5 ms·

Flat taxes would not help at all, because the government still needs to know all your data. After that it is just computations which computers are pretty good a

Flat taxes would not help at all, because the government still needs to know all your data. After that it is just computations which computers are pretty good at.

jxramos 7y ago
Maybe but the point is they'll need to know vastly less data than the smorgasbord of hyper-parameters in use today.
mikeyouse 7y ago
This is the essence of the idiotic premise of the current administration that they simplified taxes enough to fit on a post card... The number of brackets isn't the source of tax complexity, it's all of the other shit. That's why that 'postcard' can be accompanied with dozens of supplemental forms. Predictably they killed the 'postcard' after one year: https://www.businessinsider.com/the-republican-tax-reform-postcard-dead-year-2019-7 https://www.businessinsider.com/the-republican-tax-reform-po...
- nightski 7y ago
  I thought that argument was because they doubled the standard deduction, making it much less attractive to itemize and hence, simpler. What is idiotic about that? For most middle to lower class families it reduced their tax burden and made things simpler. There were a few exceptions, primarily upper middle class families in high cost of living areas, but those were exceptional situations.
  - arcticbull 7y ago
    The net effect of the changes was absolutely tiny for low and middle income folks, and disproportionately rewarded the already well off for whom the marginal utility of money is the lowest. It was a totally regressive change. Just doubling the standard deduction is fine. Capping SLPT was a kick in the nards to liberals on the coasts. It's not just "upper middle class" folks who got hosed, its actually people on the bubble, for whom their SF property tax (1.188%) already eats their entire deduction, and now they're double-taxed on their state taxes. 100K may be upper middle class in Iowa but it won't even get you a studio apartment in SF. That's who gets hosed. And anyone with way too much money got more money. The net of it was dumb.
    - burfog 7y ago
      Capping the deduction for state and local taxes is proper. The cap should be $0. If those taxes can be deducted, the nation is subsidizing the more wasteful states. We create a situation where the winning move is to jack up state and local taxes. This diverts more money to the state. The cost of wasteful spending gets spread across the nation, while the benefits stay with those who are wasteful. This encourages a race to see who can be most wasteful, with the federal government being forced to have higher tax rates to make up for funds lost to tax deductions.
      - arcticbull 7y ago
        That’s double taxation. It’s not fair to literally tax me on the taxes I have to pay to another government entity. I don’t even get taxed on the taxes I pay to foreign governments with no cap (?!). The government is “one” from my perspective wrt taxes. No reason for me to pay federal tax on my state tax, period. Your argument just makes it more efficient for the federal government to be wasteful than state governments which do way way less. It’s useless. The federal government has no business keeping states “lean” that’s up to the voters of said states. There’s nothing in the constitution that makes it the federal governments responsibility unless I missed an amendment. Further these high tax states also pay for literally all the other states. California is massive net givers of transfer payments and the flyover states being given a break from this are net takers of transfer payments. It’s just biting the hand that feeds. Of course it’s not politically expeditious to say that. [1] This was done for votes, nothing else. [1] https://www.politifact.com/california/article/2017/feb/14/does-california-give-more-it-gets-dc/ https://www.politifact.com/california/article/2017/feb/14/do...
        burfog 7y ago
        I was in fact thinking of that idea that "high tax states also pay for literally all the other states", and I pointed out a flaw in that argument. They are underpaying their federal taxes. The voters in those states also happen to be the ones voting for expensive government programs, so it is only fair that they pay. There is no double taxation. You owe tax first to the federal government. The state could let you deduct federal taxes from your state taxes, or not. The federal government has no duty to give you a discount for your choice to live in a place that would divert lots of your income to local purposes. As a thought experiment, consider the ultimate extreme. The local government takes 100% in taxes, then provides you with everything (house, food, clothes, etc.) as government services. Your region thus pays ZERO federal income tax despite having wealth to enjoy (you are fed, etc.) and receiving federal funds for various things. What you have is a partial version of that extreme. Your state isn't being 100% unfair to the other states. It is just modestly unfair. The federal government shouldn't enable that kind of unfairness. BTW, politifact is not credible due to strong partisan bias. I also don't think that "transfer payments" are a proper accounting for differences.
  - hcknwscommenter 7y ago
    And anyone with a lot of kids. No fun to lose multiple personal exemptions.

