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

201–210 of 405 posts

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

#201

Post by toomuchtodo »

sandworm101 wrote: post #200
toomuchtodo wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think so. 45% of Americans pay zero income tax, even accounting for withholding.

And sales taxes. And all sorts of fees to various governments. And parking tickets. And a host of fees associated with the criminal justice system. And lotteries/gambling. And and and. Nobody pays zero tax, except perhaps the most very wealthy "persons" (ie corporations) able to carry over bad years and write down previous losses/taxes against future income.

You've gone totally off the reservation. My argument was simply against parent's statement that Americans would be shocked if they saw their tax bill; I'll reiterate; hardly. A little less than half of America pays no federal income tax (after refunds are accounted for).

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

#202

Post by [deleted] »

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…

[deleted]

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

#203

Post by jnordwick »

eli_gottlieb wrote: post #178
bingomad123 wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> taxes already on the books that they might have previously unintentionally evaded. I agree with Grover Norquist. It might be counter intuitive but I would rather leave it to Turbo-tax to figure out the details than signing the form sent to me by IRS. Let IRS do the extra work of catching me if they think I am filing fraudulent taxes. Grover Norquist's view might be counter-intuitive but I a agree with him.

You can refer to TurboTax all you like, but you just basically admitted that you're committing tax fraud and challenging society to catch you.

I think the point is that there are many grey areas, and the IRS is likely to come down the side of more taxes while the third party is likely to try more on your behalf.

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

#205

Post by ericd »

scythe wrote: post #148
eigenman wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think you can fix money in politics without unduly limiting free speech, and even if you do, those who call foul on political spending hold the power. I think the only practical way to fix this problem is to remove the two party system which allows representatives to vote against the interests of their constituents except on the issues that strongly separate left and right. And the only way to remove the two…

Part of the problem is that people are capable of getting to "FPTP is kinda bad", and they have heard enough about experiments with instant-runoff and scoring (incl. approval) methods, where some election had a weird result, that they realize a single-winner system won't fix things, but everyone's conclusion is: "some kind of proportional system" You can't implement a real government with a metasyntactic electoral sy…

Interesting link, but don't you think it's a bit complicated? I think the opacity of the determination method could lead to a lot of mistrust from the general public.

What's the problem with just assigning a number 0-10 for every candidate that you care to, and summing up the points?

Or just instant runoff?

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

#206

Post by imgabe »

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…

If people might pay taxes they were unintentionally evading, might they not avoid taxes they were unintentionally paying when they didn't have to? It seems the latter would be more likely, given how arcane the deduction/credit system can be.

Just today I had to convince my girlfriend that no, just because she lives in one state and works in another she doesn't have to pay taxes twice to two states. This requires finding a different credit form for one state to claim a credit for the taxes paid to the other state. It's not exactly intuitive.

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

#207

Post by projektfu »

Thrymr wrote: post #177
ams6110 wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The original article was talking about simple tax returns. In fact, the 1040EZ is relatively new. Much newer than the existence of H&R Block. So evidently their efforts to keep taxes complicated aren't entirely successful. Even a 1040 "long form" (2 pages) with itemized deductions for mortgage interest isn't that complicated. I file about a 10 page return, 1040 with schedule A, schedule C, self-employment and various…

Of course, you also need to pay one of the tax prep companies just to file your return online (if you're above an income threshold), because you can't do that directly as an individual, either. Also due to their lobbying.

For free e-filing for anyone who can fill out the form themselves: https://www.freefilefillableforms.com/

For free worksheets to do the calculations, http://www.excel1040.com/

Filing the state return electronically is different by state, but often either doable or you can mail it in.

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

#208

Post by dragonwriter »

CogitoCogito wrote: post #187
whyenot wrote: post #80

California has the initiative system that means ultimately the voters can make changes to the system without involving a recalcitrant or corrupt legislature. For better or worse, many of the big changes in government in the state were enacted through this process. For example, proposition 13, which drastically changed property taxes, proposition 14, which moved the state to a "top two" primary system, proposition 11…

I'm pretty sure the problem would be that the second someone like Grover Norquist came out against it, you'd lose a huge amount of support. The fact that those very same people would love the system if they tried it (as the 99% approval of the system attests) is irrelevant. That said, it would be interesting to see it put to a vote.

California passes ballot propositions all the time that Norquist (and the often more relevant in California, similarly aligned Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association) oppose.

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

#209

Post by ryanwaggoner »

sandworm101 wrote: post #199
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…

Norquist's tax pledge is very literally the creation of a child. He came up with it as a kid and hasn't felt any need since to revisit the matter. It is the immature and radical thinking of a teenager not tempered by age or experience. That he is still trumpeting it speaks to his character too.

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?

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

#210

Post by intrasight »

rayiner wrote: post #61
anigbrowl wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's preposterous about it? You can buy a lot of influence for a couple million a year. Are you saying they're wasting their money and might as well just redistribute it to shareholders? If not, then presumably they think it a worthwhile expense or they wouldn't spend it.

The Chamber of Commerce has been lobbying for a simpler tax code (including flat taxes) for decades. They can direct vastly more lobbying dollars to the problem than can Intuit or H&R Block. If it was just a matter of lobbying dollars, the 0.5% of the economy that benefits from more complicated taxes could not possibly out-lobby the 99.5% of the economy that benefits from simpler taxes (all else being equal).

"simpler tax code" = "fewer loopholes".

That 0.5% of the economy hires 95% of the lobbyists. Corporate lobbying to save or add loopholes dwarfs all other tax-related lobbying efforts.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/18/companies-lobbying-...

Post reply on HN