Barking About Taxes
March 23, 2006
A funny story about the Netherland’s dog tax and the problems of enforcing the tax comes to us from Yahoo News (AP):
The Bruintjes family says a city inspector was barking up the wrong tree when he handed them an euro80 (US$97) bill for the Dutch dog tax.
The family insists it does not have a dog — only a barking doorbell.
It was the second year in a row the family had a run-in with authorities over their doorbell, which plays 15 different barking noises, Dutch media reported Thursday.
“Last year it was a huge effort to convince the inspector that we didn’t have a dog, and now it’s happened again,” Gerrit Bruintjes was quoted as saying by RTL Nieuws.
In the Netherlands, dog owners are required to pay the “hondenbelasting,” an infamous annual tax that is frequently evaded.
After pressing the doorbell and hearing the barks, the inspector in the city of Oldenzaal simply pushed a bill through the family’s mail slot. (Full Story)
Some might argue that a dog tax holds up to the “benefit principle” of taxation if revenue goes to provide services like dog catching or somehow deters the negative externality of dog waste and possible danger. But dogs also may generate positive externalities—protection of a house, or a more vital dog population providing police with a better choice of canines.
Regardless of how close the dog tax comes to the ideal of the benefit principle, enforcement is an obvious problem, as demonstrated in the article. But many taxes imposed in the United States also have similar problems. For example, many states impose excise taxes on illicit substances like marijuana, requiring drug dealers to stamp illegal substances with proof of taxes paid. Needless to say, compliance rates aren’t high.
Even portions of the federal income tax code have similar enforcement problems. For example, the code relies heavily on voluntary compliance in areas like charitable contributions—which experience has shown to have myriad compliance problems due to a lack of effective oversight.