Because you want to make people angry and upset at least once a year at the government? Because you want to remind people that taxes are something the government takes, instead of letting them think of taxes as money they never earned to begin with.

I love paying my taxes, but if you think taxes are bad (and lots of people do), then the current U.S. system makes total sense.

I'm sort of with you on this. I am proud to know, for example, that my taxes help pay for healthcare for everyone and schools and roads and so on. I like to believe I'll pay in more than I'll get out and that's brilliant.

However. Come bonus time I really struggle with the bit where they say "we're going to give you £x" and then I actually get a bit over half that in the bank. Somehow I internalise the number x and it feels like the tax has been 'taken' in a way I never would for my monthly salary.

It's an interesting if purely psychological difference in my response to taxation.

If you aren't relying on the bonus for other things it's a good option. It means the bonus sort of 'disappears' psychologically, but then if you have a mortgage it probably just gets swallowed up by that anyway.

I get the argument, but whether or not I /want/ to pay taxes, I still have to, so why make it inconvenient? The NZ government finds plenty of other ways to make me angry and upset anyway.

That's not saying taxes should be onerous or deliberately painful -- any more than paying your bank's monthly fees should be onerous or painful. But none of those should be invisible, either. Transactions that are never consciously reviewed are never scrutinized for value. That's no long-term good to either participant in the transaction.

Your fear -- that by removing the hassle of tax preparation, people will dwell in blissful ignorance of their tax burden and the government will jack up tax rates -- is not borne out by my experiences in countries where return-free tax filing is the norm.

Based on anecdotal evidence, I think that people paying more than 30% rarely ever "love" paying taxes. Below that, it seems to feel much more ok (I'm also below 30% and - while I'm not enthusiastic about paying taxes - it feels like a fair deal).

First of all, it means supporting a robust social system, that have provided treatment for my family member's cancer for free. Something that would likely have resulted in bankruptcy in the US, prior to ACA.

Secondly, being in the high end of the tax rate, means i have a high income as well - and it seems only fair that i pay more in taxes than people who make very little to begin with. Society has to function, and let's make the broadest shoulders bear the largest burden.

I think free higher education is one thing that really help sell higher taxes to high income earners. Free(ish) healthcare is awesome, but you get the feeling that it mostly benefits poorer and older people. Free higher education is comparatively cheap, but it makes our lives simpler and stress free.

Thus, Greece is an example of why we need to remember to keep our politicians at check.

Hint: zero.

There's no need for that, and it occludes rather than clarifies what little point you have.

But you love it.

[0] - https://www.nationalpriorities.org/campaigns/military-spendi...

[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_Direct_Attack_Munition

[2] - https://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2012/jan/03/iraq-b...

UK tax payer here, so the specifics are different, but I have no problem paying my taxes. We have decent free health care, a capable and I think 'right sized' armed forces for our needs, competent policing and security services and my children get free education. If any of those things were not true I wouldn't necessarily want my taxes to be reduced, I'd want the problems with those services to be fixed.

The UK armed forces do seem a bit top-heavy and our record when it comes to procurement is, by most accounts, appalling.

I had assumed the defense budget was larger, it was a nice way of displaying the information.

Its called "chain of numbness". Chasing doesn't murder innocent Iraq children; he is far from it but by aiding financially the army that does murder, are his hands truly clean?

Why not keep the military and solve our problems without it? We need it to be safe now, and until we've already solved our problems, we'll still need it.

Obviously it doesn't always work well and it definitely causes problems, doesn't mean we should get rid of or even reduce it.

True, but just winning a war or conflict is not an ideal outcome. Overwhelming advantage not only prevents conflict from occurring, it also assures that casualties are low in even low intensity / regional conflicts.

Having them used as they are now and deployments in the recent past, not so much.

My point is that these smaller conflicts (albeit mostly misguided) are useful to guide and reform strategy, tactics and spending.

edit: OK, I understand the sentiment of being happy to contribute to society, but no-one assumes a perfect equation of their taxes to the appropriate and desired government spending thereof.

