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

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

#311

Post by pas » Thu, Mar 30, 2017, 9:13 AM UTC

quadrangle wrote: post #252

avmich wrote: post #242

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The money that you "pay" in federal taxes is just dollars that are deleted out of existence so that the dollars created by federal spending don't create inflation. Does it mean that taxation in another country is different than taxation in US? Especially in a country where local currency has a fixed exchange rate to US dollar? They presumably can't create money that easily.

Yes, it's TOTALLY different. The U.S. power globally is EXTREMELY tied to the use of the dollar internationally. Everyone else who uses dollars (or has currency pegged to the dollar) is under major economic control and influence of the U.S. Oil priced in dollars is huge. When the U.S. left the gold standard it was giant fuck you to all the countries who held dollars and could no longer exchange them for gold. The U.S…

No it's not. Don't spread bullshit.

Taxation works pretty much the same way everywhere. The central banks are separate entities in any modern state/economy/monetary zone. The federal and state/local taxes are the same. The federal government takes on debts like states. You might remember the brouhaha about the debt ceiling and the big sequester in the past few years.

The Bretton Woods system was doomed to fail anyhow, it was a nice try to help the non-US post-war economies, but obviously as soon as some problem arose in the US (looming rise in unemployment), the system fell apart.

The petrodollar thing is real, but it's not important. The US import-export is enormous, the trade with China/India and the EU has a lot more influence on the dollar than oil interests. (And thus conversely the US power structure won't use the US central bank to try to exert power, because it'd fuck up its own economy the fastest - because the US benefits the most from global trade.)

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

#312

Post by pas » Thu, Mar 30, 2017, 9:19 AM UTC

sooheon wrote: post #307

pas wrote: post #304

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's this thing called the economy, full of private entities, all transacting throughout the year, creating wealth, expanding the money supply, generating a bit of inflation, and so on. Yes, the fiscal multiplier is important, but simple problems like corruption (regulatory capture and federal/state/county/municipality contracts to clients) and (very) unequal accumulation of wealth leading to serious power inequal…

Expanding the money supply and controlling inflation are precisely the things the Fed does (with monetary policy, the fiscal multiplier is only part of it). Re: corruption and concentration of wealth, I see no reason why government should have a monopoly on that. The 2007 crisis, and Enron before it, and countless other scandals, are evidence of the former being rampant in capitalism. The observation that without exo…

The fiscal multiplier is the US budget (public spending, funded by taxes) set by Congress, doesn't have much to do with the monetary thing.

Private corruption is many orders of magnitude a smaller problem, because there the agent-principal problem is less relevant. Enron had shareholders, they were lazy, but it was their money. The voters in public elections are playing with others' money too.

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

#313

Post by masklinn » Thu, Mar 30, 2017, 9:36 AM UTC

joshuaheard wrote: post #151

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".

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!

> If people had to write a check every year, there would be outrage to the amount people are actually paying.

Historically the french have done pretty much that.

In fact it was even more painful as the historical method was to provide advance payments by thirds (IIRC the first two thirds would be based on your tax estimate, and the last one would be the net, or a reimbursement in case of misestimation) so you'd send the taxman a check 3 times a year (or go to the bank for a wire).

No more outrage than most anywhere else, just a lot of wasted time and necessity to plan for and remember to send your advance payments.

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

#314

Post by sooheon » Thu, Mar 30, 2017, 9:47 AM UTC

pas wrote: post #312

sooheon wrote: post #307

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Expanding the money supply and controlling inflation are precisely the things the Fed does (with monetary policy, the fiscal multiplier is only part of it). Re: corruption and concentration of wealth, I see no reason why government should have a monopoly on that. The 2007 crisis, and Enron before it, and countless other scandals, are evidence of the former being rampant in capitalism. The observation that without exo…

The fiscal multiplier is the US budget (public spending, funded by taxes) set by Congress, doesn't have much to do with the monetary thing. Private corruption is many orders of magnitude a smaller problem, because there the agent-principal problem is less relevant. Enron had shareholders, they were lazy, but it was their money. The voters in public elections are playing with others' money too.

My point is that fiscal policy is only part of the influence the government has on the economy, and likely the less important part. Monetary policy has far greater consequences for inflation and money supply.

How do you come the conclusion that gov't corruption is "orders of magnitude" worse? I see nothing quantitative in your reasoning. Voters in public elections are playing with others' money, as are lobbyists for corporate interests. Private corporations play with others' land sea and air regularly. It's a flawed system as a whole, agreed, but getting rid of government influence is not the answer, as that leaves the economically powerless truly and utterly powerless.

