Live data from Hacker News

Millions of Taxpayers Call the IRS for Help. Two-Thirds Don't Reach Anyone

wsj.com

171–180 of 182 posts

Re: Millions of Taxpayers Call the IRS for Help. Two-Thirds Don't Reach Anyone

#171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was also using 4o So... 4o is not confident that only humans qualify as dependents? I think even a very junior front-line customer service rep should be able to answer that one confidently. It seems that what the model is actually doing is prefixing "Uhhhh" when your question is leading in a way that doesn't match the data it has. The fact that the IRS requires dependents to humans should be answerable with an extr…

It's not confident because OA2143 is a fake form I made up.

Which is another thing that a front-line worker would easily be able to answer.

https://www.irs.gov/forms-pubs-search?search=OA2143

Ultimately, the tax question you asked it is something simple for a front-line worker to answer. So either one of two things must be true:

* either GPT-4o is so bad at answering tax questions that it cannot even answer easy ones confidently

* or GPT-4o is so bad at determining its own confidence level that it doesn't know when it is able to definitively answer even an easy question.

Either situation makes it bad for this task.

As I mentioned above, humans are good for answering questions even when they don't know the answer, because they're good at expressing their confidence to other humans. In this case, you'd want the support agent to answer definitively that animals do not qualify as dependents. One could certainly make their chat bot answer unconfidently randomly, or in response to strange questions, or all the time, but then the confidence signal isn't actually providing social value of communicating certainty.

Re: Millions of Taxpayers Call the IRS for Help. Two-Thirds Don't Reach Anyone

#172
post #5

The IRS is a perennial budgeting football for Congress, even though it's one of the few agencies for whom increasing their budget creates positive net revenue for the federal government; its enforcement arm is down 30% in staffing since 2010, with predictably dismal results. As an anecdotal comparison, I had a fairly long-running issue years ago with the IRS over a minor problem (some expenditures got posted to one f…

I don't really have anything substantive to say; really just stacking onto this. My tax payments are not "regular enough" for the IRS. I generally end up owing $15k at the end of the year. It's an inconvenience for me, but I'm happy to pay it since, you know, taxes pay for things to be done. These folks have the gall to charge me money for that now, with threatening letters to boot, suggesting that I should supplement my W2 tax contributions that my employer makes quarterly. Portland, the city I live in, mimicked this system entirely and now demands the same for smaller amounts. I'm left feeling that we gave these folks billions to make things better and the people they went after weren't billionaires; they're instead nickel and diming high income earners. I don't claim anything on my taxes, I don't have much (if any) business income, and I'm not married. I have the simplest taxes in the world and these folks can't advise my company on the correct amount they should deduct for taxes and I'm the one that gets a bunch of legalese in the mail.

This to say, the billionaires running the system are certainly something but so are the people at the IRS who had an opportunity to actually do something with all that money. I look at them less with the lens of victims of partisanship and look at them more as part of the problem.

In my case they know exactly how much money I've made quarter to quarter and could provide better advice to the company I work for. They also could have a system to notify me ahead of time so I have a chance to pay the bill they're expecting. They did none of these, but instead shook the couch for change.

Re: Millions of Taxpayers Call the IRS for Help. Two-Thirds Don't Reach Anyone

#173
post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have no issue with billionaires, and don't resent their cash. But if you drop all income tax, and do only sales tax you'd miss a lot of their income. Same for the moderately wealthy too. I suspect you'd need 100% or even 200% sales tax to capture what you so now. That's going to lead to black markets, reduced economic output, etc too.

What? 100% sales tax? No. 20-30% would do just fine. People have already run the numbers on this. Black markets already exist for under-the-table labor (tens of millions of illegal immigrants don't pay income tax). It's actually much harder to run a black market retail establishment as it requires public collusion and cash-based sales. The economic output would increase as compliance costs would be reduced. Furthermo…

I'd need to see the numbers on something like this. Just saying "Someone said it would work" isn't good enough for me.

In my life I've seen so many cases of that, and then, lo and behold, the reality isn't even remotely accurate. An example being UBI, for which there is literally no way to pay. Or ridiculous assertions of "just tax billionaires!" to pay for it, which won't even cover one year of UBI.

So when someone says "just change to a flat tax", without some raw data I balk.

For example, "compliance costs"?! Just what compliance costs are these? Are you planning to get rid of social security, and medicare taxes on pay cheques too? Fine, but I once pondered that many government jobs are little more than paid welfare.

