The reason the tax code is so complicated is BECAUSE OF TurboTax. They lobby heavily to keep things complex and have brought down potential competitors through legal means.
As such, "killing TurboTax" is the correct first step.
I know it's nice to have a corporate bogeyman to rail against but it's not that simple. For example, there have been all sorts of tax deductions over the years to incentivize things like home energy efficiency improvements, EVs, solar power, charitable contributions, etc. And the mortgage deduction was/is intended to promote home ownership. I could go on. Someone can disagree with some of the choices around tax rates and certain weirdly specific deductions. But most people wouldn't argue that, for example, encouraging people to donate to charities is a bad thing.
> all sorts of tax deductions over the years to incentivize things like [...]
But plenty of other countries have those too and manage to not have an insanely complex tax-filling regime?
> but it's not that simple
I think if the main difference between the US and other countries is the aforementioned "corporate bogeyman", it probably does boil down to being that simple.
> But plenty of other countries have those too and manage to not have an insanely complex tax-filling regime?
Citation needed. How can you have a non-complex tax filing regime when you have so many deductions and credits that only the taxpayer knows about or has documentation of?
When I donate to a charity, they don’t report my donations directly to the IRS (nor should they - we don’t want the government to be collecting data on everyone’s charity giving). I have to collect the letters they send me at the end of the year and total my donations in order to deduct my charitable contributions. The government never even knows what charities I donated to unless I’m audited and they ask for proof.
> that only the taxpayer knows about or has documentation of?
Therein lies the rub, I suspect; other countries do know about what you're doing with the deductions and credits which means the tax office can handle all that for you - and, indeed, they are much more suited to be handling this - rather than pushing it onto each individual to try and scrabble together once a year.
I suppose we can add "incoherent fear of the government" to "corporate bogeyman" to the list of reasons the US has a messed up tax situation.
> (nor should they - we don’t want the government to be collecting data on everyone’s charity giving)
You do if there's specific tax breaks for doing that.
Thread drift, but my objection to encouraging charitable giving is that the more you rely on charity to fund the public good, the more you rely on (largely) millionaires and billionaires to decide what counts as a public good. In other words the average citizen doesn’t get to vote on what good gets funded. This means givers’ pet causes get funded rather than projects that are democratically chosen.
It is possible (even likely) that I've misunderstood people who were just being hyperbolic and didn't mean to be taken literally, but my impression was that some were saying that literally no charity organizations should be necessary?
I (somewhat..) understand the "but then the wealthy are determining what gets done" thing, as a reason to not rely too much on it, but it seems clear to me that there are also major inefficiencies in having to go through a consensus process of government democracy, rather than people simply acting in smaller groups, independent of a larger consensus, to further charitable causes.
It seems clear that there are cases where charities work better than govt programs alone, and it is a clear error to think that all charities would be better handled as a govt service, even if some would be better handled by one.
Hmm, if the government were to run a quadratic funding of charities thing, with only rather limited requirements for eligibility, perhaps that would somewhat alleviate the "undemocratic" complaint? (It would have to make it illegal to pay someone else to participate in your stead though.)
The rest of your post is based on the implicit assumpion that anything government run is inherently bureaucratic and slow and charities are instead simple and fast. But that's an orthogonal issue. Some level of bureaucracy is needed to prevent misuse, otherwise you have a rich guy pay their fines from their charity. Beyond that, there is no inherent reason for charities to be more efficient. You could make those governmnent-charities have local oversight, they could be organized very efficiently too and have the advantage of democratic legitimacy.
I don't think it's enough reason to not give to charities because people need help right now but the fact that food pantries exist makes my blood boil. It is beyond ridiculous that feeding our most vulnerable people requires a charity to take would be thrown out food from grocery stores and inefficiently spread them around a network of churches staffed by volunteers.
If only there was a massive logistics network for getting food everywhere we could use.
there are many who think others should pay for what they themselves consider important and even get some glee out of forcing people they don't like to pay for something they otherwise would not.
then you run into those who think , why should I give to charity because its the government's job to fix that...
and finally those who just don't care
charity exist for those want to focus their person effort to fix their world and should be encourage but never be required
Which can be a good thing. If there's an activity with negative (positive) externalities, then there's a deadweight loss, which can be corrected by taxing (subsidizing) that activity.
Depends on whether you agree with what the people in charge define as a 'good thing'.
In a democratic government, you might like how a powerful tool is being wielded when your people are in charge, and be terrified when the 'other' is in charge.
I didn’t see evidence in the linked article and the cited article therein that Intuit tried to prevent a simplification of the tax code. They just tried to stop the government from trying to build competitor software (partially paid for by Intuit and others in the tax accounting industry). Frankly, it sounds like a PITA to have IRS calculate your taxes with poorly written software, and then have to challenge it.
I think it’s unlikely that Intuit has the power to steer the complexity of the tax code. States like NY and CA, for example, oppose a standardization of tax law for “road warriors” because they make so much money from non-resident workers who step foot in their state.