And it seems you don't have an answer to the accumulation of capital. Left to its own devices, any capitalistic system will concentrate and grow wealth at a faster rate than economic growth. This is why a countervailing force is necessary, whether in revolution or governance.

edit re the agent principal problem: you forget the vast majority of people who are too poor to be shareholders or board members anywhere. The only shares anyone is guaranteed in society (in theory) is the equal and inalienable share in governance amounting to 1 vote. I shudder at the thought of a future America where your votes are directly proportional to your wealth, and seats on the Board of Directors of the USA are bought.

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

#315

Post by kbart » Thu, Mar 30, 2017, 9:51 AM UTC

wkz wrote: post #305

I live in Sweden. Just a few days ago I audited and filed my returns for 2016, it took me about 2 minutes. 1. Go to skatteverket.se (IRS), enter your "personnummer" (SSN). 2. Open the BankID app on my phone, which contains an X509 certificate identifing me, issued by my bank. Enter my password to decrypt the cert's private key and sign the authetication ticket from skatteverket.se. 3. Audit my pre-filled returns. Con…

Similarly in Lithuania, it takes me few minutes as well:

1) Login to e.bank (I use mobile signature attached to a SIM card)

2) press link to a local "IRS" equivalent

3) check and confirm the prepared tax declaration (usually everything is already there)

During the whole process I have to enter my bank ID and PIN code once.

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

#316

Post by arethuza » Thu, Mar 30, 2017, 9:54 AM UTC

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".

So for ideological reasons government is regarded as bad in the US and to remind everyone of how bad it is citizens are forced to endure a painful process for paying money to the government to reinforce just how bad it is?

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

#317

Post by Radim » Thu, Mar 30, 2017, 9:55 AM UTC

quadrangle wrote: post #228

Radim wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The goal of all taxing and spending must be related to political goals. They aren't goals in and of themselves. What is the political value of taxing a flat percent instead of a progressive percent (let alone taxing a flat dollar amount)? The political value of progressive percentages is that it keeps the money supply stable without taking too much spending power away from the lower and middle income people where the…

A fundamental sense of fairness -- for reasons given above.

I understand that the "social contract" may dictate otherwise in practice (even ignoring arrogant self-declarations of "social value", coming from a communist East European country, I've seen enough of those). After all, we're just a bunch of primates.

But to pretend there's nothing bizarre about this group-above-individual arrangement, that the opposite is somehow a completely invalid or incomprehensible viewpoint, is a serious lapse of the imagination.

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

#318

Post by ryanwaggoner » Thu, Mar 30, 2017, 10:25 AM UTC

sandworm101 wrote: post #217

ryanwaggoner wrote: post #209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a weird critique. It's been phenomenally effective and is consistent with his worldview, so what difference does it make when he thought of it?

That he was a child is immaterial to the immature and radical nature of his idea. It is backstory, colour, to describe the stereotypical nature of the idea. That a child creates an idea doesn't mean that it is bad per se, but should give adults pause before signing up to it themselves. That the young are always more extreme than the old should be common knowledge.

I think that you just disagree with the idea, which is fine, but you might consider attacking it on its merits from the perspective of the people who agree with it, not have a meta-discussion about when it arose in his mind, how "immature" it is, etc.

Norquist, the Republicans who sign the pledge, and the voters who demand it all apparently think that it's a good idea, it's been effective from their perspective, and it's ideologically consistent, so having someone who doesn't like its outcome call it "extreme" and "immature" doesn't really mean anything. It's just another flavor of ad hominem attack.

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

#319

Post by ryanwaggoner » Thu, Mar 30, 2017, 10:27 AM UTC

baudehlo wrote: post #196

ksdale wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It's just assumed that the government is doing the right thing.

This strikes me as a recipe for disaster in the long run. For any group of people who have tremendous power, not just the government.

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

#320

Post by RobertoG » Thu, Mar 30, 2017, 10:34 AM UTC

sooheon wrote: post #314

pas wrote: post #312

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The fiscal multiplier is the US budget (public spending, funded by taxes) set by Congress, doesn't have much to do with the monetary thing. Private corruption is many orders of magnitude a smaller problem, because there the agent-principal problem is less relevant. Enron had shareholders, they were lazy, but it was their money. The voters in public elections are playing with others' money too.

My point is that fiscal policy is only part of the influence the government has on the economy, and likely the less important part. Monetary policy has far greater consequences for inflation and money supply. How do you come the conclusion that gov't corruption is "orders of magnitude" worse? I see nothing quantitative in your reasoning. Voters in public elections are playing with others' money, as are lobbyists for…

" I shudder at the thought of a future America where your votes are directly proportional to your wealth, and seats on the Board of Directors of the USA are bought."

That would be just business as usual. In most countries and until very recently, only the owners of property were allowed to vote. We forget that 'natural state' of things to our own danger.