4 ms·

Think of it more as "The IRS has prepared this return for you. Look at it. If it's what you expect, you have nothing else to do other than send a check if you o

Think of it more as "The IRS has prepared this return for you. Look at it. If it's what you expect, you have nothing else to do other than send a check if you owe or a bank account for your refund. If you have extra information (more income, deductions, etc) - then you are free to fill out your own forms. As such, 60-70% of the population would have nothing to do. People with multiple part time jobs would be fine. The rest would still have more to do. So, at worse, it hasn't become worse, and it is better for the majority of people.

chatmasta 8y ago
What happens when the IRS gets it wrong and the impoverished recipient has nobody to review it for them? (Still I suppose that may be an improvement over the status quo)
- elefanten 8y ago
  The truly impoverished recipient won't owe much in taxes to begin with.
  - chatmasta 8y ago
    Right, the IRS will actually owe the resident money, i.e. a refund. Trouble is, the IRS often has access to only a subset of deductions and/or circumstantial life information, so it’s likely they would undercalculate the refund owed to an impoverished resident. The status quo is that residents must either (a) do nothing and receive a fine, or (b) file their taxes, explicitly opting in to any refund programs they qualify for. Whereas the implication of this change would necessitate the impoverished resident to either (a) do nothing and likely miss an underreported refund, or (b) file their taxes, basically, explicitly opting into any refund programs that were missed. It basically hides the penalty of not filing in savings missed. It certainly changes the calculus of the question of morality. Which case is better for the impoverished resident? It’s not a simple question.
    - llukas 8y ago
      So instead of spending time on researching only deduction part let's force poor people spend time to do entire process.
- jkaplowitz 8y ago
  Definitely an improvement. It would likely be rare for the IRS to assert extra income than the taxpayer actually received, though exceptions will exist. Income actually earned but not reported would be more common. If the IRS later notices, presumably any recipient who is impoverished and for whom there's no evidence of fraud wouldn't be charged penalties on any balance due, and might be eligible for some offer in compromise or installment plan. This is no different than now, except even less of a justification for penalty when self-reporting isn't the norm.
- wool_gather 8y ago
  It's a fair question, but what does such a person do now? I don't think their options would diminish.
  - hundt 8y ago
    They are induced to show up somewhere to prepare their taxes, either a professional tax preparer or a volunteer trained by the IRS[1]. I imagine they would probably lose the free option. It's true that they would still have the paid option, but I don't think most people would bother if they didn't have to. [1] https://www.irs.gov/individuals/free-tax-return-preparation-for-you-by-volunteers https://www.irs.gov/individuals/free-tax-return-preparation-...
- SiempreViernes 8y ago
  The fact that the IRS sends out their preliminary calculations for citizen to base their own filing on doesn't affect the total error rate for any inherent reason, so ideally nothing new would happen. That said I'm sure US congress could find some interesting way to involve for profit companies in the process that makes everyone even more miserable than the current system.
- SilasX 8y ago
  Then it's still significantly easier and less confusing and intimidating than what those impoverished recipients have to deal with right now.
- jandrese 8y ago
  Well, if the IRS gets it wrong they'll come back and declare the taxes you filed are wrong and send you a bill. Maybe also trigger an audit. This system would be way better since you get to see the error up front and deal with it immediately instead of waiting 8 weeks for the process to start and your refund to languish for another month or two before it is all sorted out.

chatmasta 8y ago

What happens when the IRS gets it wrong and the impoverished recipient has nobody to review it for them? (Still I suppose that may be an improvement over the status quo)

elefanten 8y ago
The truly impoverished recipient won't owe much in taxes to begin with.
- chatmasta 8y ago
  Right, the IRS will actually owe the resident money, i.e. a refund. Trouble is, the IRS often has access to only a subset of deductions and/or circumstantial life information, so it’s likely they would undercalculate the refund owed to an impoverished resident. The status quo is that residents must either (a) do nothing and receive a fine, or (b) file their taxes, explicitly opting in to any refund programs they qualify for. Whereas the implication of this change would necessitate the impoverished resident to either (a) do nothing and likely miss an underreported refund, or (b) file their taxes, basically, explicitly opting into any refund programs that were missed. It basically hides the penalty of not filing in savings missed. It certainly changes the calculus of the question of morality. Which case is better for the impoverished resident? It’s not a simple question.
  - llukas 8y ago
    So instead of spending time on researching only deduction part let's force poor people spend time to do entire process.
jkaplowitz 8y ago
Definitely an improvement. It would likely be rare for the IRS to assert extra income than the taxpayer actually received, though exceptions will exist. Income actually earned but not reported would be more common. If the IRS later notices, presumably any recipient who is impoverished and for whom there's no evidence of fraud wouldn't be charged penalties on any balance due, and might be eligible for some offer in compromise or installment plan. This is no different than now, except even less of a justification for penalty when self-reporting isn't the norm.
wool_gather 8y ago
It's a fair question, but what does such a person do now? I don't think their options would diminish.
- hundt 8y ago
  They are induced to show up somewhere to prepare their taxes, either a professional tax preparer or a volunteer trained by the IRS[1]. I imagine they would probably lose the free option. It's true that they would still have the paid option, but I don't think most people would bother if they didn't have to. [1] https://www.irs.gov/individuals/free-tax-return-preparation-for-you-by-volunteers https://www.irs.gov/individuals/free-tax-return-preparation-...
SiempreViernes 8y ago
The fact that the IRS sends out their preliminary calculations for citizen to base their own filing on doesn't affect the total error rate for any inherent reason, so ideally nothing new would happen. That said I'm sure US congress could find some interesting way to involve for profit companies in the process that makes everyone even more miserable than the current system.
SilasX 8y ago
Then it's still significantly easier and less confusing and intimidating than what those impoverished recipients have to deal with right now.
jandrese 8y ago
Well, if the IRS gets it wrong they'll come back and declare the taxes you filed are wrong and send you a bill. Maybe also trigger an audit. This system would be way better since you get to see the error up front and deal with it immediately instead of waiting 8 weeks for the process to start and your refund to languish for another month or two before it is all sorted out.