4 ms·

Frankly, anyone who does trust any government hasn't had very much experience with them. At best, governments are inefficient and incompetent. At worst, they ar

Frankly, anyone who does trust any government hasn't had very much experience with them. At best, governments are inefficient and incompetent. At worst, they are run by politicians absorbed with self-interest. There are already scads of people trusting too much to other entities rather than figuring it out on their own. These people leave their tax withholdings at default levels, then walk down to the local Wal-Mart and trust the Jackson-Hewitt crooks to do their taxes. Jackson-Hewitt files a 1040EZ for them, charges $300 bucks and they leave happy because it will be automatically be taken out of their $10,000 refund. They feel rich for about two weeks. The solution is not more government nanny-state ideas. The solution is to find ways to require people to be MORE accountable for their own well-being. How about requiring every person who receives 10% or more of their yearly salary back in a refund to attend classes on how to maximize their tax benefits? It would be paid for out of their refund. After they go once, they don't have to go again for 5 years. If you're too dumb or unaware of your surroundings to know that you can file your taxes for free with a little bit of effort, you need education.

sixothree 14y ago
Let me guess, we should trust corporations?
- hnal943 14y ago
  What? This post criticized corporations (Jackson-Hewitt in particular). The point was that people need to take individual responsibility for their tax liability.
  - mpyne 14y ago
    > The point was that people need to take individual responsibility for their tax liability. There are people in the military who get married just to claim a higher housing allowance (this despite it being against the UCMJ). Yes, we should be individually responsible but it's not practical to actually expect that from people.
loeg 14y ago
How many people make < $100,000 (required for the 1040EZ), withhold the "default," and get a $10,000 refund? (And re: "default", I've looked and looked, and can't find such a thing. How do you determine a "default" withholding from a W-4 other than just taking your expected income tax for the year and dividing by pay days? If you do that, you shouldn't have a $10,000 refund...) For what it's worth, in 2012 I made less than $100,000 in AGI, withheld the W-4 default for my filing status (Single, Independent), and my refund was $650. More or less right on the mark. Edit: Aha! Found it[0]. $100k biweekly is $1923/week of gross pay; let's ignore medicare and social security, etc. For Single/HoH, that's $344.20 + 28% of 1923-1732 = $397.68 weekly or $20679.36 / year[1]. Since our expected total tax is $18,500, we get back $2,100 in refund. Big-ish, but not $10,000. And only 2% of $100k. [0]: http://smallbusiness.chron.com/calculate-employer-federal-withholding-19033.html http://smallbusiness.chron.com/calculate-employer-federal-wi... [1]: page 44 of http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p15.pdf http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p15.pdf
- frogpelt 14y ago
  Honestly, my examples were based on true stories about people that I know that I've heard in the very recent past. One person makes far, far less than $100K and received just below a $10,000 refund.
k3n 14y ago
> The solution is not more government nanny-state ideas. > How about requiring every person who receives 10% or more of their yearly salary back in a refund to attend classes on how to maximize their tax benefits? How are you not contradicting yourself there? Less nanny-state, but forced classes... > If you're too dumb or unaware of your surroundings to know that you can file your taxes for free with a little bit of effort, you need education. I think you're being extremely unfair; this is like saying "only an idiot would pay for webhosting, with a little bit of effort you can host your own site for free". I'm well educated, good with math, and generally observant....and yet I would still be up shit-creek if I had to do my taxes all on my own. I wouldn't know where to start, other than just searching around the 'net. I could figure it out eventually I'm sure, but it'd be a no-frills return that would probably rank very high on the "audit me!" list, and inevitably I'd end up spending more money, and taking around 10x's longer, than if I just settled for an online service (free or otherwise). Just because I see spending a smallish amount ($25-50) to save several hours (if not 12+ hrs) of time, with the a decreased chance of audit, doesn't make me dumb nor unaware of my surroundings.
lhc- 14y ago
"The solution is not more government nanny-state ideas" "requiring every person who receives 10% or more...to attend classes" This seems like a bit of a non-sequitur. Don't provide an easy (and free) way for people to submit their taxes without going to a CPA, but do force people to go to some classes? How is that less of a "nanny state"?
- frogpelt 14y ago
  I admit it sounds contradictory. I guess I equate a nanny-state to the government taking care of something FOR you so you don't have to worry about it. To me, a required educational course about taxes and personal finance would be akin to a driving course--not so much absolving you of responsibility as preparing you to accept it.
mosselman 14y ago
"you're too dumb or unaware of your surroundings"
yyqux 14y ago
Lol, first time I've heard a libertarian arguing for more paperwork and government programs.
- saraid216 14y ago
  Libertarian paternalism is a thing, even if GP probably doesn't know what it is. It's actually interesting to learn a bit more about, since it's effective as a political-philosophical position, even if it's got holes as much as any other position. If you get a libertarian paternalist who really doesn't know what he's talking about, you can easily watch him justify totalitarianism in the name of freedom. It's horrifying.

