Slashdot Mirror
CA State Offers To Prepare Simple Tax Returns
Makarand writes "California is ready to roll out a program for taxpayers where the
state will
offer to fill out their tax forms for them if they are simple enough. Taxpayers
will merely have to go online, download and review the completed forms prepared
for them and confirm their return. This program is supposed to save money
for the state, reduce tax related headaches for many and bring into the
tax system those who are not paying any taxes currently.
The state will take information it already receives on W-2 wage statements,
put it in the right boxes on the tax return, and do the math."
I think it would be great if this was national, I don't see any privacy issues since the gov't is the entity you are sending the info to anyway
Why the hell don't they just replace the "too complex" original tax form with this new "simple" form? Instead of making it all that much more complex, by feeding the simple form into the complex one, then the complex one into the complex system? Are they trying to better bistromathics with a higher form of inscrutable symbolic manipulation? Or is there some kind of "100% accountant employment" law in force in California, demanding ever more layers of unusable complexity?
--
make install -not war
The one thing I hate more than paying tax is working out my tax.
Last year I filled in my tax and missed out a bit of interest I had earned. It wasn't anything significant and the tax office sent me a nice letter saying that I'd missed out on a bit but that it wasn't a big problem etc etc.
But that left me thinking that if they already know how much interest I've earned (as it's all reported by the banks) then why the hell make me work it out myself. Just give me something filled in as much as possible and then let me check it for errors, fill in any gaps, and be done.
Boffoonery - downloadable Comedy Benefit for Bletchley Park
The New Zealand government basically does this already, but in an even simpler form - you don't even need to check!!
Most people who simply earn a wage have a simple enough tax return that the government simply deducts tax from your pay cheque - and that is all you need to do.
If you want to fill a tax form out (because of complex investments, etc) then you can - but probably something like 70-80% of people don't bother.
Of course, the NZ tax scheme is actually sane and easy to work out compared to some US taxes.
Damnit - I wanted my nick to be "WouldIPutMYRealNameOnSlashdot"
Question: Does this effort have Linux or Open Standards in mind or does my system have to be compatible to M$?
So, you want to pay more tax than you already are? To replace the income tax a national sales tax would have to be around 30%... unless you're a millionaire you're going to lose.
Whoops, I deleted a sentence from my post and left out the meaning. Here is what meant:
Of all the tax proposals, especially including our current thousand-page tax code, the FairTax is the simplest and fairest proposal I have seen. That is why I support it, bring it up when the topic comes up, tell my friends about it, and write my congressmen and senators about it.
Ironically, the word ironically is often used incorrectly.
What if record keeping was good enough (nevermind the privacy issues etc) that your taxes, no matter how complex, could be computed for you without any effort of your own?
...perhaps just a nice sheep in the flock getting fleeced on a yearly basis?
Would you be happy or
**start vignette**
You (looking like a sheep): "Baa. Baa."
Uncle Sam: "This won't hurt a bit, we need just a little bit more to fund Senator [enter favorite name here]'s pet project."
You (looking less like a sheep not much coat left): "Baa. Baa."
Uncle Sam: "Oh it turns out that prescription drug for the older sheep is going cost a bit more." Buzzing sound heard in the background.
You (looking a bit naked): "Baa. Baa."
Uncle Sam: "Remember that Social Security thing? Well it turns out you sheep haven't been getting it on enough and the older sheep just keep getting older and older. So just a bit more if you don't mind."
**end start vignette**
Losing the ability to see how much the government is taking of your hard earned money is NOT a good thing, because if they could they would take more and more... they would.
Everytime I have to read the instructions for any section, I get so mad. I often scratch my head and re-read things multiple times because it is far too complicated. To see all the rules that they make up to give each little interest group their piece of the pie is amazing. Can you imagine trying to do your taxes by hand? omg, shoot me.
Getting mad at tax time is important!
I could go on for a while... but I'll spare people who have read this far more diarrhea of the mouth.
I think you get the picture.
hmm? what is it going to be? You want to be a sheep?
"Baa. Baa."
http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/52.html
http://www.taxfoundation.org/
http://www.socialsecurity.org/
http://www.atr.org/
True, but it's so much 'flatter' than the current system. I mean, at least it's a straight line!
Income-deductable*taxratepercentage=taxesowed
It would actually hit the 'rich' far harder than you might think, because the rich are notorious for hiding income, which they wouldn't be able to do under this system.
Better yet, make it a sales tax. That way the average person doesn't have to file taxes at all!
Just think about the billions that would be saved from not having to do all that paperwork.
I don't read AC A human right
How much can you realistically spend per month if you're, say, Bill Gates? 20-30K? And that brings your overall tax burden to what? 0.5%? This means middle class and poor folks get a stiff 23% on every purchase whereby, say Larry Ellison's tax rate is 2%. Is this fair? Considering that tax is technically a price you pay for being well off, it's not, because, say Warren Buffett is much better off than I am.
My job will not pay any less than it pays right now. There's this supply and demand thing, if it pays less people will go work on something that pays more.
And right now the rich people are the ones moving jobs to India and giving themselves $10M+ bonuses for shitty performance.
Fair tax isn't regressive at all.
A flat sales tax is neither regressive nor progressive.
