of the natural world but after a superb education culminating in a Harvard Doctorate I believe I could strive for a world of fairness and equality. My dear professor John Rawls will be rolling in his grave if that is not so!
2
@Blunt
Fairness and equality are unattainable. We are born with different talents, vary in our determination to achieve, and most importantly, no one can control the myriad of circumstances that impact our fortunes and misfortunes in life. It's a mature thing to accept this as reality. People are not all equal, can't be, and never will be. And your Harvard education is irrelevant with respect to this subject.
4
Really? I thought human are part of human world, not necessary natural ones. How many species beside human have Government, Congress, or Constitution?
I have an idea. Instead of publishing what people paid in income taxes, let’s publish their net contribution (positive or negative) to the overall government. Then we can see who we really should be chastising - the people who pay NO income taxes but do get rent subsidies, food stamps, transit vouchers, government-paid school breakfast and lunches, health care, welfare, and more. These are the people we should be holding out for all to see and shame into productive behavior - people who don’t pull their weight and drag down those that do.
If rich people consume more in government services than they pay for I’m all for holding them out for public ridicule. But don’t limit it to only the rich. Society has a right to know of ANYBODY who takes more than they contribute. We’re all in this together, isn’t that what the progressives say? Doesn’t it take a village? Well everyone in this village should be expected to to be a net positive on the services used vs. funds contributed index. If not, shame them until they do.
Isn’t that a ridiculous idea? It’s no more ridiculous than what you are proposing in this essay.
17
@Matt Williams
How about wealthy arms manufacturers? They get lots of tax breaks; are they a "net positive on the services used etc." I'd rather be paying for people who NEED food stamps, school lunches, etc., most of which goes to kids. By and large, most people don't choose to be non-productive.
10
If the person has subsidied rent and food stamps, he obviously has a pretty low income that doesn't produce much taxes. It would be really distressing if the person with high income and, therefore, higher taxes will also have subsidied rent. It would suggest that it is something terribly wrong with our social net, but we would not realize it without public disclosure of our tax returns, right?
3
Funny though, on an income of $50,000 one would pay out approximately $36 for food stamps, $7 for welfare, $220 for the military, but over $4000 in corporate subsidies.
8
Money is private property. Enabling the IRS to open its thick doors to public inspection would further rent our already polerized society. No doubt, Mr. Appelbaum, being a member in good standing of this august paper, envisions a more "equitable" society would somehow emerge. Unless the past is no longer the present, and the future, allowing full exposure of an individual's money would bring the weaponization of the IRS into its fullest power. Already the intelligence community has been used with such malicious intent, an overt attempt to overthrow an elected president. Does anyone actually doubt what this new tactic would
bring?
15
It could actually. decrease the polarization if we see that the GDP person is same as us, paying taxes on his legitimate business, do not have additional income from lobbyists and actually trying to better the society rather than to help to protect his personal wealth.
3
Why not give the kidnappers and break in artists a road map instead. Do we want to live in high walled houses with broken glass tops as seen in many third world places? How about phony slip and fall suits on our sidewalks. Please consider the unforeseen consequences of this policy.
97
Really? Kidnappers are only stopped because they don't have personal information? Some how I doubt that. Richer people can afford much better protection than poor ones. Basically, what you are saying is let's protect the rich one on the expense of poor.
3
We already have that.
2
@James,MD
"Please consider the unforeseen consequences of this policy."
According to Republicans, the rich will move somewhere else and take their marbles with them. Sure they will.
2
While individual returns are personal, IRS should share more aggregated data of where and how income is generated, what credits and deductions are used and who pays what in taxes. Allow academics and journalists to”slice and dice” this data and shine light on an unfair tax system.
8
During my entire career teaching at a public university, my base salary has been a matter of public record - I have no problem with that. My wife's salary, working in the private sector, is not the public's business. Nor is our other income, earned through investments and work outside our regular employment.
We pay the taxes that are due, according to the tax code. The IRS has the information and the tools to verify that. If you really are worried about the underpayment of taxes, give the IRS more resources for enforcement - that will have greater effect than giving every neighborhood snoopervisor access to my tax return.
But, I guess if Mr. Appelbaum really feels strongly about this, he could make a start by posting his own tax return on-line.
95
@Gary R
I agree 100% with what you say. Beef up the IRS with the most modern supercomputers to tackle the job of starting the process and then make sure IRS Employee salaries are high enough to attract the best and brightest to examine what the computers flag. Also pay them enough so they can’t be bribed outright or with the temptation of going to the private sector. Make a career at IRS something agents want and we will all benefit!
5
My wife and I used to work for a state government which made all salaries public. While this gave rise to much envy, it also resulted in a great deal of pressure on managers to insure that salary differences were justified, and overall probably produced better results. However, that was before everything became available online; today making this information available would be an open invitation to all of the world's phishers, scammers, and ripoff artists.
