This sounds kind of like a conspiracy-theory, so it's worth providing a source.

Norquist himself, and his organization Americans for Tax Reform, believe that making tax payers go through the process of preparing their tax return forces us to audit our comfortability with paying taxes[0],[1]. If, on the other hand, we just signed off on numbers that the IRS provided us every April, we'd be less aware of, and therefore less likely to protest, increases in taxes.

This isn't a subtle, arguably-the-cruelty-is-the-point sort of situation, this is a I'm-not-using-anesthetic-because-I'm-concerned-you-aren't-sufficiently-afraid-of-the-thresher-that-just-cut-your-foot-off-when-I-ran-you-over-with-it. I'm not a big fan of paying taxes, and I don't like it when my taxes go up. But I already feel that when I look at my paystub, or pay property taxes. The whole effort to make tax returns harder so people hate taxes hinges on the idea that most people are completely unaware of taxes until April 15th rolls around. It's cynical in the extreme, and that's really off-putting to me.

0. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Americans_for_Tax_Reform#Oppos...

1. https://govinfo.library.unt.edu/taxreformpanel/meetings/meet...

> But I already feel that when I look at my paystub, or pay property taxes.

Unless you’re cutting a check in person you’re arguably not feeling it as much as you should.

It’s like how replacing cash toll booths with electronic debit hides the true price you’re paying on the highway.

I doubt very many people know how much taxes they actually paid in 2022, even after the pain of filling out taxes. Instead, the number they know and remember is the size of the refund check (or the tax check they have to send out) in April. And the size of that check has relatively little to do with your actual tax rate, instead being driven by the withholding tables instead.

That’s exactly my point. If people were cutting a check for the full about in one go, they’d have a better handle on the size of it. Likely a different opinion as well.

Having to at least see the numbers rather than blindly clicking “Yes” on a government run website is not quite there but it’s better than nothing.

It might be nice if the IRS provided a summary of what you paid + your effective tax rate in a prominent place on the first page of your tax return. Maybe they could include last year's info for comparison.

If we ever reach a point where the IRS just tells you what they think you owe, they could include the same summary to placate the Norquist types (who undoubtedly will then start complaining about something else).

I already feel it when I see the number every 2 weeks on my paycheck. Or when I'm advised of my property tax bill every 3 months. Or register a car. Or buy something at a physical store. Taxes are everywhere, and you have to work really hard to stay ignorant of how much they're taking out of your pocket.

Literally all Norquist is doing is making it so for about 2 weeks a year, what little free time I have after the kids are down for the night is spent in tense almost-argument with my wife as we seek out all the places our employers have secreted the tax documents they already provided to the IRS. Its such a colossal, pointless waste of time for people who have a simple tax situation.

I have never, not once, looked at the numbers produced by performing my tax return (which, again, the IRS already performs so they can double check my numbers) and thought "Thank you Grover Norquist for keeping me aware of how much my government is costing me!". Because I am already made aware of that when I get my very first paycheck from a new job.

Speaking of toll booths vs electronic debit, when I lived in the Bay Area, I had to commute from east bay to west bay every day. For the first 4-5 months, I was paying cash, because in my scant spare time, I hadn't had time to get transponder and direct debit set up. I was paying $35/week. I didn't become less aware of that cost when I switched to the transponder, because the actual cost was time. Time is something I have very little of, so adding friction just wastes my most limited resource.

Using my most limited resource to make sure I'm aware of how the government might be using slightly too much of my like 10th most limited resource is a waste of my fucking time. Thus, I'm angry not at the government for potentially wasting my money, but at Grover Norquist for wasting my time because he thinks I'm too fucking stupid to realize what's happening.

> Because I am already made aware of that when I get my very first paycheck from a new job.

Taxes don't reduce your purchasing power insofar as everyone else also has to pay them, so your relative amount of post-tax money is the same, and the tax system is progressive, meaning your relative position is actually a little better.

Remember, money isn't real.

