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

61–70 of 405 posts

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

#61

Post by rayiner »

anigbrowl wrote: post #41
rayiner wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The entire tax-prep industry generates about the same revenues as Dunkin Donuts. The idea that it is a significant causal factor in keeping taxes complicated is preposterous.

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).

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

#62

Post by nameone888 »

betenoire wrote: post #45
chiefofgxbxl wrote: post #24

Just for thought: suppose the tax system became so simplified that only goods X, Y,and Z were taxed at rates a,b,c. You pay aX+bY+cZ in taxes per year. It would be easy for voters to campaign their politicians to lower tax rates and easily verify. Obviously in the real world there aren't 3 levers to adjust: there are probably thousands or tens of thousands. Apart from the lobbying, politicians may themselves desire t…

You desire a system that encourages and facilitates blatant deceit?

Our system now is full of deceit and every system prior has been full of deceit.

It rather comes with the territory of humans.

Why not then be honest about how we're "cheating things" from a human perspective, so long as the outcomes are agreeable.

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

#63

Post by ajmurmann »

KZeillmann wrote: post #25
noobermin wrote: post #20

I'm going to say this until I'm blue in the face: fix money in politics, and half of these issues will no longer be intractable.

How do we "fix money in politics" without chilling free speech?

Are you referring to Citizens United or referring to some chilling effects on actual free speech?

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

#64

Post by damon_c »

undersuit wrote: post #43
bmajz wrote: post #29

I was pretty surprised to see Zoe Lofgren's name pop up as an anti tax filing simplification advocate. She's the rep from CA's 19th District which covers San Jose (but not the rest of Silicon Valley) and generally a straight down the line liberal. This is not even Intuit's core district -- that would Anna Eshoo's 17th (previously 14th) district which covers Mountain View and Palo Alto. As a resident of this district,…

According to open data[1] the largest contributor to her campaign is Intuit and it's employees. [1] https://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/summary.php?cid=N000...

Wow I can't believe it. /s

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

#65

Post by damon_c »

undersuit wrote: post #43
bmajz wrote: post #29

I was pretty surprised to see Zoe Lofgren's name pop up as an anti tax filing simplification advocate. She's the rep from CA's 19th District which covers San Jose (but not the rest of Silicon Valley) and generally a straight down the line liberal. This is not even Intuit's core district -- that would Anna Eshoo's 17th (previously 14th) district which covers Mountain View and Palo Alto. As a resident of this district,…

According to open data[1] the largest contributor to her campaign is Intuit and it's employees. [1] https://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/summary.php?cid=N000...

Wow I can't believe it. /s

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

#66

Post by [deleted] »

smt88 wrote: post #7
oDot wrote: post #6

I've always wondered, why can't we just pay one tax? Say make income tax 1.5x what it's now and cancel all other taxes. That way it'll be even easier!

Wealthy people are against that. They prefer regressive taxes, like sales tax, that will be shift much more of the burden to the poor. In fact, there's a whole batshit-crazy tax plan called FairTax that proposes changing all taxes to a simple sales tax.

[deleted]

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

#67

Post by nameone888 »

KZeillmann wrote: post #25
noobermin wrote: post #20

I'm going to say this until I'm blue in the face: fix money in politics, and half of these issues will no longer be intractable.

How do we "fix money in politics" without chilling free speech?

Set an outcome of "everyone's ability to be heard should be closer to a parity." and go from there.

Money in politics tilts the "free speech" field towards "free to stand on street corner and flail while rich people take your Senator out for dinner."

It's like Adam Smith said, "equality of condition" should be the goal. Any one person that has more than another has undeserved power.

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

#68

Post by riemannzeta »

I wish there were more information about what, specifically, the pilot program included. The main detail I got from the story is that the tax returns were pre-filled with income information.

I think that's useful, but I see no reason to expect a priori that the government would end up doing a better job with that than the private companies (like Intuit and H&R Block) whose revenue depends on doing that well.

The comments that suggest that Intuit and H&R Block were lobbying to keep the tax code complex don't make sense to me. Maybe they are, but that's not what they were lobbying for in lobbying to defeat this particular, reform is it? Rather, they were lobbying to keep the pre-filling process private.

Or did I miss something important?

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

#69

Post by nickpsecurity »

KZeillmann wrote: post #25
noobermin wrote: post #20

I'm going to say this until I'm blue in the face: fix money in politics, and half of these issues will no longer be intractable.

How do we "fix money in politics" without chilling free speech?

One of the simplest I've heard is a limit on how much any one person can donate to a politician's campaign in any form. And only individual voters can donate. No corporations. Make it a high-end felony to forge that. Make banks track it. That would be a start.

In this case, it would've blocked Intuit from buying a politician mentioned in the HN comments. That might have prevented opposition by that politician. Amplify this to all other sectors.

Note: Main technique I see big companies using is offering jobs or something to politicians afterwards like the defense contractors do for Pentagon contract-issuers. There would need to be a strategy for making that illegal or limiting what they could make from who they benefit. Also, paying them the most from taxes so they know who they work for.

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

#70

Post by bunderbunder »

betenoire wrote: post #45
chiefofgxbxl wrote: post #24

Just for thought: suppose the tax system became so simplified that only goods X, Y,and Z were taxed at rates a,b,c. You pay aX+bY+cZ in taxes per year. It would be easy for voters to campaign their politicians to lower tax rates and easily verify. Obviously in the real world there aren't 3 levers to adjust: there are probably thousands or tens of thousands. Apart from the lobbying, politicians may themselves desire t…

You desire a system that encourages and facilitates blatant deceit?

Seems more like the parent is pointing out that a simple, manageable tax system isn't politically tenable in a representative democracy. Certainly not one as madcap as the USA's.
Post reply on HN