6 ms·

I really understand your frustration and uncertainty, and to be frank; you don't know for sure that the IRS would chase after rich people. But let me float thi

by croon 9y ago

I really understand your frustration and uncertainty, and to be frank; you don't know for sure that the IRS would chase after rich people. But let me float this: Guess which parties/party wanted the tax code that complicated to begin with? The first step to fixing it would be to not align yourself with the ones who caused the issue. Simpler tax code would make it less worrysome for regular plebs (us) to fill out our taxes, meaning the lower/middle class that pays their taxes would ensure they weren't in danger, and IRS would have an easier time chasing down tax avoiders. The people who complicated the tax codes and also wants to uninsure tens of millions of people to save a few bucks for rich people won't help you.

ethbro 9y ago
The problem I have with the tax simplification folks is that they're generally disingenuous about the fact that they're proposing moving from a progressive to a much flatter tax code. Or at least ignorant about the differences. I'm sure a lot of the language and ideas they're parroting are coming from conservative talk radio, hence the blind spots. But it really soured me on the US tax simplification debate.
- croon 9y ago
  > The problem I have with the tax simplification folks is that they're generally disingenuous about the fact that they're proposing moving from a progressive to a much flatter tax code. Or at least ignorant about the differences. Whole heartedly agree. Simplification and flatter tax code should be separate discussions, with separate conclusions.
  - logfromblammo 9y ago
    Here's a simple, progressive income tax: 1. IRS determines the median for personal income (total household income divided by household size), and publishes it no later than January 1. 2. Your taxable income is your household income minus the published median from #1 times the number of people in your household. If this is less than or equal to zero, pay no tax. 3. Those with positive taxable income pay x% of that amount as tax, with x set according to the requirements of the previous year's budget, but not to exceed a statutory limit of y%. If you take the median income as a proxy for spending, this tax thus approximates a flat tax on the annual increase in household wealth.
    - brewdad 9y ago
      The thing is, you can greatly simplify the tax code and still have progressive tax brackets. Looking up the total amount due in the back of the tax booklet (or more realistically having software calculate the total due) is the easy part of doing one's taxes. Cut out the various deductions and credits and additions to income etc. to make things simple. Then calculating tax due becomes a simple table lookup or addition of amounts from multiple tables. 3rd grade math. We don't need to set a single universal x% tax rate to make things easy.
      - logfromblammo 9y ago
        Consider that the only reason we have "tax brackets" is because many people apparently cannot be relied upon to calculate the results of an intractably complex polynomial function such as f(x) = 0.40x - c or a choice function like MAX( f(x), 0 ).
- Frondo 9y ago
  Perfect, yes, excellent distinction. I'm all in favor of a vastly simpler tax code, but I'm also in favor of a vastly more progressive tax code. These two things aren't in opposition to one another.
  - njarboe 9y ago
    At this point a flat income tax rate would be more progressive at the top end than the current system, especially if you wrap in medicare and social security taxes. Maybe start with a flat tax and move from there.
    - BatFastard 9y ago
      A flat tax by its vary nature and NOT be progressive. And even with how broken the tax code is, a flat tax still places a totally unfair burden on the poor. If you take 20% of 20,000 bucks your tax on me is 4k which only leaves me 16k to live on (You would be extremely poor in US). 20% of 200k is 40k, which leaves me 160k to live on.
- lern_too_spel 9y ago
  Return free filing, the ultimate in tax simplification, is also opposed by the politicians who claim to be for tax simplification. You could set up a progressive tax code in a way that requires computing non-trivial integrals, but as long as the math is done by the IRS, it would still be simpler than what we have today.
EliRivers 9y ago
I suppose the market driven way would be to put IRS tax inspectors on commission. Perhaps above a certain amount per target; maybe for every extra dollar above six figures they bring in from "one" [1] individual, they can keep half. [1] Where "one" is a bit of a fuzzy concept when you're dealing with multi-millionaires hiding their wealth through various shenanigans.

by croon 9y ago

ethbro 9y ago

The problem I have with the tax simplification folks is that they're generally disingenuous about the fact that they're proposing moving from a progressive to a much flatter tax code. Or at least ignorant about the differences. I'm sure a lot of the language and ideas they're parroting are coming from conservative talk radio, hence the blind spots. But it really soured me on the US tax simplification debate.

croon 9y ago
> The problem I have with the tax simplification folks is that they're generally disingenuous about the fact that they're proposing moving from a progressive to a much flatter tax code. Or at least ignorant about the differences. Whole heartedly agree. Simplification and flatter tax code should be separate discussions, with separate conclusions.
- logfromblammo 9y ago
  Here's a simple, progressive income tax: 1. IRS determines the median for personal income (total household income divided by household size), and publishes it no later than January 1. 2. Your taxable income is your household income minus the published median from #1 times the number of people in your household. If this is less than or equal to zero, pay no tax. 3. Those with positive taxable income pay x% of that amount as tax, with x set according to the requirements of the previous year's budget, but not to exceed a statutory limit of y%. If you take the median income as a proxy for spending, this tax thus approximates a flat tax on the annual increase in household wealth.
  - brewdad 9y ago
    The thing is, you can greatly simplify the tax code and still have progressive tax brackets. Looking up the total amount due in the back of the tax booklet (or more realistically having software calculate the total due) is the easy part of doing one's taxes. Cut out the various deductions and credits and additions to income etc. to make things simple. Then calculating tax due becomes a simple table lookup or addition of amounts from multiple tables. 3rd grade math. We don't need to set a single universal x% tax rate to make things easy.
    - logfromblammo 9y ago
      Consider that the only reason we have "tax brackets" is because many people apparently cannot be relied upon to calculate the results of an intractably complex polynomial function such as f(x) = 0.40x - c or a choice function like MAX( f(x), 0 ).
Frondo 9y ago
Perfect, yes, excellent distinction. I'm all in favor of a vastly simpler tax code, but I'm also in favor of a vastly more progressive tax code. These two things aren't in opposition to one another.
- njarboe 9y ago
  At this point a flat income tax rate would be more progressive at the top end than the current system, especially if you wrap in medicare and social security taxes. Maybe start with a flat tax and move from there.
  - BatFastard 9y ago
    A flat tax by its vary nature and NOT be progressive. And even with how broken the tax code is, a flat tax still places a totally unfair burden on the poor. If you take 20% of 20,000 bucks your tax on me is 4k which only leaves me 16k to live on (You would be extremely poor in US). 20% of 200k is 40k, which leaves me 160k to live on.
lern_too_spel 9y ago
Return free filing, the ultimate in tax simplification, is also opposed by the politicians who claim to be for tax simplification. You could set up a progressive tax code in a way that requires computing non-trivial integrals, but as long as the math is done by the IRS, it would still be simpler than what we have today.

EliRivers 9y ago

I suppose the market driven way would be to put IRS tax inspectors on commission. Perhaps above a certain amount per target; maybe for every extra dollar above six figures they bring in from "one" [1] individual, they can keep half. [1] Where "one" is a bit of a fuzzy concept when you're dealing with multi-millionaires hiding their wealth through various shenanigans.