6 ms·

Because that's not why it happened. There's just an assumption in American politics that whenever anything bad happens it's because of "corporations" and not id

Because that's not why it happened. There's just an assumption in American politics that whenever anything bad happens it's because of "corporations" and not ideology. Republicans are against easy tax filing because Grover Norquist makes them all sign pledges against it, not because of lobbying.

dragonwriter 2y ago
Corporations and ideology are not orthogonal concerns. The Republican small government ideology is about moving power out of democratically-accountable public institutions into accountable-only-to-their-owners private ones.
- gjsman-1000 2y ago
  No; the Republicans argue that it is not in the IRS’s interest to do a good job, or offer the best tax strategies with their own tools. (Additionally, should the IRS tool contain a bug, does the IRS have the right to collect against their own mistake?) This is a particular sore spot, as Republicans have still not forgiven the IRS in 2013 for admitting deliberately harassing conservative nonprofits without cause. Call it a stupid argument, but at least it’s not a strawman like the above comment.
  - paulryanrogers 2y ago
    Define "best strategies". Best for whom? The rich to further snowball their wealth at the expense of those they bowl over?
    - gjsman-1000 2y ago
      Well, to quote the Appellate Court Justice Learned Hand from the 1930s (at the time, he was often called the “10th Supreme Court justice”): “Anyone may arrange his affairs so that his taxes shall be as low as possible; he is not bound to choose that pattern which best pays the treasury. There is not even a patriotic duty to increase one's taxes. Over and over again the Courts have said that there is nothing sinister in so arranging affairs as to keep taxes as low as possible. Everyone does it, rich and poor alike and all do right, for nobody owes any public duty to pay more than the law demands.” Gregory v. Helvering (2d Cir. 1934)
      - cratermoon 2y ago
        > Everyone does it, rich and poor alike and all do right 'The law, in its majestic equality, forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal their bread.' ― Anatole France
        SpicyLemonZest 2y ago
        I don't understand what this quote has to do with the comment you're responding to, other than both containing the words "rich and poor alike". Care to elaborate?
        xmprt 2y ago
        The letter of the law is the same for rich and poor people but the implications are very different. Neither rich nor poor people can steal or sleep under a bridge but rich people have money and homes so those laws essentially don't apply to them. Likewise, tax laws are the same for rich and poor people but rich people can take advantage of more loopholes and ways to structure their income to make their effective tax rate much lower. Even just owning a house gives you access to a pretty big tax "loophole" in the ability to deduct interest on your mortgage. The problem isn't that people are taking advantage of loopholes but rather that the loopholes were created and still exist.
        cratermoon 2y ago
        The tax laws relating to carried interest, for example. Everyone, rich and poor, gets to take advantage of the lower rates compared to ordinary income. Sounds equitable on the surface, but the reality is that poor people don't have investment yields that are taxed as carried interest, they have ordinary income. Rich people, on the other hand, can all but eliminate their ordinary income and the taxes on it, and instead put their money in places where it's taxed as carried interest, which is to say at a much lower rate. I don't know what finance and investment regulations were in place when Learned Hand was alive, but I do wonder if he'd take the same position in an economy and tax regime so heavily titled to favor the wealthiest.
