Hacker News Reader

Comment by ams6110 | Hacker News Reader

> Since Republicans gained control of the House of Representatives in 2010, their partisan attacks have left the IRS with nearly 10,000 fewer customer service representatives to assist taxpayers and a patchwork of IT systems, some dating back to the Kennedy Administration, which is ultimately harming all taxpayers,” Rep. Gerry Connolly, D-Va., told Nextgov.

So the patchwork 1960s-era systems are the fault of Republicans in the current decade?

Maybe "starve the beast" really is a better approach. Nothing else has worked.

View on HN

I worked next to a team in the late 80's where one service center prototyped a wage reporting program that brought in >$150m the first year. They asked for $2M to expand it nationwide. Refused until Clinton came in.

It's easy to throw stones but I doubt anything built today by anyone on HN will rival problems as complex as DEWS, ATC, IMF/BMF or Sabre and be around in ten years, let alone 60.

>So the patchwork 1960s-era systems

You have (purposely?) mis-stated the previous statement quoted above. A patchwork of systems that includes some systems dating back to the Kennedy Administration is not the same as a patchwork of 1960'era systems. Could it be that the "starve the best" mentality hindered or blocked a number of planned migrations/upgrades?

If you look again, you will see the charge is that there are now 10k fewer first line support workers who previously could help citizens and (for some reason) the legacy hardware.

https://federalnewsradio.com/tom-temin-commentary/2018/01/ir...

Their customer service reps sucked long before 2010 and have never remotely "assisted" me.

My experience differs from yours. I have used IRS customer service five different times over the last two decades and each time they have been courteous, efficient, and helpful.

The real question is why we have a tax system that would need 10,000 additional customer support reps. The problem isn’t a lack of reps, it’s a system that requires that many reps.

The flat tax, file-on-a-postcard system proposed by 2016 presidential candidate Ted Cruz was mocked by the establishment because it seemed tha politicians on both sides have a vested interest in a complex tax code — it is the means by which politicians derive their power. See Milton Freidman on the subject:

https://youtu.be/TruCIPy79w8

File on a postcard. Sure. This year, I could have used the 1040EZ (the entirety of which could fit on a post card if you removed the embedded instructions), and left some money on the table, so I chose the more complicated route. Last year, I just used the 1040EZ. Flat tax is a completely different issue.

It is weird to see the argument that making tax filingd hard builds power, for it to work you have to dismiss the inuitive idead that making tax filing simpler will make citizens happy and less likely to complain since they have beens spared from some hassle.

You can stay away from regressive schemes like a flat tax, and have a tax system with a rubberstamp level of UX. That's how it works in most of Europe and could work here. The IRS already has all of the information needed outside of gambling and stocks, and could simply send you forms already filled out for you to sign. H&R Block and TurboTax simply heavily lobby to keep this from happening to keep their business model around.

Whats interesting about the flat taxes is that it makes it hard to avoid at the highest levels, where complex tax structures end up having a very variant level of taxation. Much like corporate taxation is 35%, but google or facebook pay only 11%.

Milton Friedman used to say that a flat tax of 15% would be enough to replace the entire scheme of income tax. There is also one major boon: lots of capital is spent on taxes, from accountants to lawyers to gubernamental organizations, etc etc.

An effective 15% rate without exemptions would fly very well with the right (simple flat taxes) an the left (no exemptions) but as MF said, the political stances on this topic dont trust each other and they are both right: even if we moved to such a system, the right would still advocate for exemptions and the left for increases in taxation.

Its a noticeable deadlock.

I also want to mention that flat taxes are not regressive by definition. The progressiveness or regressiveness in that case requires to see where the taxes are spent.

First off, the difference between regressive and progressive says nothing about how the taxes are spent. A flat tax is regressive by definition.

Secondly, I'm not a big fan of how you (and quite a few economists) conflate personal and corporate income taxes. It really muddies the water as even questions like "what even is income" is different between the two.

Additionally, flat tax doesn't go well with the left. On the corporate end, exemptions in a lot of ways are the carrot to the sticks of fines and penalties that we use to regulate business (encouraging positive behavior). On the personal end, you greatly increase the tax burden on those least able to bear it, with an increase in benefits being totally orthogonal (most flat tax proposals intend to be revenue neutral). Someone making $25k nearly doubles their tax burden with a 15% flat tax.

Technically, a flat tax by definition is neither regressive nor progressive, it is proportional. Federal income taxes and I presume corporate taxes are currently progressive (with a million and one deductions). Moving to a flat tax for either of those would be a move in the regressive direction, but it's still not technically regressive.

Personally, I'm fine with taxes having progressive rates but not the countless deductions.

Flat taxes are regressive. Period. The reason why is because a bigger proportion of the income of the poor must be spent on necessities, so a flat tax rate is going to impact their ability to pay for necessities much more than the same tax rate paid by a rich person.

