3 ms·

> The steelman case for opposing "auto-filing" or having the IRS provide tax preparation is that the intention of requiring everyone to file is that all citizen

> The steelman case for opposing "auto-filing" or having the IRS provide tax preparation is that the intention of requiring everyone to file is that all citizens should be directly aware of the amount of taxes being assessed and the complexity of the tax code itself That's a very weak case when they could just send me a letter telling me how much they took and why, which would accomplish the same thing but better and without saddling me with a bunch of unnecessary labor and/or expense.

chimeracoder 3y ago
> That's a very weak case when they could just send me a letter telling me how much they took and why, which would accomplish the same thing but better and without saddling me with a bunch of unnecessary labor and/or expense. Furthermore, the amount of money that people pay is not very strongly correlated with the time or effort (or frustration) involved in filing the taxes. In fact, there's often (though not always) a correlation in the other direction: most of the "optional" complexity in the tax code comes from the various tax deductions that people are able to file for, making it more effort and frustration not to overpay - this is essentially the opposite of what GP is saying would be the "steelman" argument.
- andrewla 3y ago
  I don't feel like this is the opposite. The feeling that you are overpaying taxes because of all the boxes you have to leave blank is part of the same theory. Every time you're asked "are you using any of your land for agricultural purposes" or stuff like that, you think "why is there an exclusion for that? Can I buy a chicken and qualify? This is stupid, we should get rid of that deduction and make this faster for everyone", except that nobody acts on that last thought, and every year they bring in new exemptions and credits and deductions that apply so narrowly that all they do is add complexity without benefit for the vast majority of tax payers. Nonetheless, seeking a legislative cure for this is something that people are just not interested in doing, making most of this moot. The only remaining argument is that maybe legislatures HAVE been limiting the complexity and rates of taxation out of caution for the backlash, and if you get rid of it, then they'll go hog-wild and before you know it you find more and more of your earnings disappearing into taxes.
andrewla 3y ago
The unnecessary labor and expense is the point in this model. The argument is that taxes are bad and people should be a strong check on the government that is attempting to tax them. The more explicit and painful the process is (the theory goes) the more people will support limitations on taxes, rather than allowing them to expand unchecked. The theory makes sense, and the ends are laudable, but it doesn't work. Other ways of doing taxes do not even attempt to provide the benefit of this sort of built-in check on government excess, If you're willing to forgo that (or acknowledge that making people feel pain is not an effective policy tool in this case) then auto-filing solutions like the one in the article make a lot more sense.
- BugsJustFindMe 3y ago
  > The theory makes sense Regardless of how one feels about arguments against taxation, that theory for how to achieve it does not make sense. It is belligerent sleight of hand from people who want to preserve the status quo of a sheltered income funnel for the tax preparation economy at the extremely inefficient labor expense of everyone else. Here's the problem... You're literally creating something entirely unrelated (paperwork) for people to get mad about instead of getting mad about the thing that your argument claims they should be mad about (taxes). This is what we call in layman's terms a smoke screen. The only reason for not just sending an itemized receipt is to hide from people where their tax dollars go and to bury them in arduous paperwork so that they have less energy to focus on the actual issue of spending allocation. If your argument is earnestly and honestly that taxes are bad and people should attempt to limit government imposing new taxes, it does not matter one whit how painful the paperwork process is, because the paperwork process is not what you claim you seek to limit. If your argument is earnestly and honestly that taxes are bad and people should attempt to limit government imposing new taxes, JUST SEND AN ITEMIZED RECEIPT so that people can see the waste. If you earnestly and honestly think that taxes burden people more than they help, by not just sending an itemized receipt all you've done is hide that burden behind an obfuscated wall of secrecy and toil, which goes completely against what your argument claims it wants.
  - interroboink 3y ago

chimeracoder 3y ago

> That's a very weak case when they could just send me a letter telling me how much they took and why, which would accomplish the same thing but better and without saddling me with a bunch of unnecessary labor and/or expense. Furthermore, the amount of money that people pay is not very strongly correlated with the time or effort (or frustration) involved in filing the taxes. In fact, there's often (though not always) a correlation in the other direction: most of the "optional" complexity in the tax code comes from the various tax deductions that people are able to file for, making it more effort and frustration not to overpay - this is essentially the opposite of what GP is saying would be the "steelman" argument.

andrewla 3y ago
I don't feel like this is the opposite. The feeling that you are overpaying taxes because of all the boxes you have to leave blank is part of the same theory. Every time you're asked "are you using any of your land for agricultural purposes" or stuff like that, you think "why is there an exclusion for that? Can I buy a chicken and qualify? This is stupid, we should get rid of that deduction and make this faster for everyone", except that nobody acts on that last thought, and every year they bring in new exemptions and credits and deductions that apply so narrowly that all they do is add complexity without benefit for the vast majority of tax payers. Nonetheless, seeking a legislative cure for this is something that people are just not interested in doing, making most of this moot. The only remaining argument is that maybe legislatures HAVE been limiting the complexity and rates of taxation out of caution for the backlash, and if you get rid of it, then they'll go hog-wild and before you know it you find more and more of your earnings disappearing into taxes.

andrewla 3y ago

The unnecessary labor and expense is the point in this model. The argument is that taxes are bad and people should be a strong check on the government that is attempting to tax them. The more explicit and painful the process is (the theory goes) the more people will support limitations on taxes, rather than allowing them to expand unchecked. The theory makes sense, and the ends are laudable, but it doesn't work. Other ways of doing taxes do not even attempt to provide the benefit of this sort of built-in check on government excess, If you're willing to forgo that (or acknowledge that making people feel pain is not an effective policy tool in this case) then auto-filing solutions like the one in the article make a lot more sense.

BugsJustFindMe 3y ago
> The theory makes sense Regardless of how one feels about arguments against taxation, that theory for how to achieve it does not make sense. It is belligerent sleight of hand from people who want to preserve the status quo of a sheltered income funnel for the tax preparation economy at the extremely inefficient labor expense of everyone else. Here's the problem... You're literally creating something entirely unrelated (paperwork) for people to get mad about instead of getting mad about the thing that your argument claims they should be mad about (taxes). This is what we call in layman's terms a smoke screen. The only reason for not just sending an itemized receipt is to hide from people where their tax dollars go and to bury them in arduous paperwork so that they have less energy to focus on the actual issue of spending allocation. If your argument is earnestly and honestly that taxes are bad and people should attempt to limit government imposing new taxes, it does not matter one whit how painful the paperwork process is, because the paperwork process is not what you claim you seek to limit. If your argument is earnestly and honestly that taxes are bad and people should attempt to limit government imposing new taxes, JUST SEND AN ITEMIZED RECEIPT so that people can see the waste. If you earnestly and honestly think that taxes burden people more than they help, by not just sending an itemized receipt all you've done is hide that burden behind an obfuscated wall of secrecy and toil, which goes completely against what your argument claims it wants.
- interroboink 3y ago