Flat taxes would not help at all, because the government still needs to know all your data. After that it is just computations which computers are pretty good at.

jxramos 7y ago

Maybe but the point is they'll need to know vastly less data than the smorgasbord of hyper-parameters in use today.

mikeyouse 7y ago

This is the essence of the idiotic premise of the current administration that they simplified taxes enough to fit on a post card... The number of brackets isn't the source of tax complexity, it's all of the other shit. That's why that 'postcard' can be accompanied with dozens of supplemental forms. Predictably they killed the 'postcard' after one year: https://www.businessinsider.com/the-republican-tax-reform-postcard-dead-year-2019-7 https://www.businessinsider.com/the-republican-tax-reform-po...

nightski 7y ago
I thought that argument was because they doubled the standard deduction, making it much less attractive to itemize and hence, simpler. What is idiotic about that? For most middle to lower class families it reduced their tax burden and made things simpler. There were a few exceptions, primarily upper middle class families in high cost of living areas, but those were exceptional situations.
- arcticbull 7y ago
  The net effect of the changes was absolutely tiny for low and middle income folks, and disproportionately rewarded the already well off for whom the marginal utility of money is the lowest. It was a totally regressive change. Just doubling the standard deduction is fine. Capping SLPT was a kick in the nards to liberals on the coasts. It's not just "upper middle class" folks who got hosed, its actually people on the bubble, for whom their SF property tax (1.188%) already eats their entire deduction, and now they're double-taxed on their state taxes. 100K may be upper middle class in Iowa but it won't even get you a studio apartment in SF. That's who gets hosed. And anyone with way too much money got more money. The net of it was dumb.
  - burfog 7y ago
    Capping the deduction for state and local taxes is proper. The cap should be $0. If those taxes can be deducted, the nation is subsidizing the more wasteful states. We create a situation where the winning move is to jack up state and local taxes. This diverts more money to the state. The cost of wasteful spending gets spread across the nation, while the benefits stay with those who are wasteful. This encourages a race to see who can be most wasteful, with the federal government being forced to have higher tax rates to make up for funds lost to tax deductions.
    - arcticbull 7y ago
      That’s double taxation. It’s not fair to literally tax me on the taxes I have to pay to another government entity. I don’t even get taxed on the taxes I pay to foreign governments with no cap (?!). The government is “one” from my perspective wrt taxes. No reason for me to pay federal tax on my state tax, period. Your argument just makes it more efficient for the federal government to be wasteful than state governments which do way way less. It’s useless. The federal government has no business keeping states “lean” that’s up to the voters of said states. There’s nothing in the constitution that makes it the federal governments responsibility unless I missed an amendment. Further these high tax states also pay for literally all the other states. California is massive net givers of transfer payments and the flyover states being given a break from this are net takers of transfer payments. It’s just biting the hand that feeds. Of course it’s not politically expeditious to say that. [1] This was done for votes, nothing else. [1] https://www.politifact.com/california/article/2017/feb/14/does-california-give-more-it-gets-dc/ https://www.politifact.com/california/article/2017/feb/14/do...
      - burfog 7y ago
        I was in fact thinking of that idea that "high tax states also pay for literally all the other states", and I pointed out a flaw in that argument. They are underpaying their federal taxes. The voters in those states also happen to be the ones voting for expensive government programs, so it is only fair that they pay. There is no double taxation. You owe tax first to the federal government. The state could let you deduct federal taxes from your state taxes, or not. The federal government has no duty to give you a discount for your choice to live in a place that would divert lots of your income to local purposes. As a thought experiment, consider the ultimate extreme. The local government takes 100% in taxes, then provides you with everything (house, food, clothes, etc.) as government services. Your region thus pays ZERO federal income tax despite having wealth to enjoy (you are fed, etc.) and receiving federal funds for various things. What you have is a partial version of that extreme. Your state isn't being 100% unfair to the other states. It is just modestly unfair. The federal government shouldn't enable that kind of unfairness. BTW, politifact is not credible due to strong partisan bias. I also don't think that "transfer payments" are a proper accounting for differences.
- hcknwscommenter 7y ago
  And anyone with a lot of kids. No fun to lose multiple personal exemptions.