You are confusing flat taxes to sales taxes. A flat income tax would not have that effect.

Technically it is regressive. The flat amount comes out of rent and food on the low end of your tax base, and luxury on the high end.

Thats sales taxes, but flat income taxes would not be like that.

Uhhh, yes it's exactly like that, regardless of what is getting taxed.

Let's say today I make $24,900/yr. That puts me at the edge of the 20th percentile for 2017. The average effective tax rate for people of my income was -4.7% (or a tax of -$1170)[0]. You're suggesting increasing my taxes to 15%, taking $4905 out of my pocket as compared to today. Now, since I make next to nothing, pretty much everything I make is going to rent, food, and just generally getting by, and I have nearly $5k less real money (or ~20% of my income!!!) in my bank account to make that happen.

[0] - http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/model-estimates/baseline-aver...

Hah. You are making the case that a flat tax is regressive because current income taxes are progressive. So moving from progressive to flat is regressive.

Its a tautological affirmation on progressive taxes being progressive. A flat tax would make a $24,900 pay $3,735, and if you made $249,000 you would pay $3735, your taxes increase just as proportional to your income. Its just..flat.

No I'm making the argument that a flat tax is regressive because the utilitarian value of a dollar isn't anywhere near linear with total income.

With a flat tax:

* On the high end you're taking from ability to have luxuries.

* On the low end you're taking from the ability to pay rent and put enough food on your table for your children.

After criticizing my argument that looking at spending of taxes is necessary to argue if its progressive or regressive, you now propose an argument that would make progressive taxes also regressive unless they are enough to compensate the utilitarian value of how the poorer and the richer spend their own wealth.

The utilitarian argument is for me one of the most practical and also one of the most scary. Are you ready to exploit the poor if it were proven that it was economically profitable to do so? I digress. My point is that seeing flat taxes as regressive is either false or inconclusive, regardless of the desire of being flat, regressive or progressive in taxation.

> Secondly, I'm not a big fan of how you (and quite a few economists) conflate personal and corporate income taxes. It really muddies the water as even questions like "what even is income" is different between the two.

It was an example of how nominal tax rate is not the same as effective tax rate. For example, mortgage interest deductions are a regressive benefit which lowers the effective tax rate. Unfortunatenly, we cannot make good date on what the effective tax rate is because it is protected information.

> On the personal end, you greatly increase the tax burden on those least able to bear it, with an increase in benefits being totally orthogonal (most flat tax proposals intend to be revenue neutral)

That depends on what you cut. And thats why i say that you need to look at the revenue and the expenditures to know if taxes are regressive or not.

For example, Federal income tax is nominally progressive, but california has plenty of regressive taxes: sales taxes and property taxes that favor older tenants. In general state and city taxes are regressive, because those are the easiest to levy.

Once again, progressive vs regressive has nothing to do with how much you get back in services. That's literally not a component of the definition. You might be confused because deductions are a component of how regressive a tax is.

It is not economics to just look at how a tax is levied, and not how it is spent. The combination is a must to actually make a meaningful argument about how taxes should be.

It is absolutely a component of economics, just not the only piece needed for a comprehensive tax policy.

You're literally arguing against the accepted definition of a term.

Regressive doesn't refer to how the taxes are spent. Regressive refers to the fact that 15 cents out of every dollar matters a whole lot more to someone on minimum wage and living paycheck to paycheck. Regressive refers to the fact that a true "no exemptions" hits the poor more than the rich. So the left has to set aside exemptions for the poor, and that leaves room open for lobbyists to drive trucks full of money into adding more and more exemptions.

A 5% tax levied on everywhere to a lamborghini subsidy policy is regressive. It is important to look at both sides of the equation to make a conclusion.

Thats why you can have a flat tax, and a progressive government by spending for the poorer and levying flat. In fact, a flat tax is probably progressive simply because the rich dont use a multitude of public services the average poor does, like schooling, or healthcare or whatever.

Regressive is not the opposite of Progressive in tax politics. You may be confusing "conservative" here?

The commonly accepted denotation:

> (of a tax) taking a proportionally greater amount from those on lower incomes

Has absolutely nothing to do with spending, but on how much proportionally you are taking.

Again, it is not economics to not look at how it is spent, because the spending can be progressive or regressive.

You can have super progressive taxation and a wealth distribution from the poor to the rich, and a super regressive taxation that distributes from the rich to the poor.

> The IRS already has all of the information needed outside of gambling and stocks,

With the reporting changes of a few years back, for any stocks acquired after the changes took effect, they also already have all the information needed for the stocks as well. All that is missing is the type of sale you wished to make (FIFO, LIFO, average cost, etc.) when you sell the stock if you don't sell all of it off at once.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com