sixothree 14y ago

Let me guess, we should trust corporations?

hnal943 14y ago
What? This post criticized corporations (Jackson-Hewitt in particular). The point was that people need to take individual responsibility for their tax liability.
- mpyne 14y ago
  > The point was that people need to take individual responsibility for their tax liability. There are people in the military who get married just to claim a higher housing allowance (this despite it being against the UCMJ). Yes, we should be individually responsible but it's not practical to actually expect that from people.

loeg 14y ago

How many people make < $100,000 (required for the 1040EZ), withhold the "default," and get a $10,000 refund? (And re: "default", I've looked and looked, and can't find such a thing. How do you determine a "default" withholding from a W-4 other than just taking your expected income tax for the year and dividing by pay days? If you do that, you shouldn't have a $10,000 refund...) For what it's worth, in 2012 I made less than $100,000 in AGI, withheld the W-4 default for my filing status (Single, Independent), and my refund was $650. More or less right on the mark. Edit: Aha! Found it[0]. $100k biweekly is $1923/week of gross pay; let's ignore medicare and social security, etc. For Single/HoH, that's $344.20 + 28% of 1923-1732 = $397.68 weekly or $20679.36 / year[1]. Since our expected total tax is $18,500, we get back $2,100 in refund. Big-ish, but not $10,000. And only 2% of $100k. [0]: http://smallbusiness.chron.com/calculate-employer-federal-withholding-19033.html http://smallbusiness.chron.com/calculate-employer-federal-wi... [1]: page 44 of http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p15.pdf http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p15.pdf

frogpelt 14y ago
Honestly, my examples were based on true stories about people that I know that I've heard in the very recent past. One person makes far, far less than $100K and received just below a $10,000 refund.

k3n 14y ago

> The solution is not more government nanny-state ideas. > How about requiring every person who receives 10% or more of their yearly salary back in a refund to attend classes on how to maximize their tax benefits? How are you not contradicting yourself there? Less nanny-state, but forced classes... > If you're too dumb or unaware of your surroundings to know that you can file your taxes for free with a little bit of effort, you need education. I think you're being extremely unfair; this is like saying "only an idiot would pay for webhosting, with a little bit of effort you can host your own site for free". I'm well educated, good with math, and generally observant....and yet I would still be up shit-creek if I had to do my taxes all on my own. I wouldn't know where to start, other than just searching around the 'net. I could figure it out eventually I'm sure, but it'd be a no-frills return that would probably rank very high on the "audit me!" list, and inevitably I'd end up spending more money, and taking around 10x's longer, than if I just settled for an online service (free or otherwise). Just because I see spending a smallish amount ($25-50) to save several hours (if not 12+ hrs) of time, with the a decreased chance of audit, doesn't make me dumb nor unaware of my surroundings.

lhc- 14y ago

"The solution is not more government nanny-state ideas" "requiring every person who receives 10% or more...to attend classes" This seems like a bit of a non-sequitur. Don't provide an easy (and free) way for people to submit their taxes without going to a CPA, but do force people to go to some classes? How is that less of a "nanny state"?

frogpelt 14y ago
I admit it sounds contradictory. I guess I equate a nanny-state to the government taking care of something FOR you so you don't have to worry about it. To me, a required educational course about taxes and personal finance would be akin to a driving course--not so much absolving you of responsibility as preparing you to accept it.

mosselman 14y ago

"you're too dumb or unaware of your surroundings"

yyqux 14y ago

Lol, first time I've heard a libertarian arguing for more paperwork and government programs.

saraid216 14y ago
Libertarian paternalism is a thing, even if GP probably doesn't know what it is. It's actually interesting to learn a bit more about, since it's effective as a political-philosophical position, even if it's got holes as much as any other position. If you get a libertarian paternalist who really doesn't know what he's talking about, you can easily watch him justify totalitarianism in the name of freedom. It's horrifying.