Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Stanford Professor Loses Political Battle To Simplify Tax Filing Process

npr.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 405 posts

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

#111

Post by chrishynes »

pilom wrote: post #76
lsaferite wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Honest question, why is it batshit-crazy?

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…

Don't forget the other 7.65% social security and Medicare that his employer pays on his behalf.

So total tax burden for Joe now is actually over 20%... And 18% Fairfax would be much less regressive.

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

#112

Post by legulere »

chiefofgxbxl wrote: post #24

Just for thought: suppose the tax system became so simplified that only goods X, Y,and Z were taxed at rates a,b,c. You pay aX+bY+cZ in taxes per year. It would be easy for voters to campaign their politicians to lower tax rates and easily verify. Obviously in the real world there aren't 3 levers to adjust: there are probably thousands or tens of thousands. Apart from the lobbying, politicians may themselves desire t…

A counterpoint: not all countries are so obsessed with lowering taxes. It's hardly a topic in Germany for instance. At the same time the tax system is also pretty complex

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

#113

Post by cwkoss »

javajosh wrote: post #40
KZeillmann wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How do we "fix money in politics" without chilling free speech?

We put all candidates online, for free. They are not allowed to spend money on getting elected - although they can spend their time (generally speaking, sometimes studying, a particular problem, history, how other countries do it, etc). Citizens subscribe to individuals, and groups of individuals, that best reflect their views. Additionally, citizens will be exposed to views that are slightly or significantly differe…

Either the media can talk about politicians, in which case most election outcomes will be determined by press coverage (and your system would be ineffective). Or, the media is forbidden from discussing politicians, which has a chilling effect on free speech and journalism.

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

#114

Post by lsaferite »

pilom wrote: post #76
lsaferite wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Honest question, why is it batshit-crazy?

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…

But Susan still paid 3.5x as much in actual dollars. I guess I just fundamentally disagree with taxing my labor (or investing acumen). I'd be fully on-board with a high consumption tax though.

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

#115

Post by lacampbell »

beachy wrote: post #84
hnal943 wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think that's optimizing the wrong thing; people should be aware of the amount they are paying in taxes.

We're still absolutely aware of how much we pay (it's on your payslip). There's just no end of year filing process.

Painfully aware one might say, given how insanely high they are.

They at least usually shield the daylight robbery GST from us. Probably so we can sleep at night.

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

#116

Post by jkaptur »

avar wrote: post #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 peopl…

I think that a major component of Norquist's thinking is that the more painful people find taxes (including the process of calculating them) the more they'll support his agenda of "a government so small you could drown it in a bathtub".

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

#117

Post by ams6110 »

cestith wrote: post #102
ams6110 wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The point is that they are a symptom. The problem is the government and their inability to keep anything simple. And in reference to the original topic, taxes for people with one W2 and no other income are not complicated. You can complete a 1040EZ on paper in 5 or 10 minutes.

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

#118

Post by eigenman »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #79
noobermin wrote: post #20

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?

I don't think you can fix money in politics without unduly limiting free speech, and even if you do, those who call foul on political spending hold the power.

I think the only practical way to fix this problem is to remove the two party system which allows representatives to vote against the interests of their constituents except on the issues that strongly separate left and right. And the only way to remove the two party system is to remove the first past the post and move into some kind of proportional representation system. And that only takes constitutional changes...

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

#119

Post by paulddraper »

kenning wrote: post #56
rayiner wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's exactly why we have a proliferation of taxes and tax breaks instead of a simple tax system. Perform a thought experiment. Say we just have a straight 35% income tax. Now, say you need to raise additional revenues. Do you (1) raise the single tax; or (2) impose a new tax on some specific part of the economy? Option (1) gets everybody mad at you. Option (2) gets only a tiny number of people mad at you. Same thin…

Yeah but a flat tax would be extremely regressive. If you had a simple equation like tax% = x/4 + 10, where x is your tax percentile, politicians could loudly say that they wish to increase or decrease the slope of the line and people would know that increasing slope would mean a more progressive tax.

I think you are confusing flat tax (proportional) with poll tax (constant).

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

#120

Post by nsxwolf »

kenning wrote: post #56
rayiner wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's exactly why we have a proliferation of taxes and tax breaks instead of a simple tax system. Perform a thought experiment. Say we just have a straight 35% income tax. Now, say you need to raise additional revenues. Do you (1) raise the single tax; or (2) impose a new tax on some specific part of the economy? Option (1) gets everybody mad at you. Option (2) gets only a tiny number of people mad at you. Same thin…

Yeah but a flat tax would be extremely regressive. If you had a simple equation like tax% = x/4 + 10, where x is your tax percentile, politicians could loudly say that they wish to increase or decrease the slope of the line and people would know that increasing slope would mean a more progressive tax.

Let's just have a 1% flat tax, and if government needs more, they can use lotteries.
Post reply on HN