Think of how horrible it would be if he did something wrong. The average American knows that if they mess up 1 box, as long as all the final numbers come out to about what they should (which is easy to check), it's likely no one will notice.
But someone will notice if the IRS commissioner messes up his taxes, even if it's just forgetting to initial a box, and it would look horrible. Can you imagine how much fun John Stewart would have with it? He'd probably be able to avoid resigning, but his chance of being nominated after Obama's reelection would be basically 0.
If he forgot to initial a box, John Stewart would have a laugh at his expense and it would underscore the notion that filing is complicated (and should be simplified). But that's about it.
The salient point here is that there is no right answer to even moderately complex tax filings. Ralph Nader did this experiment a while back. The same relatively simple tax filing was sent to something like two dozen IRS offices. Each one checked the filing and weighed in on the correctness of the form. Every office said that the filing was wrong but they all came up with different and widely varying figures for what the "correct" figure should be. I suspect a large part of the reason this guy uses a preparer (software in this case) is so that even if "errors" are discovered, he can plausibly claim that he did the best he could and can expect leniency. (Timothy Geithner, white courtesy phone please.) Think you can just ask the IRS for instruction and/or definitive rulings? They get it wrong, a lot. (http://www.treas.gov/tigta/auditreports/2005reports/20054014...)
Bignum hours and dollars are spent by individuals and corporations attempting to do taxes correctly. The time suck and opportunity costs are massive.
"If he forgot to initial a box". Perhaps you remember Zoë Baird? She didn't pay the "nanny tax" on an illegal alien, and that controversy prevented her from getting to be the attorney general.
That's more than a box, yes, but then the followup nominee, Kimba Wood, DID pay the nanny tax, and herself broke no laws, but had hired another illegal alien. The echo from the previous nominee's case, plus her 5 days of training as a Playboy bunny while a student, prevented her from being attorney general, giving us Janet Reno.
It's really hard to say which things will cause problems.
I sympathized with that line of reasoning much more before reading Thoreau's Resistance to Civil Government. Now I'm convinced that he should either resign or be held as equally complicit [1].
[1] He should either be willing to defend the current system, or he should stop being its agent. Enforcing a law brings the same moral responsibility as writing a law.
Timely, in another thread we are celebrating Google for ceasing to be an agent of the Chinese government. We should never allow moral actors to absolve themselves of responsibility by pointing to a far-away law.
I'm not sure you can call the collection of taxes unjust. Obviously the system needs a lot of work but the overall idea (collecting revenue to fund government and shared services/infrastructure) is a sound one and integral to the operation of a modern democracy.
Plus if he resigned they'd just hire someone else. This isn't a position that would be hard to fill and he'd have accomplished nothing.
It's not the collection of taxes that is unjust, but a system so complex that most well educated professionals can't do their own taxes without paying more money. Almost all the tax preparation costs are a pure drain on society which directly relate to the complexity of the tax code.
PS: I happen to pay a little extra taxes each year as a combination charitable donation and audit protection. As an added benefit I spend less time doing my taxes, but most people seem to dislike the idea. Multiply that savings across society and we would have both lower taxes (on average) and more free time.
As with any other job or profession, if society no longer has a need for accountants, they will have to find something else to do. In my view tax accountants shouldn't be necessary for the vast majority of individuals. I view them (as a profession, not as individuals) as just another middleman leeching value from the supply chain, enabled by a complicit government. Let them work for people and businesses who have too much money to manage alone, and let the common person (which in this case I'll define as anyone with less than 5 sources of income including bank interest) have a simple tax system that he or she can manage alone.
Not sure where you are finding that he claimed that it was unjust. His stated objection was that it was too complex, which is far from unjust. I agree with your point that if he felt it was unjust he should resign or take specific action, but that is not his objection.
Were he the _author_ of the tax code then this would be deliciously ironic. Since he is the commissioner of a large federal agency, I'd imagine (indeed, hope!) that he has better uses of his time than preparing his returns. Like fixing <your least favorite thing about the IRS/>, for example.
No. You think tax preparers are specifically the ones keeping the current tax regime in place?
No. It's Congress. We will never have a simplified tax code, ever. Not a flat tax, not a fair tax, not a VAT, nothing.
Because Congress will never give up the power to give and take tax breaks. It's the power to give tax breaks and pork that keeps the pig-trough filled to overflowing.
Their primary incentive is re-election. From that perspective, an unfathomably complex tax code has three points in its favor:
1. It allows legislators to avoid accountability for any tax increases. It also complicates revenue accounting, so they can propose changes to the tax code and call them "tax cuts" even if they don't change revenue much overall.
