7 ms·

Norquist is just twisted, sabotaging the government to convince people that it doesn't work. It would cost the IRS almost nothing to send out pre-filled forms,

Norquist is just twisted, sabotaging the government to convince people that it doesn't work. It would cost the IRS almost nothing to send out pre-filled forms, and giving them enough money to audit the wealthy (i.e. ensure they aren't cheating) would more than pay for itself.

michelpp 8y ago
Agreed. In fact the IRS would likely save money, because of all the followup enforcement actions they could avoid.
vonmoltke 8y ago
While I think the IRS should do this, it would require a lot of additional work and resources, as well as a reshuffling of filing deadlines throughout the system. The IRS currently does not have all the information it needs to prefill forms, and inly has the resources to review a fraction of the 140M+ returns filed each year. I don't know why so many people in this site seem to think this is a trivial thing for the IRS. 100% review after the fact isn't even feasible right now, let alone having the information in January.
- Noughmad 8y ago
  So, another thing that the richest country in the world can't afford, despite the fact that just about every other country can do it.
  - vonmoltke 8y ago
    First off, I never said anything about the US not being able to afford it. I said the IRS can't do it with their current resources. Big difference. Second, the IRS processed 247.8M total returns[1] and 3.59B supporting documents[2] in 2017. While I think the IRS could do a better job (like, well, the entire rest of the US federal government), what other tax system processes anything near that volume? Also, I'm not buying "just about every other country". Not even close. For starters, I find it hard to believe that more than a handful of African countries manage to do it. [1] https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p6292.pdf https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p6292.pdf, page (3) [2] https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p6961.pdf https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p6961.pdf, page (4)
    - int_19h 8y ago
      How about "every other developed country"? The volume doesn't really matter, because it scales linearly with population - a larger country just needs more bureaucrats, but it can afford them because it also collects more taxes from more people. There's nothing unique in that regard in US. But if you want something in the same ballpark, we can look at, say, Russia (population of 150 million), or even at Nigeria (200 million).
rayiner 8y ago
There may be many arguments in favor of having the IRS sending out pre-filled-in tax forms, but this one just isn't true: > It would cost the IRS almost nothing to send out pre-filled forms Enhancing the IRS databases to actually plug in the information used on a typical tax return almost certainly would not cost "almost nothing." Back when it existed, less than 20% of people filed a 1040-EZ (the simplest tax form). That means you need something beyond just "plug in the numbers from the W-2" for the vast majority of tax filers. The IRS almost certainly doesn't have all that machinery already. Some of that data, the IRS doesn't have at all. (How many children live with you for purposes of the EITC?)
- JohnFen 8y ago
  The proposals I've seen for having the IRS prefill returns are that they'd just do the equivalent of the 1040EZ for you. If you want something more comprehensive than that, then you'd still have to do your own taxes. I think that's a very reasonable approach.
- username223 8y ago
  The US government currently takes in about $1.7 trillion in individual income taxes per year, so even spending $500 million to pre-fill forms would be almost nothing (0.03%). Heck, that's less than a useless aircraft carrier or a Facebook consent decree violation. The IRS already has W-2s and 1099s, which cover ordinary pay and retirement investments, and enough money has probably been automatically withheld already. Remember that this isn't automatic billing, but automatic filling. They'll send you the form, and you can insert the number of children. If your taxes are much more complicated than that, you can probably afford TurboTax.
  - harryh 8y ago
    For the record, the IRS (in partnership with various tax companies) already providers for free filing for people making less than 66k/year. https://www.irs.gov/filing/free-file-do-your-federal-taxes-for-free https://www.irs.gov/filing/free-file-do-your-federal-taxes-f...
MagicPropmaker 8y ago
Lower income people with cash business are far more likely to cheat than wealthy people. (Of course the return for the IRS going after the small player may not be worth it.)
- learc83 8y ago
  Do you have any evidence to support this? It could be true, but any cash business owner (low income or not) is likely to cheat precisely because it's not feasible for the IRS to prove exactly how much cash income you made.
  - MagicPropmaker 8y ago
    Here's one data point. 24% of the people who claimed the "EITC" did so fraudulently (or, at best "in error") No high earner can claim this. https://taxfoundation.org/earned-income-tax-credit-still-faces-high-error-rate/ https://taxfoundation.org/earned-income-tax-credit-still-fac...
- JohnFen 8y ago
  > Lower income people with cash business are far more likely to cheat than wealthy people. The statistics I've seen indicate the opposite. But I suppose it depends on how you measure. Perhaps on a per-incident basis, you may be correct. But I don't think you're correct if you measure by the amount of money.
  - notriddle 8y ago
    "Likely to cheat" usually means something like "the probability of a person cheating is higher," meaning it would be based on the number of incidents, not on the amount of money. If the poster has meant the amount, they might have said "Lower income people with cash businesses cheat more than wealthy people" (which is ambiguous) or "The IRS loses more money to low income cheaters with cash businesses" (which is unambiguous, and, when you phrase it that way, truly sounds ridiculous given the high level of wealth inequality I would expect one wealthy cheater to cheat the IRS out of more money than all of the other cheaters in the world)

michelpp 8y ago

Agreed. In fact the IRS would likely save money, because of all the followup enforcement actions they could avoid.