US tax policy is about 70,000 pages (mostly regulations, bulletins, and case law). And that doesn’t include state and local taxes.
If you stop being an easy case, for example you want to claim FEIE within 5 years of spending > 30 days in the US, then the IRS tells you to get a lawyer to pay for a private letter ruling. This is because, where other countries don’t tax their citizens income worldwide, the US does and then gives a moderate exemption. AFAIK, US tax code complexity dwarfs that of any other country.
I find it hard to believe that it’s TurboTax’s fault, a day after reading about Sen. Warren’s plan for a wealth tax and a $100B to the IRS to help them calculate and enforce it...
> Frankly, it sounds like a PITA to have IRS calculate your taxes with poorly written software, and then have to challenge it.
That's not how the proposed systems work. The proposed system is: gov sends you a notice "here is your filled out tax return based on everything we know about you" and then you look over the return, make any modifications you believe are correct, and send it to them. You're not "challenging" something.
> and then you look over the return, make any modifications you believe are correct, and send it to them
Or more likely, they send you their estimate, based on a tiny fraction of the tax code, you recalculate it from scratch, send it to them, and then they audit you.
Civil disagreements with the IRS start under the assumption that the IRS is correct (e.g., “your cost basis is zero,” or “that wasn’t a valid deduction”), and then you must prove to them that they are wrong.
Again you're describing something very different from what is being suggested - and this is not a weird experimental theory - MANY countries have deeply complex tax codes and have also implemented an auto-file system where LARGE portions of the population can file in minutes due to a pre-filled return.
I've yet to hear any stories where anything like your nightmare scenario has actually happened. Perhaps you would not be part of the group who could rely on a pre-filled return - and you would still have to file manually, but nobody is proposing taking that option away or even making it harder than it already is.
Can you give an example of any country whose tax code is more than 70k pages long?
Or a country where it requires, by default, taxes paid on money earned while living oversees, depending on a large number of international treaties, case law, and expensive private letter rulings? Or a country that requires you to file a different tax return in almost every state you step your foot in while working remotely? Or a country that requires you to essentially recalculate taxes on a quarterly basis to determine if you should be fined for underpaying estimated taxes?
> nightmare scenario
That’s not a nightmare scenario. That’s just a standard audit. They assume, e.g., zero coat basis, or residency, or it wasn’t used for business, or ... and you have to prove otherwise.
> As of 2014, the tax code was only about 2,600 pages long
The usa hardly has a monopoly on tax code complexity. We're talking about personal income tax right now and I can't find a complexity index for that, but for business taxes the usa ranks fairly low on https://www.taxcomplexity.org/
> That’s not a nightmare scenario. That’s just a standard audit.
The "nightmare" scenario was "you recalculate it from scratch, send it to them, and then they audit you." - a scenario you put forward where this improvement to the tax code (auto-filled returns) results in a world where any time your return isn't what they auto-filled you get audited. That sounds bad, but has not happened anywhere where auto-filled returns have been implemented.
Intuit has so little real effect. However it makes for sensationalist reporting and attracts eyes and easily picks up people who want to believe tax law is all the result of corporate greed. Simply put, its too complex for one company to have a significant effect.
Nearly every bill out of Congress can effect tax law and this includes even special appropriation bills; all the covid bills have had tax law changes.
there are some three thousand pages comprising Federal tax law however much of this is additionally subject to various regulations that can affect when and when not a tax takes affect. then throw in every state, city, and more.
To be honest I don't know of a good fix. there are too many forms of income and taxation that Congress would have to reduce the number of definitions for what is income into much simpler categories, say employer paid income, interest, capital gains, money transfers from others, and such, and then macro the rest into miscellaneous subject to a permanent fixed rate.
As in, account for the most common forms of income at a lower rate and they get all those that don't fit that definition and charge it at a higher rate as likely none of these would ever be claimed by the average tax payer.
when it comes to deductions, simply do what the Trump tax change did in 2016 but do it again, raise the standard deduction so that if you are under 250k you never need to itemize.
I don't think that's true. The US has used tax laws as a way to effect policies since before Turbotax existed. I think the mortgage interest deduction goes back 100+ years
The mortgage interest deduction was an accidental side-effect of pro-business regulation, and it doesn’t advance any reasonable societal goals. It’s effectively a regressive tax break, the richer the beneficiary the larger the tax break, up to ordinary 7-digit millionaire.
I've been using freetaxusa.com for years as an alternative, it only costs maybe 10-20$ to file state taxes if I remember correctly, and federal is free. It is much cheaper than Turbotax and the UI is essentially the same.
Not Turbox, but Congress. They promise new credits and deductions every election cycle. Every couple decades there are weak attempts to weed out some of these such as for the Reagan and Trump tax reforms.
As such, "killing TurboTax" is the correct first step.