Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm not sure that would work as simply as that. Imagine buying a volatile stock, say, TSLA at $100. This then skyrockets to $1000. You're now taxed on your wealth at that price point. Then it immediately crashes down to $120. All this while, you're just holding the stock but paid taxes on a non existent value.
I haven't thought this through, but could that actually be a feature?
Killing TurboTax
571–580 of 692 posts
Re: Killing TurboTax
#572Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Won't this disproportionately tax the poor? - Firstly, the existing tax code already does. I used to think this because it's often said, but learned it's not true. This sums it up: The top 50 percent of all taxpayers paid 97 percent of all individual income taxes, while the bottom 50 percent paid the remaining 3 percent. The top 1 percent paid a greater share of individual income taxes (38.5 percent) than the botto…
How do any of those statistics refute that statement without supplementary data on income/wealth (or whatever else you're using to measure the proportionality of tax)?
Take another look at the last point I cite, I THINK it goes to what you're asking: the richest 1% paid 26.8% of they income in taxes. The poorest 50% paid only 4% of their income in taxes.
Let me know if your question is something different.
Re: Killing TurboTax
#573Earlier quoted context omitted.
And Senate Majority Leader Joe Manchin has stated that he is unequivocally against removing the filibuster.
Chuck Schumer is the Senate Majority Leader.
Re: Killing TurboTax
#574Earlier quoted context omitted.
> the GOP We now have an opportunity to test your hypothesis- for at least two years there will be single party rule by the other party.
It might look that way to you but it's not that way. Two Democrats in the Senate are against almost every progressive idea (IMHO). Even if all of the Democrats except for those two want something they have to convince a couple of Republicans to go their way. Those 2 sensare basically the most powerful people in the Senate.
Those two Senators are from more conservative states and they know if they don't toe the line their constituents will likely throw them out for GOP alternatives.
*In fact, the Senate was originally appointed by each state's legislators and the House was the only Congress elected by popular vote.
Re: Killing TurboTax
#575"Killing TurboTax" is essentially a meme until we meaningfully simplify the tax code. There is no software development team on earth who could catch up with the full capabilities of TurboTax without some sort of fundamental shift in the business. I really hate to say this as someone who makes a living out of it, but dealing with the current amount of complexity in the tax code with a piece of software that a non-expe…
I agree, a vastly simplified tax code is needed. Here's my dream for a simpler tax code: The only tax is a Sales tax/VAT/GST. Pros: - Individuals never have to think about tax. It would completely eliminate tax returns. That alone is worth it's weight in gold since tax returns are such a time and money burden. - It would close all the loopholes megacorps/wealthy individuals use to pay less tax. You cannot avoid spend…
I think the biggest single thing that would simplify the tax code is removing the separate capital gains tax and just counting it all as income. There is significant complexity in the tax return to calculate everything independently and to show that your capital gains aren't really income. You could eliminate Schedule D, Form 8949 (which you have to up to 4 times), and the Capital Gains/Schedule D worksheets to figure income.
HSAs are also super painful. E.g. CA doesn't respect the tax-exempt status of HSAs, so you have to add the HSA back into your income so they can tax it. There are also a lot of bookkeeping requirements for relatively low amounts of money. In practice, they aren't very useful since the fees are high, the returns are low, and their function is redundant with insurance (i.e. paying premiums now to cover large future expenses).
In general, there are a ton of random little exemptions and extra taxes that you might qualify for and it just takes time to figure out if they apply to you. E.g. Form 8959 (Additional Medicare Tax) is a 0.9% tax for income over a certain amount. They should have just adjusted the income tax graduations in an equivalent way. Form 8960 (Net Investment Income Tax) has a similar problem. CA gives a $60 renter's credit if you make under certain amounts, which is just too insignificant to matter (e.g. 0.3% of $1500/month annualized).
Re: Killing TurboTax
#576Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think this is fundamentally a regressive idea. Currently the very poor pay zero (or effectively zero) income taxes. No matter how you structure the sales tax, you cannot go below zero. (I think negative sales tax is not actually realistic, nor particularly progressive.) A system that only taxes spending fundamentally has problems in that the richer people can afford to save and invest.
It could be coupled with a hefty UBI. No need for means-testing. If everyone got e.g. $10,000/yr, that would completely offset VAT for people who don't buy much. People who spend millions every year wouldn't even notice it.
Re: Killing TurboTax
#577"Killing TurboTax" is essentially a meme until we meaningfully simplify the tax code. There is no software development team on earth who could catch up with the full capabilities of TurboTax without some sort of fundamental shift in the business. I really hate to say this as someone who makes a living out of it, but dealing with the current amount of complexity in the tax code with a piece of software that a non-expe…
In Hong Kong, you literally get about 3.5 pages of A4 to fill for your annual income tax returns, the vast majority of which you can leave blank unless you are one of the richer people and do rich people things.
And then we have taxes on very few other things, which you simply pay at the time of purchase: - Alcohol - Motor vehicles - Real estate - Stocks I don't think I'm missing anything important.
We have no other sales taxes otherwise. And look at us, we are a 1st-world economy, despite being such a small city.
Re: Killing TurboTax
#578Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think this is fundamentally a regressive idea. Currently the very poor pay zero (or effectively zero) income taxes. No matter how you structure the sales tax, you cannot go below zero. (I think negative sales tax is not actually realistic, nor particularly progressive.) A system that only taxes spending fundamentally has problems in that the richer people can afford to save and invest.
Could you explain a bit more how negative sales tax is unrealistic? We already subsidize things we want to encourage. > A system that only taxes spending fundamentally has problems in that the richer people can afford to save and invest. That is an existing problem inherent to any tax system. It's just saying "Rich people can afford to not spend all of their money". I don't see how that's fundamental to taxing only s…
There are similar issues in agriculture subsidies and price regulation. E.g. High fructose corn syrup is probably as popular as it is because corn has been subsidized and cane sugar has a regulated (high) price. It's kind of like an inefficient arbitrage between physical goods to avoid taxes.
Re: Killing TurboTax
#5791. the tax system in the US is broken 2. It needs to be simpler ... 3. kill turbotax???
For many people, such as myself, turbotax is doing exactly what most people want to kill it for... simplifying US taxes so I don't have to think about it.
Am I missing something? Do people just think oh, if turbotax dies, a free open source version of it is going to be as usable, consistent, bug free, and adopted? Or tax code itself is going to be as easy to use as turbo tax currently is?
I'd bet the cost of killing turbotax is probably greater than the entire net worth of turbotax as a company, with lifetime future revenues discounted to today, 10 times over.
Re: Killing TurboTax
#580Earlier quoted context omitted.
How do any of those statistics refute that statement without supplementary data on income/wealth (or whatever else you're using to measure the proportionality of tax)?
I don't understand your question about proportionality of tax, because there are two ways to think about proportionality and the stats I cite cover both. Take another look at the last point I cite, I THINK it goes to what you're asking: the richest 1% paid 26.8% of they income in taxes. The poorest 50% paid only 4% of their income in taxes. Let me know if your question is something different.
Firstly, AGI is post-deductions, so people who play games with their taxes show up as paying more.
Secondarily, and more importantly, income is a trash metric anyways. Poor does not mean low income, it means low wealth. In your data somebody who inherits a ton of money but has 0 income counts as "bottom 50%". Rich people have a disproportionally lower income vs wealth.