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
Sounds fantastic to me. Of course, plenty of people may miss out on possible deductions, but overall, simplifying compliance is a wonderful thing.
Hooray for simplicity!
500GB of disk, 5TB of transfer, $5.95/mo
oh well, i suppose i'll just have to console myself with all this extra untaxed cash.
1. How much money do you have?
2. Send check for amount specified in step #1.
3. You still owe, work harder next year.
Thank you,
Your Government
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 tax system is too complicated... we need the Fair Tax.
Simply put, the FairTax replaces the way we're currently taxed - based on our annual income - with a tax on goods and services. The FairTax is a voluntary "consumption" tax: the more you buy, the more you pay in taxes, the less you buy, the less you pay in taxes.
It's simple.
Everyone pays their fair share of taxes, and with the FairTax rebate, spending up to the poverty level is tax free. The Federal government is fully funded, including Social Security and Medicare, and you don't need an expert to determine your Federal taxes.
It's simple.
Read the FAQs
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
What could possiblie go wrong?
(How about reducing spending so you don't need to collect as much income tax? They currently take FIVE HUNDRED DOLLARS from me each month in state income taxes.)
Ironically, the word ironically is often used incorrectly.
This is somewhat similar to the UK self assessment system. No such thing as state taxes in the UK, so it's all just one system.
Many self employed people simply scribble in their earnings, their losses, and their profit.. and if they send it back by September (rather than January) the tax office will work out the tax on your behalf. If your profit is over a certain amount, you also have to fill out a few more boxes explaining what sorts of expenses you had, but it's pretty simple. You can even do it online.
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"
How is it that every time I see some unique law or way of governing it's in California? I'm genuinely interested. Do they have a fundamentally different way of thinking? Can someone who lives there comment?
"The tax system is too complicated... we need the Fair Tax."
Even better. The NO TAX system. I get to keep all my money, and the government gets what I feel like sending.
The tax code is simple enough in New Zealand that most people simply go with what IRD asseses, and that's usually right.
Aww c'mon, PornMaster. You gotta know this is just the first step. In a few years CA will come out and say, "Since you now trust our numbers we won't require you to check the website and give your approval. It'll be even more simple. We'll just figure out how much you owe us and send you the bill. If you want to dispute it after the fact we'll have another website you can go to."
That's step #2. The IRS is pretty firm when you goof? We'll see how easy it is to get money back when they goof.
If the rich are only taxed by what they spend, the amount of tax they'll pay will be negligible to them. If you spend, say, $20-30K a month, you get taxed much less than you would under the "regular" tax system in your tax bracket. I'm your typical "middle class" guy, but even I'm against reducing taxation for the rich. If anything, they should be taxed more, they won't go broke anyway.
The Australian Tax Office (ATO is equiv to IRS) has some e-tax software to help you prepare your tax return (even for more complicated tax returns including rental income, capital gains, business income, depreciation etc). This can either be submitted online or printed and submitted via snail mail.
Unfortunately I think that previous versions have been Windows only but since their corporate stuff is now Java maybe that is where e-tax is headed too?
I agree 100% that the tax code needs to be simplified. Off the top of my head I can think of three problems, though I'm sure there are many more.
1) What about Roth IRAs, savings accounts, investments, etc where the money has already been taxed? I already paid income taxes on the money in my bank account, if we switch over then I'll be taxed again.
2) Tax deductions. I know you want to get rid of them to simplify the code, but it's not realistic to do away with the housing interest tax deduction, for example. 70% of American families own their home, so this would be political suicide.
3) This would create a huge black market for tax-free goods. People would be forming fake small businesses and then apply for resale permits to buy their goods tax-free. What about goods sold online? They will have to be taxed. Will you go after every last person on Ebay?
I think we're pretty much stuck with the system we have.
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/
Just a little something I remember from Economics class, the sales tax is a regressive tax. This essentially means that (as I believe one other person said). The poor pay a higher percentage of their income than the rich. If anything, we should start reducing the number of deductions to simplify the system, then increase taxes for the rich (so that we can replace the deductions with a simple drop in taxes for lower income families), and (if possible) find a way to reduce sales tax.
The right to protest the State is more sacred than the State.
The tax system is too complicated... we need the Gullibility Tax. Now, I will cut-and-paste something.