  - dragonwriter 2y ago
    > the Republicans argue that it is not in the IRS’s interest to do a good job, or offer the best tax strategies with their own tools. Yes, the rationalization offered to those who don't already subscribe to the ideology of privatization as an a priori goal to get them on board is usually that democratically-accountable public institutions lack a motivation to serve the interest of the public to whom they are accountable, while accountable-to-their-owners private interests do have an motivation to serve the public interest.
    - gjsman-1000 2y ago
      [flagged]
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
- chongli 2y ago
  Private businesses are accountable to their customers, not only their shareholders. A business that loses all of its customers ceases to operate. A business that loses 10% of its customers will be held accountable by its shareholders. Government is far less accountable than that. Government can have the disapproval of over half the population and continue to operate.
  - jasonjayr 2y ago
    If this is to be true, then there needs to be stronger protections against collusion and monopolies, otherwise things will end up in a very bad place. How do you escape a private business that is (a) big enough to buy up all the competitors, (b) uses IP law to prevent competition, (c) gives it's customers worse service and high prices?
    - IG_Semmelweiss 2y ago
      theres antitrust for that . unfortunately, founders never envisioned a congress of career politicians, who would shy away from their duty to actually draft complete laws and enforce them , because politicians want to be friends with everyone. Lack of term limits, lack of randomness, lack of income caps in government (and post government!), have eroded a sense of duty in our congressional leaders , and have gotten us a congress that is solely in it for its enrichment at the expense of the voters
      - chongli 2y ago
        Antitrust is a bandaid fix and a last resort. By far the majority of monopolies are created by government regulation in the first place.
        IG_Semmelweiss 2y ago
        I dont disagree at all. BUT parent was asking for a government solution to the problem of monopolies. I was merely pointing out that government solution already exists. And as you rightly point out, persistent monopolies are a government-created problem.
krupan 2y ago
I had to google this name and I found that he "makes" them sign a pledge to not raise taxes and to simplify tax laws, not to a pledge to oppose easier tax filing.
- astrange 2y ago
  They're specifically against automatic tax calculation because they think making everyone do the work themselves encourages keeping it simple.
  - lolinder 2y ago
    I've seen this cited on HN a bunch but haven't seen anyone link to a source and nor have I found one. Is there a source for this claim, or is it just inference from their behavior?
- SilasX 2y ago
  Well, there are two things going on here. Norquist does oppose efforts by the IRS to (partially) obviate TurboTax by having the IRS do your taxes [1]. Separately, he has the anti-tax pledge you mention. The former is not entailed by the latter, at least in any obvious way. So the parent is right about Norquist opposing filing simplification, but wrong about it being related to the infamous pledge. [1] For those asking for a citation, here's a recent tweet: https://x.com/GroverNorquist/status/1912592196894630291 https://x.com/GroverNorquist/status/1912592196894630291

