5 ms·
> 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 with
by 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 agoI 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.