I'm not trying to rag on being American. But I've got close ties with the U.S. so often I compare what a life event would have been like, had I been a typical U.S. family of my economic class.

Southern Sweden seems to have a "last night" problem pretty much every night except when Trump spoke about it.

(Swedish crime rate is still low, at least in homicides it's much lower than the U.S., but Sweden is unlike most Western countries in that the murder rate has stopped going down and has turned upwards, and the politicians sem to be in denial. The police are laying down unsolved murder investigations simply because there are so many newer cases.)

It would guess it's a pretty common thread among people who grew up unused to a properly functioning government.

Don't like it? Don't eat.

I should clarify that I didn't immigrate to California, but was an immigrant to elsewhere. I apologize for the confusion.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_taxation#Individ...

Being a dick to someone for seeing what's wrong with the taxes here is awfully small of you.

How unabashedly self-centered! It's adorable.

How would you like paying somebody else's taxes as well?

If all you have is a simple income in the US, then the 1040ez is a single page and you can file it for free online if you make under a certain amount. You can pay a few dollars to file online if you make more.

Obamacare has added an extra level of complexity now, but that is also very simple if you don't need or want the subsidy.

In US, about 60 percent of individual tax returns are filed by a professional tax preparer, at every income level. People who owe no income tax still have to file tax returns to receive tax credits. In many other modern countries, _the_majority_ of the tax payers file no tax returns at all.

> _the_majority_ of the tax payers file no tax returns at all.

I think there's a confusion here. Maybe several. First of all, in US filers and payers are not the same, as you may pay federal taxes (e.g. by deductions) and still not have to file (e.g. low income). Second, there are state taxes, which most countries don't have. Third, many countries just don't have the tax return as a thing - if you got something deducted, it's gone, good luck getting anything back. In US, you get stuff back for mortgage interest, state taxes, property taxes, charity donations, etc. etc. - you can get quite a decent amount of money back. I think it's better than just sending it over and getting nothing back, even if it could mean a bit more work.

http://www.ird.govt.nz/income-tax-individual/end-year/ir3/ii...

My favourite part of our tax system is the advice to file if you have "income from an illegal enterprise"

EDIT: Just as a reply to the original point. I'm not sure how complicated the US system is. I'm not trying to say it's bad either, it just seems to me that we have a system similar to the one that is getting lobbied against. And I like our system, it works well for me..

FYI - At various stages of my life I've filed in New Zealand, Australia, UK, Switzerland and the US (California).

I can't generalize to all persons, but I do have a decent spread of countries in my own experience - and the US was by some serious margin the most complicated.

That's entirely the point of the linked article. TurboTax has lobbied to keep the system convoluted so they can sell you their software.

Countries with simple tax rules don't get to micromanage their economy so much.

Tax filing in US is a huge waste of people's time. I wonder if anyone ever computed the amount of people-hours spent on this malarky, and how much productive output it could generate if used for something else.

Although I guess it could be worse... I generally have extra taken out of my regular paycheck so I don't have to make quarterly payments. But it's just guesswork for the most part, as I just don't know where things will be precisely. Some years, I'm happy not owing anything, or at least much (I've owed the state a couple times), Other years I get more back than expected.

"Income from illegal activities, such as money from dealing illegal drugs, must be included in your income on Form 1040, line 21, or on Schedule C or Schedule C-EZ (Form 1040) if from your self-employment activity."

"If you receive a bribe, include it in your income."

"You must include kickbacks, side commissions, push money, or similar payments you receive in your income on Form 1040, line 21, or on Schedule C or Schedule C-EZ (Form 1040), if from your self-employment activity."

"If you steal property, you must report its fair market value in your income in the year you steal it unless in the same year, you return it to its rightful owner."

See: https://www.irs.gov/publications/p17/ch12.html

I wonder what happens if you steal something, keep it until the next year, and then return it? Do you declare it as income in the year you steal it, and a loss in the year you return it?

(Probably not. I'm too lazy to look it up, but I recall another document that explains that, while income from illegal activities is taxable, expenses for illegal activities are not deductible.)

