Would You Let the I.R.S. Prepare Your Taxes? (2015) • Hacker News Board

Re: Would You Let the I.R.S. Prepare Your Taxes? (2015)

#361

Post by ams6110 » Mon, Aug 13, 2018, 11:32 PM UTC

dcosson wrote: post #203

gamblor956 wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The IRS has actually run trials like this in the past. Very successful, at least for simply W2-based returns, since most people's taxable transactions get reported by companies anyway (i.e., mortgages/interest, other income, etc.) and most people use the standardized deduction. Inuit and Quicken subsequently lobbied to end those programs and even bar the IRS from running similar programs...

There was an interesting Planet Money episode about this [0]. Apparently the lobbying by Intuit is actually fairly minor compared to the opposition by Republicans. Some group of Republican legislators came together and agreed to oppose all tax increases, and also agreed to oppose many types of tax simplification. The thinking being that the more painful filing your taxes is, the more people will have a negative perce…

> The thinking being that the more painful filing your taxes is, the more people will have a negative perception of taxes in general and be opposed to tax increases.

This is exactly the reason I do my taxes by hand on paper every year.

Re: Would You Let the I.R.S. Prepare Your Taxes? (2015)

#362

Post by jriot » Mon, Aug 13, 2018, 11:37 PM UTC

Symmetry wrote: post #277

curiousgeorgio wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nearly everyone I've talked to (on both sides of the political spectrum) agrees on this issue; if the IRS has the means to verify and audit the data, they might as well prepare the forms and just get authorization (+ any additional info they might be lacking) before tax returns are submitted. So how is it that lobbying alone is enough to persuade lawmakers to take the side of Intuit et al.? And which lawmakers are so…

There are also 1.2 million tax preparers in the US. I'm not going to vote for somebody who has the wrong opinion on, e.g., abortion just because they're going to make my taxes easier but if the change to taxes was going to eliminate my job I'd feel differently. Also, the complex nature of the US tax code means that the people who've put effort into gaming the system and the dishonest also stand to lose if move to a m…

You can't have a right or wrong opinion, its just an opinion.

Re: Would You Let the I.R.S. Prepare Your Taxes? (2015)

#363

Post by baddox » Mon, Aug 13, 2018, 11:39 PM UTC

addicted wrote: post #199

sokoloff wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’d love to see the end of payroll deductions and to make annual taxes due the Monday before Election Day. Doesn’t mean that we wouldn’t have taxes, but we’d have a tight temporal and psychological link between what we pay and the selections we make at the ballot box.

Actually, the correct temporal link would not be with elections but with choices you make to use publicly funded roads, breathe clean air due to public funded regulations, etc. That's the temporal connection that needs to be made. The idea that there is a whole host of politicians who want to increase taxes is ludicrous. No one campaigns on the basis of increasing taxes. Further, in most of the West, taxes have dropp…

Very little of the federal budget goes to those things you listed. State budgets may vary.

Re: Would You Let the I.R.S. Prepare Your Taxes? (2015)

#364

Post by BEEdwards » Mon, Aug 13, 2018, 11:44 PM UTC

seanmcdirmid wrote: post #305

s73v3r_ wrote: post #229

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I fail to see how this is an argument against making this an option, though.

Itemizing isn’t the only thing that makes taxes too difficult to do automatically.

Yes, but this isn't for the outliers who know they are outliers.

This is for the people who right now are paying some company to essentially and unnecessarily siphon off some of their tax money.

Re: Would You Let the I.R.S. Prepare Your Taxes? (2015)

#365

Post by wadkar » Mon, Aug 13, 2018, 11:56 PM UTC

masklinn wrote: post #219

ransom1538 wrote: post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is a straightforward answer: This is because the IRS would make less money. It is like a poker game. Their number can only be smaller than yours. If you go under their number they penalize you. If you go over their number they keep the difference.

> It is a straightforward answer: It's also patent nonsense.

Please refrain from name calling and personal attacks.

It would be really great if you can elaborate your point. For example, why do you think it is nonsense? What line of argument or examples can you provide to make your point?

Here’s an example:

@GP

Perhaps stating it as a fact sounds a bit too strong me. How did you come to realize this fact? Do you have any source or “experiential evidence” for stating it as a fact. Perhaps I misunderstood your analogy but I would be very happy to hear your full point.

Re: Would You Let the I.R.S. Prepare Your Taxes? (2015)

#366

Post by repiret » Mon, Aug 13, 2018, 11:56 PM UTC

s73v3r_ wrote: post #253

repiret wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If by 1099 you mean 1099-MISC, which is what I think most people mean when they say "1099 income" without an additional qualifier, then the IRS almost certainly has no idea what detections are available to you, and there may be taxable things that they don't know about either.

