Live data from Hacker News

Stanford Professor Loses Political Battle To Simplify Tax Filing Process

npr.org

101–110 of 405 posts

Re: Stanford Professor Loses Political Battle To Simplify Tax Filing Process

#101
post #37

Correction: this proposal would not have simplified taxes (i.e., the California tax code). It would merely have simplified the filing of tax returns for the most common case, salaried workers receiving all of their income from a single source. Very big difference. HRBlock and Intuit are heavily vested in maintaining the current tax filing system. They are not, however, meaningful players in the attempts to rewrite th…

The entire tax-prep industry generates about the same revenues as Dunkin Donuts. The idea that it is a significant causal factor in keeping taxes complicated is preposterous.

From what I'm seeing, that's not right, and Dunkin Brands[1] makes roughly 20% of Intuit's[2] income. Regardless, the amount a company is willing to spend on lobbying is not only dictated by their income, but also by how much they stand to gain or lose. I think Intuit may see legislation that makes taxes easier for many people as the beginnings of a trend that could be an existential crises for them. Even if they were on par with a Dunkin Donuts, I could see how they would be much more willing to spend any potential profits to fight this.

1: http://amigobulls.com/stocks/DNKN/income-stament/annual

2: http://amigobulls.com/stocks/INTU/income-statement/annual

Re: Stanford Professor Loses Political Battle To Simplify Tax Filing Process

#102
post #23
post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I disagree on one point. Block and Intuit are also lobbyists against all sorts of code simplification programs. Anything that makes the filing process easier, and having fewer deductions and penalties available makes it easer, they are against.

The business of H&R Block and Intuit came about in response to tax code complexity, they did not create it.

Boeing didn't create the Air Force, either. Comcast didn't invent TV, cable TV, or the Internet. MADD didn't invent cars, alcohol, or DUIs. The DEA didn't invent drugs. Ruger didn't invent firearms. GM didn't invent the automobile. The UAW didn't invent factories or employment agreements.

I fail to see what being interested in the state of continued being of something has to do with having been the inventor.

Re: Stanford Professor Loses Political Battle To Simplify Tax Filing Process

#103
FWIW, here's an email I sent to Prof. Bankman last April:

---

I read with interest your letter about the Tax Filing Simplification Act of 2016, and your article "Simple Filing for Average Citizens: The California ReadyReturn." I agree that the tax filing burden on taxpayers is far too high, and I am encouraged that legislators are trying to do something about it.

But I am concerned about the details of actually accomplishing this given the complexity of the federal tax code, even for what appear to be "simple" situations. For the past five years I have volunteered with the IRS's Volunteer Income Tax Assistance program and helped low-to-moderate income taxpayers file their taxes. One of the first things I learned was how frequently a taxpayer's total tax is affected by factors other than what is on their W-2 or otherwise reported to the IRS. Examples include:

- complex calculations of "support" to determine whether a live-in relative is a dependent

- exact payments, and nature of payments, made to schools (generally not accurately reported on the 1098-T)

- business expenses

- which months the taxpayer had health insurance (often not reported correctly, or reported to a different person) and, if no insurance, whether an exception to the penalty applies

- what portion of the property taxes paid by the mortgage company on behalf of the taxpayer was for ad valorem taxes (the only kind that is deductible)

- what gambling losses are there to offset the gain reported on a W-2G?

- [litany of qualification questions for various education benefits]

- which exceptions apply to an early distribution from a 401(k)

Although each of these individually sounds like a corner case, my experience is that in aggregate a large percentage (perhaps more than half?) of the tax returns involved information that the IRS has no way of knowing.

So for advocates of IRS-prepared returns, of which I understand you to be one, I wonder what the response to these issues is? I can think of three:

1. The IRS should assume whatever results in the maximum tax liability, and it is up to the taxpayer to determine whether they can reduce their liability further.

2. The IRS should guess based on some combination of factors, and the taxpayer is responsible for verifying the guess (and is assessed penalties if they don't fix an incorrect guess?).

3. We should drastically simplify the tax code so these issues go away.

Each response has some obvious problems.

Anyway, this is just something that has been on my mind, so I hope you don't mind this email out of the blue to try to solicit feedback from someone who might have given the issue some thought.

---

He never responded, so I am still left wondering the same questions.

Re: Stanford Professor Loses Political Battle To Simplify Tax Filing Process

#104
post #94
post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The biggest argument against it is that it is incredibly regressive. Poor people generally spend higher percentages of their income on stuff where rich people save higher percentages of their incomes. So for example, Joe makes 51k/year but spends 50k/year. At the 23% tax rate that FairTax proposes, he pays $11.5k - a $2.5k "prebate". This works out to an effective tax rate of ~18% (with today's tax plan Joe's effecti…

> We basically are subsidizing investing and rich people are the biggest investors. What's wrong with subsidizing investing? Without investment in capital we'd all be subsistence farmers tending the fields for 12h a day. If some rich guy wants to make $100 billion and spend 1% on himself and 99% on improving the world for future generations through investment, that's great, no? I guess it comes down to whether you be…

It's not that subsidizing investing is bad. It's that we're subsidizing investing by shifting the burden to people who pay income tax.

If someone makes $100M by inventing an amazing product, and someone else makes $100M by earning interest on the fortune he earned from his mother, which of those behaviors do we want to encourage?

Earning money from investing is often a passive way of using money.