In over 10 years here I have never needed to do anything more than to sign a couple of forms provided (and pre-filled-in) by my employer, once a year.

If you make only the equivalent of U$400 in extra income, there's no need to declare it. I think the cap is around U$2000.

If you own a standard investment account, your broker will automatically levy taxes on your dividends and capital gains (rates are the same, BTW). You can still open a different type of account if you want to pay the taxes yourself. But if you're just investing for retirement and going buy-and-hold-forever there's little reason to do so.

Also we have no capital gains tax (a mistake IMHO). Tax on interest, (and a second income) is withheld by banks at our nominal marginal rate.

In practice if the govt doesn't care about the tax on your cabbage patch doll, unless you are selling thousands of them it costs more to collect that tax than they would receive

This hurts my head to think about. According to CNN, 20% of large corporations pay almost nothing in corporate taxes.[1]

1 - http://money.cnn.com/2016/04/13/pf/taxes/gao-corporate-taxes...

But that's because I feel that corporations should be mostly about collective ownership and protection from direct liability. It shouldn't be a carte blance.

Plus, tons of third-parties will file returns for free, even ones more complicated than 1040ez.

Could you list any of these websites or PM me please?

List of supported forms, including 1040: https://www.taxhawk.com/eligibility.jsp

They don't do everything, but they certainly go beyond 1040EZ. Federal filing is free. They charge for federal extensions and state returns.

That's hilarious.

And, of course, I can make the corrections on-line using the tax department web site and I get an immediate estimate of how much tax is due (or overpaid) after the corrections.

Of course Turbo Tax would be against a system like this because for most people it would mean that they don't need to pay Turbo Tax.

Meanwhile, the accounting and tax lay industry is part of the lobbying effort to grow their business on the back end, rather than making the case to the customer on the front end. It'd double dealing.

So I'm hardly sympathetic, but yes considering there are an ass tonne of jobs that would just vanish overnight, there'd maybe need to be a transitional phase, just avoid an abrupt change. But how do you shrink a market in a non-disruptive and fair way considering it grew in a distruptive and unfair way in the first place?

Politicians protecting an industry through action or inaction, no matter if its lobbyists or others suggesting that they do, isn't the free market.

It is all very well excluding corporate lobbying from your scholastic definition of a free market. Such a market will never exist anywhere for more than five minutes.

Remember kids: If it's broken, apply Free Market liberally to the affected areas.

Are you suggesting complicated taxes isn't the government's fault?

A bunch of people with a lot of money have been able to lock in their positions. It sure feels like pulling out of the church of laissez-faire economics would let us, say, pass laws with things like price controls (or just nationalizing the whole industry!).

An aside: complicated taxes aren't the opposite of "free market". For example, giving tax incentives to new companies can help make a market more free by reducing the cost of entry.

Our current system is the opposite of a free market. You can think of paying your monthly rent payment, your banking, etc. as (mostly) free market.

You can think of taxes, DMV, healthcare, etc. as not free market.

Rent is not really heavily regulated outside of California and New York. Similarly, banking is indeed regulated in specific sectors, but not really across the board

I imagine discussing relative merits within the range of roughly level four to level eight would be far more fruitful than the usual "my free market is tougher than your free market" posturing.

it's not the free market when you lobby the GOVERNMENT to do what you want it to do

I think that we have a cultural problem. People chose to take out loans for their tertiary education because of our beliefs in the tertiary educational system. College is to get a job, but we believe it's there for us to "discover ourselves." And that's how we end up with accountants.

Sometimes I wish there was some website where non-partisan smart people scientifically identified the current problems and come up with a finite, exhaustive list of possible problems. And then, determine the amount of money it would take to test a hypothesis. If they do and it fails, then they must take into account that hypothesis and correct for it.

How much money would need to be raised?

It's just too bad that I've never encountered anyone in real life that thinks like this. It feels so intuitive when you approach it like a computer problem.

I think the problem is that that political science is paradoxical in itself and goes against on of the most important tenets of science and reason: that we must give up our beliefs if the evidence proves them wrong.