11
@JohninPortlandia In many states, such information about public employees is publicly available online.
@JohninPortlandia all government salaries, both federal and state, are public.
Mr. Appelbaum notes that "local governments disclose the name of the property owner, the value of the property and the amount of taxes owed and paid." This is not the case in many Australian jurisdictions, where the ownership and value of property are protected from casual public scrutiny.
4
Requiring publication of who asked for or looked at the number is meaningless. Immediately companies will be formed to act as proxies, ask for the information, and convey it to the real inquirer who will be hidden.
10
An interesting idea but it would fail to achieve most of the stated objectives.
"Income" and "income inequality" miss the point at both ends of the spectrum.
At the high end, many wealthy people can decide when to realize income. If you own lots of financial and other assets and don't take a salary, you can have near zero "income" (in the taxable income sense) in a given year merely by withdrawing cash savings. Use tax-advantaged accounts to hold assets that generate high returns and defer reaping capital gains on taxable assets. Pick and choose years to realize income when you have offsetting deductions.
Using these strategies, the "mass affluent" business owner or retiree can skate by with less than $100K of income in most years even though she has a net worth of $10MM.
So disclosing taxable income won't capture this.
And at the other end of the spectrum, in my state the value of the transfer payments package -- free housing, medical, food, education, transportation, child care -- totals roughly $40,000/year for a single non-working mom with one child. These items don't flow through to her tax return, which will show much smaller taxable income, if any.
So in my town, a retiree with a net worth of $10MM may have economic income (returns on assets) of $600K but will have taxable income of only $50K. And a non-working mom will have economic income of $40K and taxable income of zero.
If we're going to move to disclosure, let's do it better.
8
@Stuck on a mountain
Where is anyone getting "free" housing and food? Free childcare and transportation? As to public education that goes to people at all levels so why should it be called income for a poor person?
And then there is the wealthy person who theoretically has no taxable income. If so, how do they pay for housing, food, clothing, private school education, etc. Not everything is a write-off. Where does the money come from for Melania's $51,000 jackets and other designer clothes? If the Trump family eats a lot of meals at Mar-a-Lago and don't pay, how come that isn't a form of income? And, now with SALT tax deductions limited, Trump can't write off the real estate taxes on his 3 story penthouse can he? And somewhere the Alternative Minimum Tax is supposed to hit more than the upper middle class!
7
@Julie Carter
1. Look at the public housing advertisements in your community. Rent is set at a stated percentage of income. Zero income, zero rent. If you're skeptical, consult with Section 8 public housing experts about how they handle "zero income" applicants.
I could go through the same demonstration with each category of public assistance, but in the interests of space I'll stop with housing. The outcome is the same with all of them!
2. Imagine you need $100K/year to pay your living expenses and you have $1MM in a bank account. The $1MM is savings from long-ago jobs. You also own $5MM of stocks and bonds in your IRA and $4MM of undeveloped real estate. The $9MM of assets (stocks, bonds, undeveloped real estate) won't produce any taxable income. The dividends, interest and gains (say $300K/year) will accumulate untaxed in the IRA. The undeveloped land will appreciate over time (say $100K/year) but there is no taxable income unless you sell it.
The $1MM of taxable account savings may produce $20K in interest income if it's in a short-term deposit. And you can withdraw any or all of the $1MM tax free.
So, you can take out $100K a year to pay your living expenses, tax free, and watch your other assets grow, tax free. You'll report only $20K in taxable income.
4
If you publish your tax return, most of this will be captured.
Under the law, the general rule is that our tax returns are confidential. The law, 26 USC 6103, includes many common sense exceptions. But for you and me confidentiality is absolute.
Filing tax returns is the most onerous obligation the government imposes on the people. And compliance is essential to collecting revenue.
Most of us don’t tell anyone how much we earn, our total medical expenses, the earnings of any small business we run, how much our mortgage costs, the value of our homes, how much we donate in charity and to what causes, how much we give our kids for college, and so on and so on.
The theory behind 26 usc 6103 is that honoring our privacy makes it far more likely that we will truthfully report financial information that we consider to be no one else’s business. As far as I’m concerned that’s just common sense.
31
Definitely, it is not, because it allows you to claim what you are not. It is also difficult to measure yourself against everybody else. And of course, the disclosure helps to understand the source of wealth of many people. There are a number of advantages to know the economical situation of people, especially men in the power. Nordic countries do it routinely, and sky is not falling
6
@michjas
As a small business owner I do not dare to let my competitors know the state of my business. I also do not dare let my employees know how well or poor my business is doing. If my business doing well for a short period of time before it gets bad (up and down cycle), they think I am paying them too little, if my business doing poorly, they get nervous and start to bail on me by looking for a job elsewhere.