Re: Stanford Professor Loses Political Battle To Simplify Tax Filing Process

#105
post #29

I was pretty surprised to see Zoe Lofgren's name pop up as an anti tax filing simplification advocate. She's the rep from CA's 19th District which covers San Jose (but not the rest of Silicon Valley) and generally a straight down the line liberal. This is not even Intuit's core district -- that would Anna Eshoo's 17th (previously 14th) district which covers Mountain View and Palo Alto. As a resident of this district,…

[deleted]

Re: Stanford Professor Loses Political Battle To Simplify Tax Filing Process

#106

The problem I have with the popular "simplify" US tax proposals is that they mostly do it by repealing whole sections of the tax code, ending up super regressive and/or hurting the poor and middle class and helping the already rich. Flat tax @ a high rate: Neutral or slightly helpful to the rich, crushing to the poor and middle class Flat tax @ a low rate: Windfall to the rich, the resulting gutting of government pro…

Have you considered that the tax system shouldnt /help/ anyone? Trying to further social policy via taxation is about the least efficient way to do it.

Treat all income the same, do not allow deductions, charge a medium rate (10-25%), exempt the first 35-50k a year - no special rates for married filers (everyone files single), no deductions for dependents.

Eliminate corporate income tax entirely, replace with a VAT and a financial transactions tax (.25% of any transaction).

Re: Stanford Professor Loses Political Battle To Simplify Tax Filing Process

#107
post #83
post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They prefer regressive taxes, like sales tax I don't buy that. Yes, I know it seems logical, but in practice it's not so clear cut. With deductions, rich people end up paying very little for income tax. With sales tax (or VAT) the person spending more pays more, and it's more difficult to escape. This issue is very unintuitive and numbers tend to hide reality. Let me put an example on how numbers can fool us. In my c…

> With deductions, rich people end up paying very little for income tax You're utterly wrong. The wealthiest 0.001% paid 17.6% of their income in taxes in 2012[1]. That's not "very little" -- it's likely in the tens of millions per person . The top 1% paid even more than that. Some corporations will avoid income tax altogether, as will some small-business owners, but individuals still pay substantial amounts of incom…

My source of ire is that as someone who makes much much less, I paid closer to 22% of my income in taxes - how is that fair?

Re: Stanford Professor Loses Political Battle To Simplify Tax Filing Process

#108

I'm going to say this until I'm blue in the face: fix money in politics, and half of these issues will no longer be intractable.

A more important question I never see addressed is how you prevent "money in politics" from unfixing itself as soon as you're done with the fixing? Money and political influence are two sides of the same coin - power. Money gives more influence, which attracts more money, and so on, in a positive feedback loop. How do we break, or at least control, that loop? Is it even possible?

Decentralization of power.

For example, I'd love to see a progressive tax rate for corporations: companies' tax rates would be based on total revenue or profits. ex. If your company earns less than $50k/year, no taxes, 10% tax rate up to 250k, 20% up to $1M, 40% up to 10M, 50% on earnings over $10M.

This would provide a strong incentive to only maintain a large corporation if the value of your economy of scale exceeds the additional tax burden. Most companies would have an incentive to break up into many smaller subsidiaries. This would provide additional opportunities for competition, prevent profitable departments from being dragged down by executive mismanagement, and minimize the ability for power and wealth to be concentrated.

Would probably need some anti-collusion laws to make sure entities are truly 'separate' to prevent shell games. But I think it would be pretty useful if it could be implemented properly.

Re: Stanford Professor Loses Political Battle To Simplify Tax Filing Process

#109
post #80

California has the initiative system that means ultimately the voters can make changes to the system without involving a recalcitrant or corrupt legislature. For better or worse, many of the big changes in government in the state were enacted through this process. For example, proposition 13, which drastically changed property taxes, proposition 14, which moved the state to a "top two" primary system, proposition 11…

The initiative system is both what makes the state innovative, and makes it incredibly hard to govern.

Re: Stanford Professor Loses Political Battle To Simplify Tax Filing Process

#110
This whole thread is full of comments from people who obviously haven't read the article / listened to the podcast in question[1].

Joseph Bankman proposed ReadyReturn in California, which is the kind of tax return pretty much the entirety of the rest of the western world uses. I.e. instead of an empty return, it's pre-filled in with the details the government knows anyway. This vastly simplifies things for most people, especially those whose main income comes from working one job.

This was in no way a change to the tax system, or what taxes people had to pay. The government would just hand you a filled-in form instead of an empty one, so you could make corrections instead of filling it in from scratch.

It had north of 99% approval ratings by the people in the test groups for it, something unheard of when it comes to government programs.

As a parlor trick Bankman would carry around a thick binder with the feedback the program had received from taxpayers. When he wanted to convince someone he'd start paging through it and ask the person he was talking to to say "stop", to ensure he wasn't cherry-picking. He'd then start reading raving reviews of the program starting at that page, some in all-caps from people who couldn't contain their excitement.

It didn't make it into law, partly due to lobbying by the likes of Intuit, but more interestingly, I thought, because Grover Norquist, the well known promoter of the "Taxpayer Protection Pledge" took the counterintuitive view that just making the process easier equated to a new tax, since taxpayers might end up paying taxes already on the books that they might have previously unintentionally evaded.

That to me is the most bizarre detail about this entire story. It's likely that it would have passed if not for the strange interpretation of one man to this not-a-new-tax of it effectively being a new tax, and his ability to sway the Republicans due to the political power his "Taxpayer Protection Pledge" holds over Republicans.

1. http://www.npr.org/sections/money/2017/03/22/521132960/episo...

Post reply on HN