4 ms·

This works against the governments interest, as they'll lose revenue from all the fines they give to people who accidentally fuck up their tax return.

Sohcahtoa82 2y ago
> all the fines they give to people who accidentally fuck up their tax return. You only get fined if you deliberately (and fraudulently) fuck up. If you make a mistake, they give you a chance to correct it before fining you. I forgot a W-2 once (I switched jobs 4 weeks into the year and the first employer gave me my W-2 late) and filed without it. My return was rejected and I got a letter telling me why and requested an amended return. I amended, re-filed, got accepted, and got my refund. No fines. And certainly no jail time like a lot of memes like to suggest.
CharlieDigital 2y ago
The point of the government isn't to make a profit; it's to serve the people.
- mrangle 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - mrangle 2y ago
    The people who are downvoting my "disagree" are likely assuming that I am speaking philosophically. I'm not. Philosophically, sure: the purpose of the government is to serve the people. A philosophy written specifically for the consumption of people. But now I'm speaking about its practical purpose. What a system produces is always its purpose.
    - plorkyeran 2y ago
      The US Government operates at a massive deficit, so clearly the purpose of it is not to turn a profit.
      - mrangle 2y ago
        There is no such conscious entity as "the US government". Said entity is a legal vehicle. It can't consciously seek to profit, nor does it care whether or not it profits. However, the point of legal vehicles is to benefit people. My point is that I disagree with the characterization that the primary benefit is "for the people".
    - g15jv2dp 2y ago
      It's also possible that people downvoted because a one-word comment doesn't contribute anything to the discussion.
      - deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]
      - mrangle 2y ago
        Disagree
    - vel0city 2y ago
      Even with your definition of "What a system produces is always its purpose" is still usually incorrect. The US hasn't "turned a profit" (had a budget surplus) for the majority of the past what, 100 years? Lots of places don't tend to run long-term budget surpluses either. Governments generally don't "turn a profit".
      - mrangle 2y ago
        It's always correct for any slightly mature system. That's not what I mean, at all.
- spiderice 2y ago
  Ideally, yes. What is your point?
barbazoo 2y ago
What about on the other hand saving all that effort associated with auditing, re-filing/amending a return, etc.
bombcar 2y ago
It does work against the government's stated interest, but not in the way you think. Tax policy is the government's strongest tool to change personal behavior, and if the system is simple and automated it doesn't do that at all.
- op00to 2y ago
  > Tax policy is the government's strongest tool to change personal behavior, and if the system is simple and automated it doesn't do that at all. I'm not sure I agree. For example, I used to pay city wage tax to one municipality, and I decided I did not want to pay that city tax anymore so I took a job in another area that no longer had the city wage tax. I would be due the wage tax no matter what, and I was aware of exactly how much the wage tax was by looking at my pay stub every two weeks. Having my taxes prepared for me doesn't really change that.
  - bombcar 2y ago
    It's all the various deductions you can take, both above and below the line. It is possible to do the same societal effect in other ways, but the US does a done at the federal level via taxes. Go look sometimes at the list of things you can claim in various cases. It's even more explicit when you look at business tax returns and schedules.
- vundercind 2y ago
  Why… not? If anything it’s a great opportunity to put personalized suggestions for how to reduce one’s taxes (=change behavior) directly in front of the eyeballs you want to see it. Put it directly on the page where you click “looks good to me” on the automatically-filled-in tax form. “Looks like you’ve never used your one-off solar panel federal tax credit. Click here for information on how to save up to $xx,xxx on next year’s taxes, while also reducing your energy bill!”
mminer237 2y ago
1. It surely costs way more in employee expenses to monitor, correct, and collect such small fines. Plenty of times they'll just let a $200 fine go because it's not worth the effort to collect. 2. Taxes are a means to an end, as is the government. There's no benefit to fining people for clerical mistakes besides encouraging them to not make them. There's no value created by fines. There's no shareholder greedily pocketing the revenue. If they can avoid mistakes for people, that benefits government employees by having to waste less time on stupid stuff, the taxpayers by not having to waste time on stupid stuff and avoiding fines, and the people at large by not having to waste public money on paying people to fix stupid stuff on people's returns.
- spiderice 2y ago
  1. citation needed 2. In an ideal world, yes. In practice, citation needed.
  - lesuorac 2y ago
    1. Citation is really needed. EITC makes up 36% of all audits and its for people making below 20k. https://www.propublica.org/article/earned-income-tax-credit-irs-audit-working-poor https://www.propublica.org/article/earned-income-tax-credit-...
kbolino 2y ago
That revenue isn't even a drop in the bucket. The issue is and always has been parasitic jobs: you wouldn't need anywhere near as many IRS employees and tax accountants.
- spiderice 2y ago
  Agree. I love the idea.
xp84 2y ago
Most returns are not audited, and most screw-ups don't result in fines. The kind of thing that (sometimes) gets big fines is sophisticated shenanigans done by rich people, and completely preparing such a complex return is (imho) way out of scope for the 'tax automation' we are speaking about here, where a basic 1040A or 1040EZ (simple forms which a massive plurality of Americans are eligible to use) can be populated entirely from IRS-known data.