This article is ridiculous to the extreme.
3
@howard wang
In other words, capitalism sucks.
Cooperation, not competition, is the key to the future.
1
There are just so many things wrong with this idea. First of all, what’s the point? Really, it’s going to reduce inequality? Now that citizens are considered consumers first, this will open everyone up to targeted sales pitches. Elderly people would be exposed to even more scams. And I make so little money that it would be humiliating.
23
@Oliver I get the feeling the opinion writer is trying to say that it's not fair for only politicians to show their taxes, everyone should. I yawn at that because we all know that the IRS is already looking at all of us who have boring tax returns, the only people who would be interested in ours would be our neighbors and employers so they could gossip. It is different for leaders of the country, we need to see what their money was spent on, was there an unusual amount that came from foreign countries. It is very easy to see the difference and why, but we will be bombarded by people who cry foul.
6
I totally disagree. It helps people to understand where the majority of wealth is coming. It will help to figure out what are average salaries in the field are, which is very helpful in salary negotiations, not to mention the knowledge of financial situation of politicians (where their money come from). As matter of fact, I don't see any down side of it. Elderly people will get schemes? They are targeted anyway, not because their income but because they are old. Actually, disclosure of income may deter some schemers. Who needs the risk for a little in return.
6
I like the idea some states are putting into place to make presidential candidates show their taxes before they can be placed on the ballot. Kudos to Illinois for passing this. As far as everyone else having theirs made public, I was credit checked, and drug tested before my last job, I was finger printed at the DMV to get a drivers license, I don't have any secrets, why shouldn't a presidential candidate be held to the highest standards?
177
Taxes can be public when the tax system is no longer a detailed system for regulating the minutia of Americans personal lives.
My personal health expenditures, for example, are not my neighbors business. Just tax income without complex deductions, exclusions etc, and then we can discuss this.
13
Well I sure believe that anyone who runs for office asking us (taxpayers) to trust him/her with decisions about our finances should be required to disclose their business dealings and taxes. Even the town alderman who has the ability to raise our local taxes or give a big break to some corporation should make us confident he is not doing so for his own gain. And no, I don't think this will make honest folk less likely to run for public office; that ambition is in the bloodstream of many!
8
I would suggest that we can maintain a fair amount of privacy while accomplishing many of the author's goals by just publishing the dollar amount of income taxes paid by each person. Except at the very top of the income brackets - where capital gains and other loopholes make a difference - taxes paid correlate highly with income, but there's enough variation that no one's precise income would be revealed.
Previously on these pages I've suggested that there should be an "IRS 400" published to compete with the Forbes 400. That is, the 400 individuals with the highest amount of taxes paid each year should be listed in order from most to least. I suspect a few wealthy liberals might be embarrassed by the disclosure of how little they pay. (I'd add Trump, but he may not be on the list and wouldn't be embarrassed anyway.) But this would be a good way to start.
5
@J. Waddell
And wealthy conservatives wouldn't be embarrassed at all when people found out how they game the system to pay very little.
4
@J. Waddell
Why do you conservatives always imagine that all liberals are rich, and then turn around and accuse us of doing the same thing to you?
Rich people don't avoid paying taxes because they are in a political party. They avoid paying taxes because they CAN.
1
That will be very educational to people when they are considering whom they want to vote for.
I wouldn't mind the publication of gross income, net income, and tax paid. The whole tradition of keeping income secret was invented by employers to keep employees from finding out they're underpaid, not only in groups, like the women cited, but individually, for people bad at negotiation.
But, first of all, not the Social Security number. And also, as another reader said, not what nonprofits got my charitable contributions.
I am vividly remembering the Mad magazine article noting that Al Capone was finally arrested not for murder but for tax evasion, suggesting that he would have been happy to pay tax but not to report the sources of his income, and proposing a new form 1040X (yeah, I know there already is one with than name) that just had blanks for your name and how much tax you're paying.
9
Honestly, is this serious? Should there be no end to the invasion of privacy by publicity? And does Mr. Appelbaum have an affection for satire and put-on that's not evident in his bio?
Making a declared political candidates's tax records available, that's at least a debatable topic. But making everyone's income and tax filings available? How does that improve our democracy?
143
I don't understand why your financial situation should be private. You drew your income from public sources: salaries, public benefits, interest, capital gains and etc. You claim the Government allowed deductions, why should not we know how you get your income and how much you pay in taxes. If anything else, it will allow people to learn what kind of deduction they could claim
9
How does it hurt it?
3
@yulia
What are you talking about drawing income from public sources? I thought private parties (individual or business) pays into the public system. Are you aware of jobs and business exist outside public sphere?