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

> Speaking of toll booths vs electronic debit, when I lived in the Bay Area, I had to commute from east bay to west bay every day. For the first 4-5 months, I was paying cash, because in my scant spare time, I hadn't had time to get transponder and direct debit set up. I was paying $35/week. I didn't become less aware of that cost when I switched to the transponder, because the actual cost was time. Time is something I have very little of, so adding friction just wastes my most limited resource.

You just proved my point without even realizing it.

When you were forced to pay cash, they were forced to show you the price. You even remember the amount now, presumably years later. If they could have you pay cash without seeing the price I’m sure they would. If the price had changed from week to week, you’d immediately realize it because the amounts you’d interact with would change.

But that’s only possible with a purely digital system. As all the numbers happen behind the scenes.

Ask yourself this, why don’t any of those automated toll booths show the amount you “auto paid” rather than just “Ok!” Or “Paid!”? It’s because they explicitly do not want people to know what they are paying so they can raise the rates with minimal flak.

> It’s because they explicitly do not want people to know what they are paying so they can raise the rates with minimal flak.

Or maybe it's simpler to just say paid and they did that. I'd wager that they're well aware of push-back over fee increases but still do it anyway, because monopoly. And the roads need the money.

On that note, the real fun is going to be about how do we pay for the roads once the majority of traffic is not pay fuel tax...

I had to look it up, since it'd been several years since I drove past the BIG FUCKING SIGNS that tell you how much the toll is, indicate that you only get a discount if you're carpooling, and that you need the transponder for that discount. Have you actually been through the toll plaza I referenced? In addition to the sign (that is posted before the last exit before the toll plaza, so you can bail if you don't have the cash), there's also a digital display at the cash booths, to indicate how much it costs.

If the intent was to get us paying without realizing, they'd add additional incentives (like discounts) to getting the transponder than the fact that its simply (and obviously) faster.

You're constructing this straw man where the price at the register is murky and ill-defined, and if only we could remove the smoke screen, people would see how much money they're losing to taxes. But the reality is that anti-tax folks are the ones making it difficult to understand the price at the register, as it pertains to income taxes. There's quite the conversation to be had about the murkiness of appropriations, certainly. But adding friction to the tax return process doesn't make me want to call my congressman about where my taxes are going, but instead to ask why a senator in Wyoming or Texas is so excited to bend over backwards to protect the business interests of a company based in Mountain View, California, at the expense of all of their constituents?!

Disagree. You don't need Grover to make US taxes overly complex and burdensome. Just look at some of the tax bills Democrats have sponsored - vague tax rules that the IRS is responsible for implementing (and often making their own decisions on how to implement).

Basically new tax rules are put into place with little regard on making them simple or including data collection as a part of the tax change.

The last time we were given "tax reform" it was mainly about cutting rates for the wealthy rather than streamline and modernize how taxes are handled (the IRS budget has been constrained and prevents them doing anything other than barely function, which is a not an accident).

https://www.policygenius.com/taxes/who-benefited-most-from-t...

"Middle-class Americans saw mixed results as most of the benefits accrued to the highest earners."

I mean, yeah? 42% of Americans pay no federal income tax, how could tax reform benefit them unless it's handing out cash? Which we already do with EITC.

And the complexities and burden of the tax system go way, way back before Trump's tax reform. Think more like anything passed since the 1950's.

> You don't need Grover to make US taxes overly complex and burdensome. Just look at some of the tax bills Democrats have sponsored

You went out of your way to make this about partisan finger-pointing and I merely countered that there's plenty of blame to share. Way to deflect and spin!

Partisan politics is why the subject is so rancorous. I have no party affiliation and am happy to acknowledge and criticize the one that I am most sympathetic too. This is why we can't have nice things -- because we can't talk about policy and and government reform without it becoming a pissing match.

I did nothing of the such, I simply countered your argument.

You said "The last time we were given "tax reform"", which implies this is a recent issue. I countered with "look at some of the tax bills Democrats have sponsored", clearly showing it's NOT a partisan issue, both parties are doing it, and have been doing it for decades.

The original comment blamed Grover, so in fact you're replying to a chain of comments that were already partisan, so I reply with a comment about politics and you somehow blame me for making it partisan. Fun!