Is there anyone out there who is balanced enough to actually be bipartisan? How would one search for such a unicorn? Is it really impossible?

As opposed to the other countries with automated taxes, that don't attempt it?

For example, in France if you have more than 3(?) kids, you get 70% off all train rides. That required this whole process to get set up (I imagine it was more through regulation than law but you at least need the budget to the SNCF).

The easiest way to get an equivalent thing through the US legal bureaucracy would be to do: "If you send us receipts of your train tickets and have over 3 kids, we'll deduct them from your taxes at 70%".

It "pays for itself" in the sense that the government doesn't have to give money to Amtrack, just give back money that was just given to it by the taxpayer. It doesn't require intergovernmental coordination, just the IRS. It can be passed through the huge budget process. Much easier than many other regulatory schemes.

After all, if you can afford a mortgage, you are clearly well-off, so you should be taxed more.

(And there is a good point: Mortgage deductions distort the housing market. But rent subsidies distort it even more.)

I think you agree with me.

In the US, you get a deduction for interest on your primary residence. In Australia, you cannot do that, but instead, you get to make a deduction of interest in any investment property you own against your personal income! Plus investment properties have a lower capital gains tax rate than other asset classes.

The tax laws in this country are fucked.

Also, in US is there any capital gains discount for property?

But the answer, is that people who buy and rent out property are generally better off than those renting, so redistributing income between them decreases income inequality.

Your bank already has records of things like mortgages which they [can] report to the IRS. You can figure out two-earner tax rates with a program or chart. People already report their children in the W2's. The IRS already has the information on file and I imagine they use it to filter out folks that might need audited.

Even with tax credits, a complicated tax system, and all that, there isn't a reason why this can't just be done upfront instead of after the fact - at least for most folks.

Every individual gets assigned a tax code, and that tax code defines how much is taken from your pay. That tax code takes in to account how many kids you have etc. etc.

The UK tends to approach tax deductions in a different way, preferring to subsidise stuff up front instead, so you never have to remember to file or figure out what your deductions are. You never paid out the money in the first place.

People don't tend to invest so much in stocks, instead settling for other instruments, like ISAs that already handle the tax end of things (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Individual_Savings_Account). ISAs are an attempt by the UK government to encourage saving / investment by providing tax incentives to do so. Again, tax considerations done upfront vs after-the-fact.

If you do invest in stocks, you're liable for capital gains tax, just like in the US, but whether you need to file or not is dependent on how much you actually made. If you make too much, you'll have to file taxes yourself, but it's relatively straightforward.

The point is not that the system is perfect, but that it handles the case for probably >90% of the population, without stress or complications for them.

There is no personal benefit.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gift_Aid

For cash gifts the charity can claim back 25p in the £ on your gift. For property, land and shares you deduct it against your tax payments at the end of the tax year and claim for a refund.

Just throw it all out and call it good enough. If you really need deductions for expenses, found a business. For persons, expenses are indistinguishable from consumption.

"Paying taxes" is a number on my paycheck that says how much money went to healthcare, tax authority etc.

You don't get to decide what other people's interests are, and you certainly cannot make an empirical case that the interests of all individuals would be better served by voting one way or the other. This sort of reductionism and failure to interact with people you disagree with in good faith ought to have no place on a professional forum like this.

I absolutely can,there are far too many voters who are now upset that obamacare & the aca are the same thing and they're going to lose their health insurance.

A tax form is essentially a giant function, but one with tons of inputs. It can only be automated once all the inputs are known (essentially, that's the job of tax software). The only person that has all of those inputs is you, so you're forced to buy TurboTax to be able to reasonably input and evaluate taxes.

If you're thinking that all these inputs could ever be tracked by the federal government in a giant database, I still think it's crazy: you'd need a database for student loan interest paid, which every loan organization reports to, for charitable donations, for stock purchases, for stock sales, for dependents, etc. (I don't even know how you'd begin to track dependents, aside from how we do it now: manually.)