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

341–350 of 405 posts

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

#341

Post by zebrafish »

basseq wrote: post #337

I did some work for the IRS several years ago to explore the same idea. There are many benefits, including simplicity and accuracy of filing (closing the $500B tax gap), as well as better fraud protection (another $25B). Protectionism of the tax return industry is common, but not the primary reason. Instead, the biggest pushback is from taxpayer advocacy groups. The issue is this: for many Americans, particularly low…

Republicans as well are claiming that an automated tax return creates a passive tax payer, thus lessening the tax payers hatred of taxes and, in turn, the government.

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

#342

Post by andyspicer »

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!

Yeah, the psychology of that is fascinating. I don't give the bureaucrats credit for doing it for that reason though. I think they did it because they wanted the cash flow earlier. Nonetheless, it does a wonderful job at making people grateful that they've been given the gift of having a portion of the money that was taken from them returned.

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

#343

Post by mfukar »

mannykannot wrote: post #325
mfukar wrote: post #301

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. I just fail to understand the logic exercised by some US residents. Norquist's argument is insane, and if you're not only trying to b…

Welcome to Alternative Rationality, in which an argument is taken to be a sound one if it has the style of one. Like Alternative Truth, it has probably been around forever, but what seems to be changing is that the users of these techniques are no longer embarrassed by saying the most ridiculous things, and there is effectively no downside for a politician or lobbyist in doing so. I have heard that the US SAT essay t…

Does embarrassment really have to do anything with it? Whatever motivates somebody to lie is obviously stronger than shame.

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

#344

Post by BearGoesChirp »

pas wrote: post #306
spinlock wrote: post #275

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It shouldn't even have to hold bonds, it's a closed system, so why exactly? The Social Security system is funded by the current active population, and the beneficiaries are the inactives of past generations. Sure, it's great that in theory your payroll tax is converted into a bond, and then when you retire they sell it and pay you from that, but ... that's not what's happening in the big picture, because if there's s…

>The Social Security system is funded by the current active population, and the beneficiaries are the inactives of past generations.

You start looking at it hard and the pyramid shape begins to appear.

I'm young enough that I plan my retirement assuming 0 money from Social Security despite the vast amounts I pay in. I see it as wealth redistribution from the young to the old who are already better off.

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

#345

Post by RobertoG »

andyspicer wrote: post #339
RobertoG wrote: post #334

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, but there is money and there is money. Banks create an asset in their balance, but they create a liability at the same time. Only governments spending create net financial assets in the economy (that is not the same that real assets, of course). https://fernandonogueiracosta.files.wordpress.com/2011/08/cu... (If it's too long, see 'vertical transactions')

Don't cryptocurrencies break that model? They are financial assets in the economy that are not created or presently controlled by governments.

It depends on your definition of money.

From my point of view, cryptocurrencies are financial assets but not money. They are not an IOU (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IOU).

Government money is a IOU because you are promised that it (and only it) will be accepted as a payment by the state.

Anyway, state money can never be totally replaced at least that the government accept payment taxes in the new currency. And why people would start using other currency if they have to get the official currency for taxes payment?

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

#346

Post by sddfd »

Beltiras wrote: post #321
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'm a resident of Iceland. We have had this for our tax returns for at least a decade. We have had electronic returns for longer than that. All I had to do this tax season was add undeclared income and the expenses they incurred and sign with an electronic "key" password. Very soon they will mandate signing with our recently installed smart-phone enabled identity system (private key on a SIM).

We have the same thing here in Germany. It is good, but it could be much simpler, still.

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

#347

Post by laughfactory »

jrs95 wrote: post #86
kenning wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

If it had a standard deduction and all investment income was counted the same as wages, it might actually be more progressive than the current system, depending on the exact numbers. Payroll taxes are mainly what affects people at the lowest income levels.

I like this. I think our democracy (or whatever we've got now) will continue to crumble until and unless "we, the people" get a sense, individually, of the cost of paying for what we pay for, and our share of the cost. Until that happens there will be no honest discussions about what we really value and prioritize.

Your proposal would do that neatly. The system is way out of whack, lends itself to corruption, crony capitalism, rent seeking, and entitlement. We all have our favorite tax breaks (which is why it's been so hard to change), but we really need to get back to basics: every dollar you get is income taxed at some level, and everyone gets some standard deduction, and that's it. No weird industry tax breaks (because, arbitrarily, politicians decided we wanted more, or less, of a certain thing: cars, homes, solar, coal, etc...), just clear numbers we can grapple with.

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

#348

Post by laughfactory »

twblalock wrote: post #154
Zelphyr wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One of the aspects of The Fair Tax, which is basically a flat tax, is the idea of a "prebate" - a sum of money (between $4-7K if I recall) that is paid to each taxpayer every year to help cover the basics like bread and milk.

So it's not really a flat tax -- it's just a tax system with tax credits and fewer brackets than we have now. I'm sure there will be other popular proposals for tax credits and deductions: EITC? Charitable donations? Investment losses? Mortgage interest? If we adopt a flat tax, we will eventually turn it back into the same tax system we have now, for the same reasons we ended up with our current system in the first p…

I get your point, and I agree nothing short of something really catastrophic will drive any change. And then there will be pressures to corrupt it all over again. But imagine if it was a constitutional amendment. It wouldn't be impossible to pervert, but it would be harder than it is now.

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

#349

Post by toomuchtodo »

BearGoesChirp wrote: post #344
pas wrote: post #306

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It shouldn't even have to hold bonds, it's a closed system, so why exactly? The Social Security system is funded by the current active population, and the beneficiaries are the inactives of past generations. Sure, it's great that in theory your payroll tax is converted into a bond, and then when you retire they sell it and pay you from that, but ... that's not what's happening in the big picture, because if there's s…

>The Social Security system is funded by the current active population, and the beneficiaries are the inactives of past generations. You start looking at it hard and the pyramid shape begins to appear. I'm young enough that I plan my retirement assuming 0 money from Social Security despite the vast amounts I pay in. I see it as wealth redistribution from the young to the old who are already better off.

Can you provide stats about these old people who are already better off? Because most of them are just kept out of poverty by social security.

Just curious where you get your belief from since the data shows otherwise.

http://www.cbpp.org/research/social-security/social-security...

"Social Security Keeps 22 Million Americans Out of Poverty: A State-By-State Analysis"

"Social Security Lifts 15 Million Elderly Americans Out of Poverty"

"Social Security Lifts More Than 1 Million Children Out of Poverty"

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

#350

Post by laughfactory »

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 WERE a symptom, but now they actively work to protect their existence via lobbying against any simplifications and common sense changes to tax code. So I don't personally have any issue with how and why they came to exist in the first place, but I find it despicable that they actively work against larger society now. It's well-known that they lobby against simplification efforts, and why they do this.
Post reply on HN