Just what do you do with all those people that really cannot work well outside of a government, structured, coddled job? My point being, that "compliance costs" are no where near as much of a cost as you might think, as typically every penny paid comes back in income and other taxes, and also gets spent domestically on everything from groceries to car repairs. Those jobs aren't free, but they are not even 1/2 the price they appear to be.

You want to talk about a "compounding effect", that's what government workers are.

But regardless, the feds raised 4T this year, and 42% was income tax, and another 22% for social taxes, eg medicare, social and what not. If you're going to move those taxes from the "pay cheque taxed and income tax cycle" to "consumption tax at the till", then you'll need to replace 65% of existing taxes, which are >4T. Might as well say $3.5T at the federal level alone.

Here:

https://www.statista.com/statistics/249137/us-state-and-loca...

Says total revenue at the state AND county level is $700M.

Here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sales_taxes_in_the_United_Stat...

Shows an interesting graph, with some of the larger economic states, hovering at the top. I'm going to spitball and say 8% average. (The top 10 US states population wise, have more than 50% of the population, and that's why I'm going to poke it at 8%).

So $700M at 8%, is 3.2T at 24%. That's surprisingly close.

You are going to have to watch the black market though. Yes, it already exists.. so what? It will exist more. Especially with shipping stuff in from Canada, you're going to have to have to have "duty" of "federal state tax", otherwise everything will flow, shipped from Mexico and Canada.

Re: Millions of Taxpayers Call the IRS for Help. Two-Thirds Don't Reach Anyone

#174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Will they cover the fee for the accountant to fix their own mistake?

If the IRS position is determined by the Tax Court to not be substantially justified, you can petition for fees for your representation. That’s a higher standard than merely winning your case; if you win the case, but the Court finds the IRS position was substantially justified, you’re on the hook for your fees.

In my case, they say they mailed a check that never arrived (direct deposit is not available).

Re: Millions of Taxpayers Call the IRS for Help. Two-Thirds Don't Reach Anyone

#175

I contact my congressional representative when I need help with the IRS. Have done it twice now. Works great.

This also works with other government agencies, such as the ATF.

How will the ATF help me with my taxes?

Re: Millions of Taxpayers Call the IRS for Help. Two-Thirds Don't Reach Anyone

#176

I contact my congressional representative when I need help with the IRS. Have done it twice now. Works great.

Having a single representative as a point of contact is an underrated advantage of the FPTP system the UK and US use.

As a European, the need or desire for such an indirect system is mindbogglingly weird. Just fix the broken machinery, instead of this world where "your party" provides you with government services.

Re: Millions of Taxpayers Call the IRS for Help. Two-Thirds Don't Reach Anyone

#177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If the IRS position is determined by the Tax Court to not be substantially justified, you can petition for fees for your representation. That’s a higher standard than merely winning your case; if you win the case, but the Court finds the IRS position was substantially justified, you’re on the hook for your fees.

In my case, they say they mailed a check that never arrived (direct deposit is not available).

They have a process for exactly this.

https://www.irs.gov/faqs/irs-procedures/refund-inquiries

If the check was not cashed, you can get it canceled and a new one mailed.

And yes, I've dealt with the IRS a few times some of which they owed me money. It is a bureaucracy, but the process will work even if it takes a bit of time.

Re: Millions of Taxpayers Call the IRS for Help. Two-Thirds Don't Reach Anyone

#178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As I recall the Republicans tried to add an ammendment that the $60b would only be used to target >$400k income but the democrats rejected it.

Is there a source, or is this made up?

A good rule of thumb is that if they didn’t include a source there likely isn’t one.

Re: Millions of Taxpayers Call the IRS for Help. Two-Thirds Don't Reach Anyone

#179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is there a source, or is this made up?

A good rule of thumb is that if they didn’t include a source there likely isn’t one.

https://thehill.com/policy/3594879-gop-rails-against-irs-fun...

No need to be so cynical.

Re: Millions of Taxpayers Call the IRS for Help. Two-Thirds Don't Reach Anyone

#180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As I recall the Republicans tried to add an ammendment that the $60b would only be used to target >$400k income but the democrats rejected it.

Is there a source, or is this made up?

https://thehill.com/policy/3594879-gop-rails-against-irs-fun...

>During the extended voting session of the Senate that lasted well into Sunday, Crapo unsuccessfully filed an amendment to the bill to explicitly prevent the IRS from using the additional enforcement funding on taxpayers who earn less than $400,000 per year.

>While the amendment was shot down by Democrats in the Senate,

Post reply on HN