I'm willing that in the vast majority of cases they do, and the small minority of cases where they don't isn't a good enough reason to not do this. Especially because, if you do fall into that case, you can just file your taxes as normal.

If you get a 1099-MISC, you need to file Schedule C [1]. They can make a guess at line 1 based on the 1099-MISC, but none of the other lines come with a counter party filing forms with the IRS to give them hints.

I agree that most people who don't need to file Schedule C, who don't have investment gains or losses outside of tax sheltered accounts, and who don't pay for childcare while they work (Form 2441), and who don't have miscellaneous deductions (which include medical expenses and unreimbursed employee expenses if they exceed 2% of your income) could have the IRS correctly fill out their taxes for them. And thats a lot of people, and the IRS should do it. But the parent comment said "If you only have W-2 or 1099 income, the government already has all of the data," and my point is that unless they mean something weird by "1099 income," then thats wrong.

[1]: https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/f1040sc.pdf

Re: Would You Let the I.R.S. Prepare Your Taxes? (2015)

#367

Post by lutorm » Mon, Aug 13, 2018, 11:58 PM UTC

maxxxxx wrote: post #315

chimeracoder wrote: post #296

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The parent's comment still applies. If the progressive brackets were just swapped for a flat tax, the tax man still needs to know how much each employee had as deductibles, e.g. number of dependents, donations to charity, mortgage interest, etc. No, because the idea behind a flat tax is to eliminate most or all of those deductions, the same way they've already been eliminated for people who pay AMT instead of norma…

"No, because the idea behind a flat tax is to eliminate most or all of those deductions," Removing deductions has nothing to do with the tax curve. You could do that with the current curve and tweak it accordingly.

Sure it does, because if you have deductions, your effective tax rate isn't actually flat.

Re: Would You Let the I.R.S. Prepare Your Taxes? (2015)

#368

Post by forgotmypw » Tue, Aug 14, 2018, 12:26 AM UTC

newman8r wrote: post #13

forgotmypw wrote: post #10

I stopped filing my taxes starting in 2011 for 2010. I had always hated the process, but in 2010 I had switched jobs several times, and had misplaced one of the stubs mailed by an employer. I have almost always worked as an employee, not a contractor or business, so I did not owe money--they probably owed me. I decided that rather than get the couple hundred bucks I would receive as my return, I will forgo the stupid…

What do you mean by giving up income? Do you have a lot of money saved up or something?

I have gradually converted to a currency-free lifestyle. I don't use money for almost anything.

Re: Would You Let the I.R.S. Prepare Your Taxes? (2015)

#369

Post by briandear » Tue, Aug 14, 2018, 12:30 AM UTC

philwelch wrote: post #235

dcosson wrote: post #203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There was an interesting Planet Money episode about this [0]. Apparently the lobbying by Intuit is actually fairly minor compared to the opposition by Republicans. Some group of Republican legislators came together and agreed to oppose all tax increases, and also agreed to oppose many types of tax simplification. The thinking being that the more painful filing your taxes is, the more people will have a negative perce…

Most Republican "flat tax" ideas have tax simplification as a major selling point (e.g. Ted Cruz talking about filing your taxes on a postcard); if you can simplify the implementation of the existing tax schedule, you lose that selling point.

The problem is the existing tax schedule isn’t so clear. Depreciation of assets for example. By “simplifying” tax filing without simplifying the underlying calculations, there is far less public visibility of just how broken the tax system is. A flat tax is closer to good than our current system. People that oppose flat taxes do so because they want other people to pay more. It’s that simple.

See what Milton Friedman had to say about tax code complexity. TLDR: it gives politicians the ability to curry favor or punish and it’s the source of their real power. The power to tax is the power to destroy. A flat tax with a single standard deduction effectively declaws the government from being able to pick winners and losers based on from whom the campaign donations come.

Re: Would You Let the I.R.S. Prepare Your Taxes? (2015)

#370

Post by antidesitter » Tue, Aug 14, 2018, 12:37 AM UTC

s73v3r_ wrote: post #264

Karishma1234 wrote: post #222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I do not make any value judgement here about other people. I do not want money taken away from people without they explicitly agreeing to it (even though disagreement might mean jail).

You agreed to follow the laws of the country in which you reside by continuing to reside there.

To be clear, are you implying that residence implies consent to every policy? Is that really what you’re saying?

Note: I don’t agree with the GP.