vonmoltke 8y ago

While I think the IRS should do this, it would require a lot of additional work and resources, as well as a reshuffling of filing deadlines throughout the system. The IRS currently does not have all the information it needs to prefill forms, and inly has the resources to review a fraction of the 140M+ returns filed each year. I don't know why so many people in this site seem to think this is a trivial thing for the IRS. 100% review after the fact isn't even feasible right now, let alone having the information in January.

Noughmad 8y ago
So, another thing that the richest country in the world can't afford, despite the fact that just about every other country can do it.
- vonmoltke 8y ago
  First off, I never said anything about the US not being able to afford it. I said the IRS can't do it with their current resources. Big difference. Second, the IRS processed 247.8M total returns[1] and 3.59B supporting documents[2] in 2017. While I think the IRS could do a better job (like, well, the entire rest of the US federal government), what other tax system processes anything near that volume? Also, I'm not buying "just about every other country". Not even close. For starters, I find it hard to believe that more than a handful of African countries manage to do it. [1] https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p6292.pdf https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p6292.pdf, page (3) [2] https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p6961.pdf https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p6961.pdf, page (4)
  - int_19h 8y ago
    How about "every other developed country"? The volume doesn't really matter, because it scales linearly with population - a larger country just needs more bureaucrats, but it can afford them because it also collects more taxes from more people. There's nothing unique in that regard in US. But if you want something in the same ballpark, we can look at, say, Russia (population of 150 million), or even at Nigeria (200 million).

rayiner 8y ago

There may be many arguments in favor of having the IRS sending out pre-filled-in tax forms, but this one just isn't true: > It would cost the IRS almost nothing to send out pre-filled forms Enhancing the IRS databases to actually plug in the information used on a typical tax return almost certainly would not cost "almost nothing." Back when it existed, less than 20% of people filed a 1040-EZ (the simplest tax form). That means you need something beyond just "plug in the numbers from the W-2" for the vast majority of tax filers. The IRS almost certainly doesn't have all that machinery already. Some of that data, the IRS doesn't have at all. (How many children live with you for purposes of the EITC?)

JohnFen 8y ago
The proposals I've seen for having the IRS prefill returns are that they'd just do the equivalent of the 1040EZ for you. If you want something more comprehensive than that, then you'd still have to do your own taxes. I think that's a very reasonable approach.
username223 8y ago
The US government currently takes in about $1.7 trillion in individual income taxes per year, so even spending $500 million to pre-fill forms would be almost nothing (0.03%). Heck, that's less than a useless aircraft carrier or a Facebook consent decree violation. The IRS already has W-2s and 1099s, which cover ordinary pay and retirement investments, and enough money has probably been automatically withheld already. Remember that this isn't automatic billing, but automatic filling. They'll send you the form, and you can insert the number of children. If your taxes are much more complicated than that, you can probably afford TurboTax.
- harryh 8y ago
  For the record, the IRS (in partnership with various tax companies) already providers for free filing for people making less than 66k/year. https://www.irs.gov/filing/free-file-do-your-federal-taxes-for-free https://www.irs.gov/filing/free-file-do-your-federal-taxes-f...

MagicPropmaker 8y ago

Lower income people with cash business are far more likely to cheat than wealthy people. (Of course the return for the IRS going after the small player may not be worth it.)

learc83 8y ago
Do you have any evidence to support this? It could be true, but any cash business owner (low income or not) is likely to cheat precisely because it's not feasible for the IRS to prove exactly how much cash income you made.
- MagicPropmaker 8y ago
  Here's one data point. 24% of the people who claimed the "EITC" did so fraudulently (or, at best "in error") No high earner can claim this. https://taxfoundation.org/earned-income-tax-credit-still-faces-high-error-rate/ https://taxfoundation.org/earned-income-tax-credit-still-fac...
JohnFen 8y ago
> Lower income people with cash business are far more likely to cheat than wealthy people. The statistics I've seen indicate the opposite. But I suppose it depends on how you measure. Perhaps on a per-incident basis, you may be correct. But I don't think you're correct if you measure by the amount of money.
- notriddle 8y ago
  "Likely to cheat" usually means something like "the probability of a person cheating is higher," meaning it would be based on the number of incidents, not on the amount of money. If the poster has meant the amount, they might have said "Lower income people with cash businesses cheat more than wealthy people" (which is ambiguous) or "The IRS loses more money to low income cheaters with cash businesses" (which is unambiguous, and, when you phrase it that way, truly sounds ridiculous given the high level of wealth inequality I would expect one wealthy cheater to cheat the IRS out of more money than all of the other cheaters in the world)