5 ms·

The IRS does not need to be a large operation. It's a problem created by our complex tax code, something every politician ever has promised to fix, and yet here

The IRS does not need to be a large operation. It's a problem created by our complex tax code, something every politician ever has promised to fix, and yet here we are. I for one would rather see the root issue solved. The primary role of the IRS can be done with a handful of agents and computers. They do not need to be a law enforcement agency. They do not need to have guns. They do not need to be yet another arm of federal and executive overreach and power expansion.

imtringued 4y ago
I fully agree, a negative income tax model that is similar to a UBI would minimize the bureaucracy of income taxes while simultaneously reducing the need for ultra specific means tested benefits programs.
- whakim 4y ago
  There is hardly any bureaucracy around income taxes. As a sibling post mentions, it's the insistence on legislating through the tax code (via deductions and credits) that makes the IRS' job incredibly complicated.
PaulDavisThe1st 4y ago
The politicians that have said this are either liars or fools or both. The US government has for more than a century chosen to use the tax code as a policy tool, by providing taxes, tax credits and deductions to encourage and discourage behavior of its choosing. Contrast with the situation in many other countries where the government just simply reimburses people who engage in the desirable behavior. No single politician will ever be able to reverse this approach to entangling policy and taxation. And yes, they are enforcing laws. If they do not, then some other agency with similar or more expansive police powers will need to do the same thing.
- tialaramex 4y ago
  America has always had people who engaged in wishful thinking about funding government. Indeed that's why the United States even exists in its current form. After achieving independence all the colonists were very clear that they should just voluntarily pay to run stuff, it's obvious right? No need for a central government to take money, we will gladly give it. But of course these good intentions last only five minutes. No, we don't have any money for Central government this year, the harvest was poor and besides we needed money for our new great hall. We'll get you next time. And like that old friend who always seems to have forgotten their wallet, the colonists never did seem to have the money they'd said they'd give voluntarily. So the Constitution establishes a government which can take what it needs, because the wishful thinking doesn't work.

imtringued 4y ago

I fully agree, a negative income tax model that is similar to a UBI would minimize the bureaucracy of income taxes while simultaneously reducing the need for ultra specific means tested benefits programs.

whakim 4y ago
There is hardly any bureaucracy around income taxes. As a sibling post mentions, it's the insistence on legislating through the tax code (via deductions and credits) that makes the IRS' job incredibly complicated.

PaulDavisThe1st 4y ago

The politicians that have said this are either liars or fools or both. The US government has for more than a century chosen to use the tax code as a policy tool, by providing taxes, tax credits and deductions to encourage and discourage behavior of its choosing. Contrast with the situation in many other countries where the government just simply reimburses people who engage in the desirable behavior. No single politician will ever be able to reverse this approach to entangling policy and taxation. And yes, they are enforcing laws. If they do not, then some other agency with similar or more expansive police powers will need to do the same thing.

tialaramex 4y ago
America has always had people who engaged in wishful thinking about funding government. Indeed that's why the United States even exists in its current form. After achieving independence all the colonists were very clear that they should just voluntarily pay to run stuff, it's obvious right? No need for a central government to take money, we will gladly give it. But of course these good intentions last only five minutes. No, we don't have any money for Central government this year, the harvest was poor and besides we needed money for our new great hall. We'll get you next time. And like that old friend who always seems to have forgotten their wallet, the colonists never did seem to have the money they'd said they'd give voluntarily. So the Constitution establishes a government which can take what it needs, because the wishful thinking doesn't work.