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

271–280 of 405 posts

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

#271

Post by whatusername »

spoonie wrote: post #262
virmundi wrote: post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It's the same in Canada: different sales tax/VAT rates in different provinces on different goods. E.g. HST on clothes in Ontario but no tax at all on clothes in P.E.I. I think it does have a lot to do with the federal system. The UK is unitary, so there is a flat 20% VAT on everything taxable, which is included in the sticker price. I wonder if Australia includes tax?

The Australian GST is national and included in the display price of all good sold.

(There are some goods - eg Fresh Fruit and Vegetables - that are exempt from it -- but if GST is applicable - then it is included in the displayed price)

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

#272

Post by [deleted] »

paulddraper wrote: post #223
barrkel wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, I don't think he is at all. Linearly proportional taxes are regressive both because of the declining marginal utility of income, and the lower proportion of income that's discretionary at the bottom end of the income distribution.

I guess I don't know what regressive means anymore. It doesn't mean the poor pay more. It doesn't mean the poor pay more proportionally to income...

[deleted]

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

#274

Post by saosebastiao »

thomastjeffery wrote: post #180
KZeillmann wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

The problem is that a corporation is legally defined to be the same as a person. A corporation has the same rights that a person does. Spending money is legally equivalent to speech. Because of those two simple legal precedents, a corporation's right to lobby is literally protected by free speech.

I don't see the problem with corporations being equatable with people. They are composed of people. Just like unions, nonprofits, social clubs, political parties. Making money is their interest, but there is nothing criminal (or even morally wrong) about that.

The reason why corporations have disproportionate political power compared to other forms of human organization is because we fund elections via private donations, endebting our representatives to their donors before their constituents. And whoever controls the most money gets the most representation in our government. It should be possible for politicians to tell major corporations to fuck off without endangering their election, but it isn't. So even the most well meaning politicians take the money, give them a few votes on their pet issues, and then try to make the best with what's left.

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

#275

Post by spinlock »

toomuchtodo wrote: post #244
MaysonL wrote: post #233

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which is why the government borrows the SS and Medicare tax payments to use on other stuff and puts IOUs in the SS and Medicare trust funds.

The US government lends itself SS and Medicare funds because there is no safer asset class than US treasuries.

Bullshit. The government bond traded for SS and Medicare funds is not sold on the open market. It has got zero to do with the risk free rate of return. The government can default on all SS and Medicare payments without affecting any bond holders.

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

#276

Post by bluejekyll »

dboreham wrote: post #231
baudehlo wrote: post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I'm familiar with the UK system too. It is possible to get closer to it in the US than most people realize. For example you can calculate the correct tax to withhold and instruct your employer's payroll people to do so. Most people seem to not know this or nor care and as a result end up over withholding and the resulting "refund". It is perfectly possible to end up with roughly correct tax withheld although you do o…

You need to be careful with this though, if you underpay throughout the year by too much, you will end up both owing and potentially have a tax penalty.

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

#277

Post by mtgx »

jkaptur wrote: post #116
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".

Yeah, I don't buy it. A complex government seems the opposite of a small government (which presumably is lean as well).

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

#278

Post by mtgx »

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…

That's got to be one of the dumbest arguments I've heard against something. So I wonder if the politicians really "fell for it", or they were just looking for an excuse that sounds good enough that they can use to tell their constituents as the reason they voted that way, and not because they took all that money from the lobbyists.

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

#279

Post by toomuchtodo »

spinlock wrote: post #275
toomuchtodo wrote: post #244

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The US government lends itself SS and Medicare funds because there is no safer asset class than US treasuries.

Bullshit. The government bond traded for SS and Medicare funds is not sold on the open market. It has got zero to do with the risk free rate of return. The government can default on all SS and Medicare payments without affecting any bond holders.

TL;DR Bondholders can go to zero. Special notes will not.

> The government bond traded for SS and Medicare funds is not sold on the open market.

https://www.stlouisfed.org/publications/regional-economist/j...

"Government debt of the United States is typically issued in the form of U.S. Treasury securities. These securities—simply called Treasuries—are widely regarded to be the safest investments because they lack significant default risk. Therefore, it is no surprise that investors turn to U.S. Treasuries during times of increased uncertainty as a safe haven for their investments. This happened once again during the recent financial crisis. In fact, the increase in the demand for Treasuries was sufficiently large so that prices actually rose with an increase in the supply of government securities."

http://www.cbpp.org/research/social-security/policy-basics-u...

"The Social Security trust funds are invested entirely in U.S. Treasury securities. Like the Treasury bills, notes, and bonds purchased by private investors around the world, the Treasury securities that the trust funds hold are backed by the full faith and credit of the U.S. government. The U.S. government has never defaulted on its obligations, and investors consider U.S. government securities to be one of the world’s safest investments."

https://www.ssa.gov/oact/progdata/fundFAQ.html

"By law, income to the trust funds must be invested, on a daily basis, in securities guaranteed as to both principal and interest by the Federal government. All securities held by the trust funds are "special issues" of the United States Treasury. Such securities are available only to the trust funds.

In the past, the trust funds have held marketable Treasury securities, which are available to the general public. Unlike marketable securities, special issues can be redeemed at any time at face value. Marketable securities are subject to the forces of the open market and may suffer a loss, or enjoy a gain, if sold before maturity. Investment in special issues gives the trust funds the same flexibility as holding cash."

Special issues are literally more valuable than gold, backed by the taxing authority of the US government.

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

#280

Post by cel1ne »

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…

It this not usual in the US? :O
Post reply on HN