Isn’t most of the complexity associated with itemized deductions, which at lower levels of income default to a straight-up standard deduction?
Or are you referring to some other provisions?
Or are you referring to some other provisions?
The above case would cover 99% of people.
Instead you have to do a whole bunch of song and dance using some third party and hopefully the numbers match.
Basically if you are paid money and put that money in the bank, you pay yearly income taxes on the income the money earns.
If you are instead given a bunch of stock shares, you don't pay taxes on the stock when the price goes up, only when it's sold, which leads to all sorts of possible ways to side step paying taxes, or put them off and then paying them in a lump sum, or paying interest on loans secured with the stock, where the loan isn't considered income for tax purposes, etc.
https://www.businessinsider.com/american-billionaires-tax-av...
I had to laugh a little at this, its like saying, "CPUs, isn't that just a bunch of switches?" Yes, you are correct. But it's been nearly a century of wealthy people hiring lawmakers to create hundreds of thousands of esoteric deductions that are only accessible to people who own business that they can fiddle with, aka rich folks.
I surmised that complexities introduced by that group are irrelevant in calculating standard tax return costs, as no one requires a low income earner to deal with vagaries of obscure deductions. It’s mainly Intuit who should be blamed for beefing up those costs.
You seem to agree with that statement in your subsequent comment, so I’m no longer sure about the insight you are trying to drive through.
Is it just a trivial “taxes are complex, man” thesis?
I did nothing of the sort. You inferred your own narrative and are now blaming me. Know what that is called?