12
A national sales tax, and that as the only national tax gets lobbed into the fray every once and a while. The argument being that taxes get paid and nobody needs knows where your money came from. Definitely an attractive attribute when taxes are essential. The IRS is the treasurer and that's all. Watcha think?
No. It’s regressive and absolutely unfair to low income individuals.
11
@Richard Drandoff
Especially because the wealthy shop abroad and then get all their VAT back when they leave the country!
2
I don't want my tax returns made public. Although author makes some good points – salary parity and such – I think a lot of it could be done through other means that are less privacy-destroying to individuals.
10
Why will the disclosure of your finances destroy you as an individual, unless you are living in a palace and yet claim public assistance?
3
Absolutely not. My taxes aren't anyone's business.
120
Your taxes are the government’s business. The US government is the American people‘s business. That makes your taxes the business of your fellow American citizens. (It is true that in America these days we don’t exactly have what we could call government by, of, and for the people, but we should.)
189
@John Keyser -- No, they are the business of the IRS, but very specifically not of the FBI, DEA, Homeland Security, or anyone else. In fact, it is a felony to give it to them, one the IRS takes very seriously.
It is called the 5th Amendment, against self incrimination. That is important too.
21
If the government shows due cause, they may also monitor my phone and my mail. Even then you have no right to piggyback on that surveillance.
3
Imagine the potential that on-line access to the most profitable marks would provide. The quietly rich would be exposed, trumpeted to the scam artists and shysters. That guy who keeps calling to tell me to call back because I am named in some pending legal/tax/paternity/timeshare problem would hone his message and redirect it to the most effective targets.
You think it fair and reasonable that all should be made public; you assume that all are fair, and that is not reasonable.
"income taxation is an act of government, not an aspect of private life."
why may it not be both? I delegate to the government the authority to do all sorts of things, including to collect taxes. I expect to understand the policy, I expect that it will be designed in a manner which I consider fair and reasonable, and I expect that the policy will be transparent so that I can test that assumption ... but I never expected them to reveal my financial details to the grifters and drifters.
There are government agencies who have the authority and responsibility to investigate my taxes - and the President's. These are necessary safeguards that are already in place; they are necessary ... and sufficient.
My privacy was not delegated to the government.
108
@Gerard
And will that include all government officials?
1
@Robert Koch
Yes, Congress may investigate the taxes of any individuals including government officials - was that your question?
@Gerard - how do you know that the safeguards are sufficient?
It seems weird that the Times would, while doing a whole series lambasting the decline of privacy, publish an op-ed calling for an end to privacy of tax returns.
327
Because how you make your money does affect the whole society, contrary to other aspects of your life like sexual preference. Finances is a interface how individual interact with society, and therefore there are two sides: individual and society
4
@yulia
Similarly what you consume and dispose of affects us all. We are more interconnected than just by money. Let's see it all?
1
@Will
It's an op-ed. The NYT presents all kinds of views it does not endorse. I completely disagree with the op-ed, but it fits in well with discussions about privacy decline.
5
Making both income/tax records public as well as showing "who is snooping around" would seem to be counter productive. Many might be curious about another's income or taxes paid, but also be loathe to have that person (and others) know that we looked.
1
And how it will be counterproductive if each person can imaging himself in both position? I would guess it will make everybody more mindful.
1
@Anne-Marie Hislop
It seems a good check and balance to me. You want to know? You better have your reasons, and be prepared to argue them in public.
2
I don’t want my tax return made public. I don’t want my kids, friends, clients, enemies, fraudsters seeing my business. Make politicians release. I’m not running for anything.
347
@Douglas Evans
And parents, siblings, relatives, childhood friends, etc, etc.
This is why Trump will win. Far left scares me much more than the low life Trump. Far left also reminds me of my youngers years living and working in Communist China. I have been a US Citizen since 1990 and I can't explain why in the world I was a democrat, I guess Bill Clinton deserved my votes. But look now: Sanders, Warren and God knows how many others sound and act worse than today's "Communists" in China.
It is sad that the best choice in this country may be in Trump.
19
Read the article! It’s not about making anyone’s returns public. Just name and amount of taxes you paid. Just like property taxes in most states.
Merhinks those protesting so much maybe aren’t paying their fair share.
I think it’s brilliant!
42
@Agarre
If you live in a rough neighborhood and paid $100,000 in taxes one year, all your neighbors will think you’re wealthy, even if it’s a one off event. You will be a target.
I have children who I have an obligation to protect. I don’t want my neighbors knowing more about me than they can already find online or I care to share in person.
20
How much electronic identity theft was going on in 1924? Maybe there are more drawbacks to making all tax returns public than the author has considered.
132
Redacted versions one should expect.