I don't read AC A human right
Dang enter key! (Can we at least swap the preview and submit buttons?).
would have to be around 70% to replace other taxes
Now, this says one of two things: Either the government is spending way, way too much of our money, or you're wrong. According to the figures I've seen, the federal government can comfortly replace every income tax including corporate, as well as social security and medicare, with a 30% tax. While still substantial and indicative, it does give a much more reasonable figure, especially when you figure that it would only be charged on new goods.
I don't read AC A human right
The Fair Tax system would never fly in America. Know why?
It encourages conservation and reduces the emphasis on rampant slack-jawed consumerism.
I repeat: The Fair Tax system would never fly in America
Though it would be heaven if it did.
Terrible idea. If you've taken economics, you'll know that everyone taking their money and just putting it in the bank is a sure way to screw your economy over. And don't say they'll invest it instead. If company's can't sell you a product, there's no reason for someone to invest in them.
Get your facts straight before you post.
More like ignorance and corruption, not necessarily 'politics'. The whole reason progressive legislation affecting big business (in this case tax firms) isn't passed is because of corporate lobbies. This isn't really a Democrat or Republican issue. You could make a case against the Republicans because their constituency is primarily big business, but I think selling out to remain in power is more corruption then anything else.
You have to also remember that these politicians have little to no technological knowledge (take the president), so some large company that has been around for a long time will have more sway then a select few technical voices with no lobbying power.
If the dollar is an "I owe you nothing", then the Euro is a "Who owes you nothing." - Doug Casey
Just because the money is not spent, it doesn't mean that benefit has not been derived from it. Let me give you an example:
Larry makes $1,000,000. Spends $100,000, paid taxes on that. So it seems fair that, no? He only "enjoyed" $100,000, so should pay tax on that $100,000 only. All's fair, right? But that is not the case. Because Larry then takes that other $900,000 and invest it, and makes $200,000 next year (plus his $1,000,000 regular income). So next year he has $200,000 more, because income is not taxed. Now he can spend $120,000 and still only pay 2.3% of THIS year's income. Now, he got $900,000+$900,000+$180,000 to invest, which he gets another return of $440,000. Then he can spend $144,100 and still only pay 2.3% of his total income.
Contrast that to the people who has to spend most of their money to survive every year. They have nothing to invest, thus makes the same amount every year, and thus have the same amount to spend every year, and the situation doesn't improve.
Now, can you see why it benefits the rich? They make more money, because income is not taxed, and they have more money to spend a year compared to the previous year, so their living standard improves. Whereas the living standard of the 23-percenter remains the same.
This is just a rough idea of what will happen with FairTax. There are some "safeguards" to prevent that supposedly, but do you think the safeguard will really work to improve the conditions of the 23-percenters? I don't think so, and I don't think it was meant to.
Cheers,
e.
There is value in money not being spent. Indeed, a person derives benefit from not spending money.
Viewing money as a means to consumerism and consumerism as an ultimate goal is short sighted. Consider
Money can be a safty net - I am more secure when I have $500,000 in the bank than when I have $500 in the bank. The presence of that money and my ability to spend it at will makes me safer and less concerned.
Want to talk fair tax? Fine - lets do that. What you're talking about is basicly a national sales tax so lets consider one reasonably and fairly.
The following items and categories of items have to be exempt form a national sales tax or tax of any kind
1 - Food (not resturant service, just groceries)
2 - Any used item
3 - Rent and/or Housing Expenses
4 - Medical Care
The following items and categories must be taxed, and should be taxed at a higher rate to ensure a non-regressive tax.
1 - Securities Purchases
2 - Interest
3 - Inheritance (excepting the above first set of categories in the inheritance of course)
A sales or VAT style tax could be fair, but in order for it to be fair we must exempt from it the kinds of goods and services which are necessities. The poor spend a greater precentage of their income on these kinds of goods and, as a consequence, will bear a greater portion of the tax burden than those more able to pay it.
Inheritance is the most important of these. This so called "fair tax" is nothing more than a means of taxing the transferance of value from one person to another. Inheritance is one such transferance. The ceiling should be high -- say 5 Million or more, and the first 5 Million should be tax free. But there exists an inherent value in the having of, say 5 Million in assets and, as long as we're taxing value transfers, we should tax that too.
Killfile(TGK)
No trees were killed in the creation of this post. However, many electrons were inconvenienced.
You're an idiot (and I'm an anonymous coward, I know). There exist three TYPES of taxing: Property, Income, and Sales. Each TYPE of tax diversely affects different types of people / financial entities.
SALES - hits the poorest part of the population. They have to buy stuff. This is why we have exemptions on food taxes. Rich people spend a lesser percentage of their money on purchasing commodities from retailers (who have to change sales tax) than poor people.
PROPERTY - hits the richest part of the population. If a poor person can't afford it, he buys a cheaper house (theoretically).
INCOME - hits richer parts of the population. The theory (while not entirely fair) is that richer people can afford to live slightly poorer to increase the standard of living for the rest of us.
So... lets think for a minute. If I only pay commodity taxes, then the rich are free from their duty to help me, which means they won't be bringing up the standard of living.
Second, how do you inforce this commodity tax? What if I had a private business and didn't want to charge sales tax? Somehow or other, the government would have to make me register with them if I wanted to sell anything. What about ebay?
The only possible way to accomplish this task is to make every exchange of money or goods taxed. If I sold you soemthing on Ebay or at a garage sale, it would be taxed. If I handed you a 20 dollar bill, it would be taxed. Think about it. And, think about the power that the government would have to take upon itself to enforce this. And take a class in basic economics for goodness sake.