[Congressional Record Volume 161, Number 53 (Tuesday, April 14, 2015)]
[House]
[Pages H2200-H2201]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                              THE TAX CODE

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 6, 2015, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Jolly) is recognized 
for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader.
  Mr. JOLLY. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity tonight to 
address my colleagues, to address the American people on the eve of one 
of the most concerning days for many Americans, that of tax day, April 
15.
  My previous colleague alluded to measures that we will bring up this 
week on behalf of the American people, and I look forward to having an 
honest and constructive debate about the bills this week, our national 
tax policy.
  But listen; this is a very human and uniquely American moment this 
evening, as many people are overwhelmed with the deadline that they 
face tomorrow to submit their taxes. I think it is safe to say that an 
appropriate word of many Americans this evening and into tomorrow is 
one of resentment.
  There is resentment for many reasons. For many, it is simply the 
complexity of our Tax Code, that today, in 2015, our Tax Code is so 
complex that many people struggle with compliance or, for those with 
resources, have to turn around and spend their hard-earned resources to 
hire a professional simply to understand the laws and the Code that we 
have implemented here in Washington, D.C. For others, the resentment is 
about the amount of taxes they pay, and this is across all income 
spectrums. The resentment is related to the fact that they question how 
their taxpayer dollars ultimately are resourced, are spent, are 
obligated by this body.
  Some studies have shown that as recently as 2012 over $100 billion 
was spent in the areas of waste, fraud, and abuse--taxpayer dollars, 
not Washington's dollars, but taxpayer dollars that we each remit 
responsibly to our government, that we entrust our government to spend 
wisely, responsibly, to invest in the right priorities for the Nation, 
but also to ensure that the business of government runs exactly as 
that, as a business, an efficient business. So there is frustration by 
many people. And yet, even worse, the system is designed today to 
obfuscate responsibility.
  Think about it. We live in a generation today where, for the majority 
of Americans, your taxes are withheld from your paycheck. The 
generation that enters the workforce today simply knows that if they 
are to be paid $100, it is not really $100, that there is money taken 
out of it. That wasn't always the case. Until World War II, we didn't 
withhold. In fact, it was in 1943 when Congress passed and the 
administration enacted the Current Tax Payment Act that began to 
withhold.
  Now, there are a lot of arguments to be made for why we withhold--
ensure the responsible flow of taxes to government--but understand what 
that very simple measure did. It began to slowly remove the American 
taxpayer, the American citizen, from the actual act of remitting, of 
paying for the government that they have. It made it slightly harder to 
recognize the responsibility that the money that is being sent to 
Washington every time there is money withheld from your paycheck, that 
in fact that is the taxpayers' money.
  Instead, we have generations that have come up just assuming that you 
are paid $100, but you only get $80 or $90. Well, that is just the way 
the system works and there is money coming out of it, as opposed to 
making that $100 and having to remit a check to your government and 
then hold that government responsible.

                              {time}  1830

  I know this sounds like a crazy notion in 2015, but it is an 
important context for the conversation we have in terms of the amount 
of taxes that are placed upon the American people and the expectation 
for the level of responsibility of our government to actually spend 
those resources.
  This is a very real conversation. This was brought to me just last 
evening by a woman who owns her own firm, her own practice, and is 
married to a husband who likewise owns his own firm, his own practice.
  Now, in that situation, this couple is responsible actually for 
writing that check, for paying what we call estimated taxes each 
quarter, and then, at the end of the year, reconciling whether they 
paid enough or not. For that couple, it is a very real experience.
  It is very different from a majority of Americans who are employed by 
an employer, and, in fact, the money is withheld because, for that 
couple, every quarter--every quarter--they have a conversation around 
the kitchen table about the amount of taxes that they are sending to 
their government, the amount that they are resigning over to government 
and what they expect in services in return. That creates a certain 
efficiency, a certain accountability. It is a very interesting 
question.
  Mr. Speaker, it also leads to how much should that check be that this 
couple writes in estimated taxes? This is an area of broad debate, and 
it can be a constructive debate. What is the right marginal tax rate is 
something that people of differing political positions obviously have 
deeply held convictions.
  I can tell you this, though: we live in a world where the average 
American is subjected to multiple taxing authorities. Consider this: we 
often think in this body only of your Federal marginal income tax rate 
and the contribution that individuals make to Social Security and 
Medicare and other mandatory programs.
  In Washington, you might have a debate that focuses solely on what is 
the appropriate marginal tax rate. Well, in State capitols around the 
country, you have State governments having that same debate, but there 
is a gap.
  Rarely would Washington ever consider what is the State tax 
obligation in a specific State, and rarely would a specific State worry 
about what the marginal tax rate is of the Federal

[[Page H2201]]