dragonwriter 2y ago

Corporations and ideology are not orthogonal concerns. The Republican small government ideology is about moving power out of democratically-accountable public institutions into accountable-only-to-their-owners private ones.

gjsman-1000 2y ago
No; the Republicans argue that it is not in the IRS’s interest to do a good job, or offer the best tax strategies with their own tools. (Additionally, should the IRS tool contain a bug, does the IRS have the right to collect against their own mistake?) This is a particular sore spot, as Republicans have still not forgiven the IRS in 2013 for admitting deliberately harassing conservative nonprofits without cause. Call it a stupid argument, but at least it’s not a strawman like the above comment.
- paulryanrogers 2y ago
  Define "best strategies". Best for whom? The rich to further snowball their wealth at the expense of those they bowl over?
  - gjsman-1000 2y ago
    Well, to quote the Appellate Court Justice Learned Hand from the 1930s (at the time, he was often called the “10th Supreme Court justice”): “Anyone may arrange his affairs so that his taxes shall be as low as possible; he is not bound to choose that pattern which best pays the treasury. There is not even a patriotic duty to increase one's taxes. Over and over again the Courts have said that there is nothing sinister in so arranging affairs as to keep taxes as low as possible. Everyone does it, rich and poor alike and all do right, for nobody owes any public duty to pay more than the law demands.” Gregory v. Helvering (2d Cir. 1934)
    - cratermoon 2y ago
      > Everyone does it, rich and poor alike and all do right 'The law, in its majestic equality, forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal their bread.' ― Anatole France
      - SpicyLemonZest 2y ago
        I don't understand what this quote has to do with the comment you're responding to, other than both containing the words "rich and poor alike". Care to elaborate?
        xmprt 2y ago
        The letter of the law is the same for rich and poor people but the implications are very different. Neither rich nor poor people can steal or sleep under a bridge but rich people have money and homes so those laws essentially don't apply to them. Likewise, tax laws are the same for rich and poor people but rich people can take advantage of more loopholes and ways to structure their income to make their effective tax rate much lower. Even just owning a house gives you access to a pretty big tax "loophole" in the ability to deduct interest on your mortgage. The problem isn't that people are taking advantage of loopholes but rather that the loopholes were created and still exist.
        cratermoon 2y ago
        The tax laws relating to carried interest, for example. Everyone, rich and poor, gets to take advantage of the lower rates compared to ordinary income. Sounds equitable on the surface, but the reality is that poor people don't have investment yields that are taxed as carried interest, they have ordinary income. Rich people, on the other hand, can all but eliminate their ordinary income and the taxes on it, and instead put their money in places where it's taxed as carried interest, which is to say at a much lower rate. I don't know what finance and investment regulations were in place when Learned Hand was alive, but I do wonder if he'd take the same position in an economy and tax regime so heavily titled to favor the wealthiest.
- dragonwriter 2y ago
  > the Republicans argue that it is not in the IRS’s interest to do a good job, or offer the best tax strategies with their own tools. Yes, the rationalization offered to those who don't already subscribe to the ideology of privatization as an a priori goal to get them on board is usually that democratically-accountable public institutions lack a motivation to serve the interest of the public to whom they are accountable, while accountable-to-their-owners private interests do have an motivation to serve the public interest.
  - gjsman-1000 2y ago
    [flagged]
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
chongli 2y ago
Private businesses are accountable to their customers, not only their shareholders. A business that loses all of its customers ceases to operate. A business that loses 10% of its customers will be held accountable by its shareholders. Government is far less accountable than that. Government can have the disapproval of over half the population and continue to operate.
- jasonjayr 2y ago
  If this is to be true, then there needs to be stronger protections against collusion and monopolies, otherwise things will end up in a very bad place. How do you escape a private business that is (a) big enough to buy up all the competitors, (b) uses IP law to prevent competition, (c) gives it's customers worse service and high prices?
  - IG_Semmelweiss 2y ago
    theres antitrust for that . unfortunately, founders never envisioned a congress of career politicians, who would shy away from their duty to actually draft complete laws and enforce them , because politicians want to be friends with everyone. Lack of term limits, lack of randomness, lack of income caps in government (and post government!), have eroded a sense of duty in our congressional leaders , and have gotten us a congress that is solely in it for its enrichment at the expense of the voters
    - chongli 2y ago
      Antitrust is a bandaid fix and a last resort. By far the majority of monopolies are created by government regulation in the first place.
      - IG_Semmelweiss 2y ago
        I dont disagree at all. BUT parent was asking for a government solution to the problem of monopolies. I was merely pointing out that government solution already exists. And as you rightly point out, persistent monopolies are a government-created problem.

krupan 2y ago

I had to google this name and I found that he "makes" them sign a pledge to not raise taxes and to simplify tax laws, not to a pledge to oppose easier tax filing.

astrange 2y ago
They're specifically against automatic tax calculation because they think making everyone do the work themselves encourages keeping it simple.
- lolinder 2y ago
  I've seen this cited on HN a bunch but haven't seen anyone link to a source and nor have I found one. Is there a source for this claim, or is it just inference from their behavior?
SilasX 2y ago
Well, there are two things going on here. Norquist does oppose efforts by the IRS to (partially) obviate TurboTax by having the IRS do your taxes [1]. Separately, he has the anti-tax pledge you mention. The former is not entailed by the latter, at least in any obvious way. So the parent is right about Norquist opposing filing simplification, but wrong about it being related to the infamous pledge. [1] For those asking for a citation, here's a recent tweet: https://x.com/GroverNorquist/status/1912592196894630291 https://x.com/GroverNorquist/status/1912592196894630291