2. A complicated, arbitrary, intimidating tax code makes legislators powerful. They can grant favorable treatment to their friends and twist the arm of powerful entities that get in their way. They aren't held accountable for this behavior because of #1.
3. Accountants and tax lawyers are small groups of people who will all lose a lot if the tax code is ever simplified. They also have money and connections, so they can inflict a lot of pain on anyone who threatens their business. The public at large is too big and diffuse to force political action over its losses to tax-related friction.
A complicated tax code has one major point against. Voters don't like it. But then, this is a tax code we're talking about. Its purpose is to take away voters' money. No matter how it's organized, they aren't going to be terribly happy about it.
So is the tax code we have today really all that surprising?
4. Some people care. Some people don't care. The people who care can spend time and money looking for loopholes. The people who don't care can pay their taxes. So everyone is happy, right?
When cars were simpler, maintenance was considered part of the requisite skill to own a car - it was considered part of normal usage. Now that they have become a lot more complex and specialized, cars can do a lot more - but the trade-off is that it's no longer practical to maintain your car yourself. It makes more sense to outsource that activity to specialists.
My perspective from Sweden, where filing taxes is _very_ easy is that filing taxes in USA must be difficult because those who oppose taxes there don't want it to be simple.
Would it be possible to streamline taxes in USA? Would it not be interpreted as "making it easier to collect even more taxes"?
Would it be possible to streamline taxes in USA? Would it not be interpreted as "making it easier to collect even more taxes"?
It depends. If you reduce the complexity of the tax system, thus reducing the required size of the tax agency, many of the same people who are anti-tax (or rather pro-lower tax) would be OK with it, because they would see that as streamlining the government.
The common idea seems to be that the tax code is very complex because there are so many add-ons to allow you pay less tax. Most US federal income tax payers can choose a simplified option, but they will not pay the minimum amount of taxes.
People, who for example think federal income tax is illegal, comprise a small enough group that they couldn't prevent simplifying the system (or any change for that matter).
A decade or so ago they decided to thoroughly sort out the tax law. Most small businesses are able to fill out their own tax (I did for years). It's about a page of information - all nicely coloured & well explained. Basically idiot proof (yes yes, I know).
Private individuals? Now things are at a point where you don't even NEED to file a tax return. Income tax is taken by your company & filed with the IRD, so unless you have extenuating circumstances, they know pretty much exactly how much you owe/are owed.
It's an absolute dream filing there, compared to anywhere else I've been.
Oh, & if you have any questions about any part of the law? They have helpful, clear pamphlets that outline all the details you need. Available over the web too. It's very cool.
You could streamline the US tax code but you'd eventually end up at the same point today. The tax code is written to encourage one type of behavior and penalize another. A normal working class guy would probably love a simplified tax code. But as soon as he starts making investments, buying property, saving for retirement, "going green" then he probably also wants adjustments for these activities.
Everyone wants to help the underclass but no one wants to pay more taxes to do it. So the government has to get creative about getting that money. Taking out loans, selling bonds, and getting money through sales tax, corporate tax, tourist tax, utilities taxes.
The mentality is insane, we want simpler taxes for everyone, but at an individual level we want exemptions for ourselves.
This is the last year I'm filing taxes for myself. Through a pay rise, a new mortgage and a renovation my last tax bill was shot. I was able to get help through a friend so that I paid about the same amount as last year but I know, going forward, it's going to require a professional to keep me from getting screwed.
Two things have happened in the last ten years that made tax filing harder for a large number of Americans. One was closing TeleTax. This telephone-based system was effective and had good customer satisfaction. The IRS closed it and forced people to use an e-file provider. I think they did it because of the ideological privatization thing.
The other thing was the change in the NYS tax system to get rid of the IT-100 form. This form was like writing in your address and attaching your W2, and then the NYSDTF would calculate your tax and send you a bill. This was replaced with the harder-to-fill-out IT-150.
So, tax filing for most Americans, in the age of the internet, has only gotten harder. It's retarded.
Think of how horrible it would be if he did something wrong. The average American knows that if they mess up 1 box, as long as all the final numbers come out to about what they should (which is easy to check), it's likely no one will notice.
But someone will notice if the IRS commissioner messes up his taxes, even if it's just forgetting to initial a box, and it would look horrible. Can you imagine how much fun John Stewart would have with it? He'd probably be able to avoid resigning, but his chance of being nominated after Obama's reelection would be basically 0.
reply