Government and then extrapolate that out to taxing authorities at the 
local and municipal level, your school board, your water authority, 
energy taxes, utility taxes, and car taxes.
  Mr. Speaker, think about all of the taxes that a single individual is 
responsible for paying; yet we have no tax ombudsman that represents 
the taxpayer before all of these taxing authorities.
  We have no collective assessment of what is the total tax burden of a 
single individual, not just from Washington, but from your marginal 
income taxes to your mandatory contribution to entitlement programs to 
your State taxes to your sales taxes to your water taxes, utility 
taxes, school taxes, and car taxes. What is that total tax burden?
  On the eve of April 15, I think it is appropriate to have a 
conversation about what is the total tax burden that any one individual 
should be subjected to, not the marginal income tax at the Federal 
level, not whether it should be progressive or flat, not whether it 
should be simpler, fairer, or flatter--which, certainly, I think every 
Member of this body would agree to--but what is the total tax 
obligation that any one individual should be subjected to?
  Ultimately, Mr. Speaker, taxes, fiscal issues, tax issues, are 
freedom issues. How much do we as government collectively, of all 
forms, ask for an individual to resign over to government to make 
decisions for them? That payment of taxes, that resignation of 
resources by the individual to a governing authority, those taxing 
issues are actually freedom issues. How much does it leave for the 
individual to have discretion as to the decisions they get to make for 
themselves?
  I have actually introduced legislation, H.R. 144, called the 
Alternative Maximum Tax. It is a very simple proposition. It says that 
no one individual should have to give to government collectively more 
than they get to keep for themselves.
  Think about it. What is the moral justification for why in the United 
States, this great land of liberty, this country that was founded on 
the notion that freedom is granted not to government to be disbursed to 
individuals, but freedom is granted by our Creator to our individuals, 
and as individuals, we get to decide how much liberty we resign over to 
government?
  If that is the case, if our Nation was founded on this remarkable 
notion that freedom is first granted to the people, how can anybody, 
how could we ever argue that an individual should then have to resign 
over more than half of their income, more than half of their resources, 
to government collectively?
  Now, understand, this isn't simply a conversation about the marginal 
tax rate at the Federal level. This is saying from State to local to 
Federal to water district to utility district, what is the total 
taxation of any one individual? That ultimately is a freedom issue.
  The legislation I introduced actually does exactly that. It says an 
individual is able to add up every single one of these taxes, and, if 
they hit a threshold of 50 percent, they hit a maximum tax. We have an 
alternative minimum tax in the country.
  It says if you fully comply with our Tax Code and you qualify for tax 
deductions and tax credits, but Washington decides you didn't quite 
contribute enough, then we are going to hit you with an alternative 
minimum tax and say: Too bad, we don't like your math; we need more 
money from you.
  Well, why don't we have an alternative maximum tax to protect the 
taxpayer? I will be honest with you. Marginal tax rates, as I 
mentioned, are something for political debate. I think 50 percent is 
way too high. I would like to see that number come down because I do 
believe it is a matter of freedom.
  This legislation, H.R. 144, I will tell you the political strategy 
behind it and the absolute transparency, it is to beg the question, to 
ask the question, the very simple question: Should any one individual 
have to give to government more than they keep for themselves? It is a 
moral question, I believe, in 2015.
  We also this week, in looking for solutions on behalf of the American 
people, will consider other commonsense proposals. One of them would 
make permanent the sales tax deduction. One in five Americans live in 
States that do not have an income tax but do have a sales tax. The 
State of Florida is one of them.
  For that one in five Americans, a sales tax deduction is very 
important. Think about it. Income taxes at the State level are 
deductible on your Federal tax return; but, if you live in a State 
that, instead of having income taxes has sales taxes, shouldn't that be 
deducted just the same?
  The principle behind a State income tax deduction on your Federal 
return is it is recognizing, as I discussed in the max tax, that if an 
individual is already paying and contributing a certain amount to their 
State for government operations, then it would not be appropriate to 
tax those dollars. We allow the deduction of State income taxes from 
your Federal tax return. We should likewise allow the sales tax.
  Now, Mr. Speaker, this is something that, unfortunately, does not 
have a permanent place in the Tax Code. Later this week, we will 
consider--and I believe the House will approve--H.R. 622, to make 
permanent the State and local sales tax deduction.
  We also will vote on H.R. 1105, which would ensure the elimination of 
the death tax--the death tax. Think about this. A nation that says you 
may have already paid money on your income, but the day you die and 
leave it for your family, your family has to pay another tax on that, 
it is as outrageous as it is insulting, and it is a very simple measure 
that we will consider this week to repeal that.
  We do have, across the country tonight, a lot of concerned and, 
frankly, angry constituents probably in every single congressional 
district. Tax policy and budget policies, we have seen, can be very 
divisive.
  As a Congress and as a nation, it is appropriate that we begin to 
have a national dialogue about how we can do better, how we can do 
better on behalf of the individual taxpayer because the current system 
doesn't work. We know that.
  There is a reason that everybody has different ideas about tax 
reform. Well, just as we should be doing on so many other matters in 
this Congress, let's bring a package to the House floor.
  Let the House work its will on behalf of the American people that we 
are elected to represent. Let's give voice to the American people that 
we represent and have an honest and constructive dialogue about the 
future of tax policy. We owe it to the American people to do our job.
  Mr. Speaker, on the night of April 14, when so many people are 
working tirelessly simply to comply with complex regulations and laws 
that have been enacted by this body through multiple administrations 
and multiple parties--no one party bears all responsibility--but we 
know we have burdened the American people tonight, so let us, as we 
consider these bills later this week, do our job on behalf of the 
American people and recognize this burden that has created such 
resentment.
  Moving forward, let's bring a tax package to the floor. Let's have an 
honest debate between the two sides of the aisle and do what is right 
on behalf of the American people.
  Mr. Speaker, I am thankful for the opportunity this evening.
  I yield back the balance of my time.

                          ____________________