Stanford Professor Loses Political Battle To Simplify Tax Filing Process • Hacker News Board

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

#191

Post by Frondo » Thu, Mar 30, 2017, 1:14 AM UTC

mullen wrote: post #156

smt88 wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1) Campaigning is restricted to a short time period, perhaps 6 months. 2) Every candidate gets a (small) fixed budget, paid for by tax-payers. (This is already the practice in some countries.) 3) Ads are subject to the same laws that govern ads for products: say whatever you want, but you can be sued for lying. Any of those ideas sound good?

> 1) Campaigning is restricted to a short time period, perhaps 6 months. You can't do this without limiting Free Speech. > 2) Every candidate gets a (small) fixed budget, paid for by tax-payers. (This is already the practice in some countries.) Might be possible. > 3) Ads are subject to the same laws that govern ads for products: say whatever you want, but you can be sued for lying. Lying is Free Speech.

So limit free speech. It's already not absolute, never has been, never will be.

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

#192

Post by PhasmaFelis » Thu, Mar 30, 2017, 1:15 AM UTC

ams6110 wrote: post #117

cestith wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

They're a symptom that has just successfully lobbied to keep the disease going. At this point it's reasonable to say that they're actively helping to cause it.

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

#193

Post by virmundi » Thu, Mar 30, 2017, 1:15 AM UTC

megablast wrote: post #143

jkaptur wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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".

Which is also one of the big reasons the US is one of the few countries that don't automatically add on sales tax.

I thought that had more to do with the fractured taxing powers of the Feds, state and various local taxing authorities. For example Florida sales tax is 6%, but my county charges a 1% tax to provide sand road maintenance and paving. Pretacking is easy enough once in the stores, but somewhat odd when dealing with taxed and no taxes items.

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

#194

Post by hundt » Thu, Mar 30, 2017, 1:16 AM UTC

avar wrote: post #149

hundt wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not a stupid question at all. In practice the U.S. tax code is not quite as simple as "Here is the tax burden for your income level; tell us if you have any deductions." Right off the bat, you need to determine your "filing status" (single, married, head of household, and some less common options) from a list of five choices, each of which has different rules for all the calculations that follow. Furthermore, fo…

What you're saying makes sense, but doesn't at all jive with the reported 99% satisfaction rate in the pilot program. Wouldn't more than 1% have noticed an increased tax burden? Or perhaps the focus group wasn't diverse enough.

It sounds like the 99% satisfaction rate was "of the people who filed their taxes using ReadyReturn" so it presumably excludes those who observed, or suspected, that the result was not correct and made alternative arrangements.

That said, I will also admit that this article is really about California state taxes, which are substantially simpler for most people than federal taxes. I got off on a bit of a tangent because Prof. Bankman seems to claim that the same approach will work for federal taxes as well, and in general most people perceive these issues as linked: automatically prepared state taxes are seen as a step towards automatically prepared federal taxes.

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

#195

Post by Radim » Thu, Mar 30, 2017, 1:16 AM UTC

Aloha wrote: post #107

smt88 wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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?

Perhaps because in the end, you pay for stuff with dollars, not with percentages?

That whole game of playing with abstract fractional numbers is already massively progressive. I think people fail to appreciate how very bizarre this "accepted norm" actually is.

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

#196

Post by baudehlo » Thu, Mar 30, 2017, 1:17 AM UTC

ksdale wrote: post #161

fnordsensei wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right! We can't make the government less awful, because happy people might not show us the support we need for our cause to make the government less awful.

While I completely agree that the incentives seem absurd on their face, a counterpoint I have is that while I worked in a CPA office for several years, I came to realize that a lot of people really have no idea how much they pay in taxes. Many people seem genuinely grateful to have received a refund, not realizing that it was money previously removed from their paychecks. I have no idea what the correct policy would…

Most people in the U.K. (the only other place I have experience with) never file a tax return. It's just assumed that the government is doing the right thing. Taxes are taken at source for all things, and if you have things outside of the norm you can tell your employer about it and they'll take care of it.

Filing taxes was pretty alien to me. I'm used to it now, but it seems there are simpler ways.

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

#197

Post by fattire » Thu, Mar 30, 2017, 1:17 AM UTC

thebrettd wrote: post #12

I love this idea in theory, and basically revisit it every year during tax season. The tax/tax prep lobby is strong, and perhaps needfully so, as a whole bunch of people have their livelihoods wrapped up in it, but I often wonder if that whole industry is not actually a net negative for the economy. edit: How do we help this idea take flight?

Remember that every dollar spent on intuit, and every hour wasted struggling with bullshit tax forms (deliberately the status quo because of Intuit) means Americans can afford less time and money using your product and buying your services. That is, these billions of dollars and incaculable frustrations wasted by Americans to line Intuits' pockets are a drag on the overall economic activity-- less money circulating in the economy, less ability to buy from each other.

Fuck Intuit. They exist to make everyone's lives worse. But don't forget, the government forces them them to offer their software free for certain lower-income Americans:

https://www.irs.gov/uac/free-file-do-your-federal-taxes-for-...

No idea how much longer this will exist. I'm guessing it will soon quietly go away or be marginalized even more than it was in GWB's adminstration (when the income minimum was reduced significantly).

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

#198

Post by djrogers » Thu, Mar 30, 2017, 1:19 AM UTC

moomin wrote: post #78

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…

I'm going to argue something a bit different: the overall tax revenue is roughly equal to government spending. The complexity of the tax code is to some extent a distraction. It's complex, and has winners and losers, but ultimately you'd need to raise the same amount whatever you did. If you really want lower taxes, you need to be honest: you'll be taking that money from someone else. Even then, it's amazing how many…

> the overall tax revenue is roughly equal to government spending.

Not even close - spending FAR outpaces tax revenues. That's what the federal deficit comes from. Last year we got about $1.20 in spending for every $1 in taxes collected.

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

#199

Post by sandworm101 » Thu, Mar 30, 2017, 1:24 AM UTC

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…

Norquist's tax pledge is very literally the creation of a child. He came up with it as a kid and hasn't felt any need since to revisit the matter. It is the immature and radical thinking of a teenager not tempered by age or experience. That he is still trumpeting it speaks to his character too.

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

#200

Post by sandworm101 » Thu, Mar 30, 2017, 1:28 AM UTC

toomuchtodo wrote: post #169

joshuaheard wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it's also akin to the withholding tax. If people had to write a check every year, there would be outrage to the amount people are actually paying. Instead, they are grateful for the government "giving" them a tax refund!

I don't think so. 45% of Americans pay zero income tax, even accounting for withholding.

And sales taxes. And all sorts of fees to various governments. And parking tickets. And a host of fees associated with the criminal justice system. And lotteries/gambling. And and and. Nobody pays zero tax, except perhaps the most very wealthy "persons" (ie corporations) able to carry over bad years and write down previous losses/taxes against future income.