3 ms·

Income tax itself isn't the complicated part of taxes. I encourage everyone to do their own taxes by hand sometime. There are like 4 boxes for wage income and i

Income tax itself isn't the complicated part of taxes. I encourage everyone to do their own taxes by hand sometime. There are like 4 boxes for wage income and income tax, and 100s of boxes for everything else. And besides the boxes you do fill out, there is all the reading and calculating required to figure out you don't have to fill in even more boxes (e.g. in order to know if you have to fill in the AMT form, you potentially have to do all the AMT calculations). I think the biggest single thing that would simplify the tax code is removing the separate capital gains tax and just counting it all as income. There is significant complexity in the tax return to calculate everything independently and to show that your capital gains aren't really income. You could eliminate Schedule D, Form 8949 (which you have to up to 4 times), and the Capital Gains/Schedule D worksheets to figure income. HSAs are also super painful. E.g. CA doesn't respect the tax-exempt status of HSAs, so you have to add the HSA back into your income so they can tax it. There are also a lot of bookkeeping requirements for relatively low amounts of money. In practice, they aren't very useful since the fees are high, the returns are low, and their function is redundant with insurance (i.e. paying premiums now to cover large future expenses). In general, there are a ton of random little exemptions and extra taxes that you might qualify for and it just takes time to figure out if they apply to you. E.g. Form 8959 (Additional Medicare Tax) is a 0.9% tax for income over a certain amount. They should have just adjusted the income tax graduations in an equivalent way. Form 8960 (Net Investment Income Tax) has a similar problem. CA gives a $60 renter's credit if you make under certain amounts, which is just too insignificant to matter (e.g. 0.3% of $1500/month annualized).

KirillPanov 6y ago
> biggest single thing that would simplify the tax code is removing the separate capital gains tax and just counting it all as income That's okay during times like ~1990-2020, a time of wonderfully low dollar inflation. The justification behind the long-term capital gains rate is this: during times of high dollar inflation, taxation on capital asset values turns into an outright tax on investment. If the dollar is inflating rapidly then an investment which simply maintains its value in real terms -- neither gaining nor losing real value -- will see its value in dollars increase and will therefore be taxed, heavily. The lower rate for capital gains tax was in recognition that not all of that gain in nominal value was real income. All of the major reductions in the long-term capital gains rate (i.e. reduction of the rate, shortening of timespan for "long term", and increase/removal of cap) occurred after highly dollar-inflationary periods (1934, 1942, 1978-1981). Without a lower capital gains rate, during times of high dollar inflation the wealthy will shift all their money into non-fungible assets (real estate, artwork, patents, Persian rugs, domain names, antiques) which aren't fungible commodities with liquid markets and therefore can't be marked-to-market or taxed until sold. This kind of economy-wide, sudden, and simultaneous disinvestment would be a catastrophe for the economy. Not to mention the resulting real estate boom would make the homelessness problem an order of magnitude worse in a matter of months. When your money is losing value every day, buying up every apartment in sight, jacking the rent to the moon, and evicting the tenants (so it can sit empty and maintain value without any management effort) is, unfortunately, a great strategy. Note that the 1990's were a boom time for the US (Cold War peace dividend), and from ~2000-2020 we had a massive onlining of cheap Chinese labor providing a deflationary counterpressure to our outrageous money-printing escapades. All the cheap Chinese labor is now fully online and "Fed go Brrr" is in permanent COVID-hyperdrive, so the party will end real soon now.
- vkou 6y ago
  > This kind of economy-wide, sudden, and simultaneous disinvestment would be a catastrophe for the economy. I don't know, it sounds like a great opportunity for the non-super-wealthy to buy shares in productive assets at a discount. Haven't all the prudent people in the room spent the past 8 years grousing about how poor the P/E ratio of the S&P is?
  - KirillPanov 6y ago
    It's only a "great opportunity" for people who don't file income tax returns. Those people generally end up in prison. The few who don't are not economically significant.
    - vkou 6y ago
      In the long run, you, as a human being who works, retires, and dies, are better off owning a larger share of productive assets, even if you have to pay more taxes on them, than owing fewer productive assets, because the price to buy them is too damn high. Not to mention that as I get older, I expect my income tax bracket to drop. I'd rather buy productive assets cheaply now, and deal with the tax consequences, than be cut out of buying productive assets, period.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]

KirillPanov 6y ago

> biggest single thing that would simplify the tax code is removing the separate capital gains tax and just counting it all as income That's okay during times like ~1990-2020, a time of wonderfully low dollar inflation. The justification behind the long-term capital gains rate is this: during times of high dollar inflation, taxation on capital asset values turns into an outright tax on investment. If the dollar is inflating rapidly then an investment which simply maintains its value in real terms -- neither gaining nor losing real value -- will see its value in dollars increase and will therefore be taxed, heavily. The lower rate for capital gains tax was in recognition that not all of that gain in nominal value was real income. All of the major reductions in the long-term capital gains rate (i.e. reduction of the rate, shortening of timespan for "long term", and increase/removal of cap) occurred after highly dollar-inflationary periods (1934, 1942, 1978-1981). Without a lower capital gains rate, during times of high dollar inflation the wealthy will shift all their money into non-fungible assets (real estate, artwork, patents, Persian rugs, domain names, antiques) which aren't fungible commodities with liquid markets and therefore can't be marked-to-market or taxed until sold. This kind of economy-wide, sudden, and simultaneous disinvestment would be a catastrophe for the economy. Not to mention the resulting real estate boom would make the homelessness problem an order of magnitude worse in a matter of months. When your money is losing value every day, buying up every apartment in sight, jacking the rent to the moon, and evicting the tenants (so it can sit empty and maintain value without any management effort) is, unfortunately, a great strategy. Note that the 1990's were a boom time for the US (Cold War peace dividend), and from ~2000-2020 we had a massive onlining of cheap Chinese labor providing a deflationary counterpressure to our outrageous money-printing escapades. All the cheap Chinese labor is now fully online and "Fed go Brrr" is in permanent COVID-hyperdrive, so the party will end real soon now.

vkou 6y ago
> This kind of economy-wide, sudden, and simultaneous disinvestment would be a catastrophe for the economy. I don't know, it sounds like a great opportunity for the non-super-wealthy to buy shares in productive assets at a discount. Haven't all the prudent people in the room spent the past 8 years grousing about how poor the P/E ratio of the S&P is?
- KirillPanov 6y ago
  It's only a "great opportunity" for people who don't file income tax returns. Those people generally end up in prison. The few who don't are not economically significant.
  - vkou 6y ago
    In the long run, you, as a human being who works, retires, and dies, are better off owning a larger share of productive assets, even if you have to pay more taxes on them, than owing fewer productive assets, because the price to buy them is too damn high. Not to mention that as I get older, I expect my income tax bracket to drop. I'd rather buy productive assets cheaply now, and deal with the tax consequences, than be cut out of buying productive assets, period.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]