Simply put, the Gullibility Tax is a tax on slack-jawed credulity. If you are enough of a rube to believe that "Fair Tax" is anything but Orwellian doublespeak for a tax system that screws working people to help a small number of idle rich, then send me all your money now.
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
In Japan, if you're employed with a salary under 20 million yen (~$180k) and you don't have any other significant income--which covers a pretty large fraction of taxpayers--you don't even have to send in a tax return in the first place; your employer does it for you and you see the result on your December or January paycheck (we call it nenmatsu-chousei, end-of-year adjustment).
Good or bad? I dunno, but it's sure less of a pain than writing up a 1040 every year that says I don't owe the IRS any money because I earned it all abroad.
Wow...that's it, I'm moving to California and be one of those people...
The Bigger The Headache The Bigger the Pill
In sweden I have been doing tax returns via internet since 2003 or 2004. You just log in on the swedish IRS webpage, using the national internet-id system "bankID" (its platform indepedent). When you are logged in you find a bunch of html forms (income, profit on capital, etc) prefilled with numbers, just as the ordinary tax return. You also see how much return on tax you get or if you must pay more tax.
If everything is ok, you just click "send in", if you think something is wrong, you just change the numbers, give a motivation, and then click "send in". Just like with the normal declaration.
Also one can do the tax return via SMS; if everything looks good, you can SMS a code to a certain number, and voila, done. However, this sms-tax-return does not allow for altering of the declaration. But most people does not need to anyway.
There is also lots of other stuff to do on the swedish IRS webpage using BankID, such as checking the "tax-account" (its like a bank account, but on this only tax gets in and out) to see if the return of tax has come yet. Normally amounts above 100 SEK is automatically transferred to ones normal bank account (this is also configured via the webb).
It works really good. "E-government", as it is called here, is a good idea.
We've been doing something like this for years in Denmark. Most people (my guess is at least 2 out of 3, including myself) don't need to add anything except a few deductions that the tax agency can not possibly know about (we can deduct parts of the cost of transportation to work, for instance). Most people still use the snailmail version, but we've been able to do this electronically for several years now.
Black holes are where God divided by zero
Let's say I want to do activity A, like go to the strip club. And she wants to do Activiy B, like anything other than go to the strip club.
I will say 'Hey, we should go to the strip club. Do you want to go?'
Of course, we all know the answer is No. But there's no way she's going to just say 'No, I don't want to go to the strip club', because she's female, and that would violate the laws of physics. Instead, she'll say "It's Sunday. The strippers on Sunday are ugly."
And I'm supposed to pretend that the reason we're not going to the strip club is that the strippers are ugly on Sunday, not that I'm dating a jealous, selfish prude.
Actually, maybe H&R Block isn't like my girlfriend. If you let someone else do your taxes for you this time, you can still pay H&R block to do it next time.
paintball
YOu, sir, aren't paying attention (or possibly didn't really read up on the plan).
/.!).
(You are a SIR, aren't you? One never knows, but this is
The rich get taxed. The poor get taxed. Under the current plan, there are returns based on overpayment, and some other things (such as family size v. income). The tax backets are useful, and they usually end up helping the poor (I know, cause I'm there--for now).
Under the fair tax, everyone gets a rebate check monthly. This amount is enough to cover a very basic set of necessities, and would actually end up being more than most poor families get in returns each year. For the rich, it would represent so very little money as to be ridiculous.
You claim that spending is so little for the rich, but you seem to forget your statistics (as have others). Even though the rich person doesn't spend much continously (although that is arguable), there is a tendency to spend in large chunks--frequently more than I make in a year will be spent in a moment--$30k for a wedding, $20k for a boat, $50k for a new car, $1000k for a new house (or more), $$$$$$ for a new jet (ultra rich).
These are figures that I will never spend. Now these may not represent monthly or yearly purchases, but for many of the really rich (foolishly rich), a new car every year is no big deal. I'll be lucky if I get to buy a brand new car in the next 10 years. There are enough celebrities and whatnot that spend in this fashion to keep the average amount spent in a given year fairly high!
Thus, the rich will, as always, be paying the lion's share of taxes, and getting a poor return on it. After all, the government isn't known for being ultra efficient (spend _all_ your budget boys!).
Finally, I am of the understanding that with the FairTax, that initial investment will also be taxed, thus helping raise the amount sent to government coffers. It would also reduce the size of the IRS, thus reducing the drain of collecting taxes.
I think that anyone who is against the FairTax isn't paying attention!