Sohcahtoa82 2y ago

> all the fines they give to people who accidentally fuck up their tax return. You only get fined if you deliberately (and fraudulently) fuck up. If you make a mistake, they give you a chance to correct it before fining you. I forgot a W-2 once (I switched jobs 4 weeks into the year and the first employer gave me my W-2 late) and filed without it. My return was rejected and I got a letter telling me why and requested an amended return. I amended, re-filed, got accepted, and got my refund. No fines. And certainly no jail time like a lot of memes like to suggest.

CharlieDigital 2y ago

The point of the government isn't to make a profit; it's to serve the people.

mrangle 2y ago
[flagged]
- mrangle 2y ago
  The people who are downvoting my "disagree" are likely assuming that I am speaking philosophically. I'm not. Philosophically, sure: the purpose of the government is to serve the people. A philosophy written specifically for the consumption of people. But now I'm speaking about its practical purpose. What a system produces is always its purpose.
  - plorkyeran 2y ago
    The US Government operates at a massive deficit, so clearly the purpose of it is not to turn a profit.
    - mrangle 2y ago
      There is no such conscious entity as "the US government". Said entity is a legal vehicle. It can't consciously seek to profit, nor does it care whether or not it profits. However, the point of legal vehicles is to benefit people. My point is that I disagree with the characterization that the primary benefit is "for the people".
  - g15jv2dp 2y ago
    It's also possible that people downvoted because a one-word comment doesn't contribute anything to the discussion.
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
    - mrangle 2y ago
      Disagree
  - vel0city 2y ago
    Even with your definition of "What a system produces is always its purpose" is still usually incorrect. The US hasn't "turned a profit" (had a budget surplus) for the majority of the past what, 100 years? Lots of places don't tend to run long-term budget surpluses either. Governments generally don't "turn a profit".
    - mrangle 2y ago
      It's always correct for any slightly mature system. That's not what I mean, at all.
spiderice 2y ago
Ideally, yes. What is your point?

barbazoo 2y ago

What about on the other hand saving all that effort associated with auditing, re-filing/amending a return, etc.

bombcar 2y ago

It does work against the government's stated interest, but not in the way you think. Tax policy is the government's strongest tool to change personal behavior, and if the system is simple and automated it doesn't do that at all.

op00to 2y ago
> Tax policy is the government's strongest tool to change personal behavior, and if the system is simple and automated it doesn't do that at all. I'm not sure I agree. For example, I used to pay city wage tax to one municipality, and I decided I did not want to pay that city tax anymore so I took a job in another area that no longer had the city wage tax. I would be due the wage tax no matter what, and I was aware of exactly how much the wage tax was by looking at my pay stub every two weeks. Having my taxes prepared for me doesn't really change that.
- bombcar 2y ago
  It's all the various deductions you can take, both above and below the line. It is possible to do the same societal effect in other ways, but the US does a done at the federal level via taxes. Go look sometimes at the list of things you can claim in various cases. It's even more explicit when you look at business tax returns and schedules.
vundercind 2y ago
Why… not? If anything it’s a great opportunity to put personalized suggestions for how to reduce one’s taxes (=change behavior) directly in front of the eyeballs you want to see it. Put it directly on the page where you click “looks good to me” on the automatically-filled-in tax form. “Looks like you’ve never used your one-off solar panel federal tax credit. Click here for information on how to save up to $xx,xxx on next year’s taxes, while also reducing your energy bill!”

mminer237 2y ago

1. It surely costs way more in employee expenses to monitor, correct, and collect such small fines. Plenty of times they'll just let a $200 fine go because it's not worth the effort to collect. 2. Taxes are a means to an end, as is the government. There's no benefit to fining people for clerical mistakes besides encouraging them to not make them. There's no value created by fines. There's no shareholder greedily pocketing the revenue. If they can avoid mistakes for people, that benefits government employees by having to waste less time on stupid stuff, the taxpayers by not having to waste time on stupid stuff and avoiding fines, and the people at large by not having to waste public money on paying people to fix stupid stuff on people's returns.

spiderice 2y ago
1. citation needed 2. In an ideal world, yes. In practice, citation needed.
- lesuorac 2y ago
  1. Citation is really needed. EITC makes up 36% of all audits and its for people making below 20k. https://www.propublica.org/article/earned-income-tax-credit-irs-audit-working-poor https://www.propublica.org/article/earned-income-tax-credit-...

kbolino 2y ago

That revenue isn't even a drop in the bucket. The issue is and always has been parasitic jobs: you wouldn't need anywhere near as many IRS employees and tax accountants.

spiderice 2y ago
Agree. I love the idea.

xp84 2y ago

Most returns are not audited, and most screw-ups don't result in fines. The kind of thing that (sometimes) gets big fines is sophisticated shenanigans done by rich people, and completely preparing such a complex return is (imho) way out of scope for the 'tax automation' we are speaking about here, where a basic 1040A or 1040EZ (simple forms which a massive plurality of Americans are eligible to use) can be populated entirely from IRS-known data.