"We don't know what we are doing, but we are doing it very carefully,..." Wherry, R.J. Personnel Psychology (1995)
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
Canada introduced online filing of income taxes a few years back. Only catch is, you have to submit using "approved" software. So basically, you have to pay $40 for a software package to submit forms for you. There's an exception for people earning less than $20,000 a year.
When this first came out (and I hadn't read the fine print), I thought it was brilliant. Go to SSL website, enter your figures, done. Oh? I have to pay Intuit $40 and have a Windows machine handy? Damn. There simply is no way to hand-calculate your tax forms and submit them online.
So I got bored, and started examining the files that QuickTax produces. They're basically ASCII files with line:value entries, plus a few codes spread about. I was thinking of doing some further analysis of this. It should in theory be easy to set up some simple perl/javascript/whatever, with a form that the user inputs their numbers, and gets this ASCII file in return. I know myself and a bunch of friends would use it, and if I put it online, I could see lots of people using it. Yes, many of us still calculate our taxes by hand instead of paying H&R or using software!
Anyway, I gave up. Seeing as the federal government has never even attempted something as simple as this, I assume Intuit has some powerful lobbying going on. If I tried, I probably would have been put in jail for tax fraud or something.
*sigh*
Endless arguments over trivial contradictions in books written by ignorant savages to explain thunder in the dark.
This California innovation isn't tax reform. It doesn't change the basis on which you pay taxes. It doesn't even change which info you report. It's purely as "formatting" change.
But it does speak to a serious tax inequity problem. There should not be different ways to calculate one's taxes, which produce different results from the same person. That kind of system means that those more capable of deciding which way is cheaper will owe less taxes. Which is an arbitrary favoritism, except that paying an expert will save taxes (if the expert's fee is less than the savings). Which means that people with money to invest in the expert will see the returns, while others won't. That means that richer people, and people with investment experience (or culture), will benefit. And that the rest will subsidize those advantaged people. When the tax law is so complex that its comprises the largest text of any laws in our country, and tax accounting is a many-billion-dollar industry, a billion dollar government operation, the inequity is obvious, and dominates politics and the economy - all for the worse.
Fair taxation requires recognition of a fair basis for taxation, and recognition that taxation consumes some of the money to be spent on developing the rest of the economy (whether or not the taxes are then spent to develop the economy). We tax people's income, but we should tax people's expenses instead. Our government operates to protect our rights, our transactions (business and otherwise). The more one spends, the more the government is serving one, by protecting one's commercial rights and privileges. But one's basic rights are not proportional to anything - protecting them is a fixed overhead. So a sales tax is the most fair, with exemptions for expenses on basic rights. Raw food (not prepared by a restaurant) is a basic right, which expense should not be taxed. Raw cloth (not finished clothing), primary shelter (one's home), basic energy consumption (some heat in cold Winters, some cooling in hot Summers), basic education, essential healthcare - these expenses should not be taxed. To ensure that those who can afford only these basics are not required to do with less than necessary, to fund the government that does not serve them well enough that they could afford more. Everything else consumed should be taxed, to fund the government that protects the system that enables that consumption, and the production that feeds it.
So we need a universal sales tax, with those exceptions. In the building code, in tenant/landlord rights, in nutrition, in education, even in fashion, we already have precise minimum standards, defined in terms of basic rights. So we can establish exactly which expenses are not taxable. Everything else consumed must have a sales tax. Each enclosing government must have the option to collect their tax, not to exceed a limit set by the people of the enclosing constituency (eg. maximum town tax is countywide, maximum state tax is federal). I expect that the total maximum would be somewhere around 25-30%, total for all taxing governments. Which, in a $12T economy, would collect $3-4T - the current expenses of all American governments. Without deficit, without requiring people to do without any of the basics. It essentially taxes people's discretionary income, at the same rate regardless of our class or tastes. And since it's collected by vendors, rather than everyone, it's much cheaper to administer. For everyone, like the already-organized business, and the goverments which deal with the much fewer, more organized businesses, rather than the hundreds of millions of largely disorganized individuals. And because it's much easier to close a business violating tax laws than it is to even find violating people, compliance is much higher, so closer to the theoretical total can be collected.
This system encourages (untaxed) savings. It balances the budgets. It charges people based on how much "extra" money they have, protecting their essentials. And it generates enough proportional t
--
make install -not war