Comment by _archon_ | Hacker News Reader

Comment by _archon_ | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

I don't understand what anyone would gain from this. Citizens would be more cash-rich throughout the year, then cash-poor when tax time came. Over the years, people would learn to squirrel away similar amounts to what they're withholding now. Withholdings exist now as a forced savings plan for the poor and a free loan system for the .gov for the upper class.

> My bet is that within the first year of this taxes would be massively reduced.

Making the filing and paying of taxes difficult and painful won't change a person's tax liability, it'll just irritate every citizen until we collectively demand an easier process. If you can't pay, you get penalties and a payment plan. Don't forget that the IRS is a government entity capable of legally charging, suing, etc. with the force of law. Why would having to travel to a payment center reduce someone's tax liability?

I guess I want to know more of the argument, for the sake of argument, because the argument doesn't make sense to me as presented.

The anti-tax group wants to make paying taxes as painful and inconvenient as possible based on the assumption that if taxes suck, more people will be more actively in favor of reducing taxes (as opposed to, you know, making the process not suck).

It's not about reducing liability at all right now, it's about making more people anti-tax.

I haven't heard an anti-tax argument in this topic, but this is a main argument between economists and statists.

Economists will always say that the tax should be explicit, and it should be placed for the people that ultimately pay for it. But pro-taxes people, mainly the government, want higher revenues first, which means putting a tax wherever you can, and that is about what is politically feasible, not about what is economically sound.

The end result is a hybrid of both interests. For example, San Francisco charges sales taxes, known to be regressive and punishing to poor people, but at least you know you are paying them on a ticket. Other countries, like europe, hide the VAT taxes, so it looks like you are not paying taxes at all. VAT reaches 10~20%, sales taxes in SF is around 6%.

Making it explicity DEFINITELY reduces it.

> Other countries, like europe, hide the VAT taxes, so it looks like you are not paying taxes at all.

That is not true at all. In all European countries that I can think of you get to see the whole price, including VAT so that, you know, you can actually tell how much the product is going to cost you. The composition of that price is then shown, often in smaller font. This is true of price stickers, receipts and invoices.

I do not find it the least bit misleading, and would be rather annoyed if a cashier told me to pay more money than the price sticker indicates.

Parent did not say that it is misleading.

The claim was that the tax caused price increase is hidden in the overall price.

And while the reasons for that can be plentiful (even consumer protection, if wanted) one effect is certainly and obviously that it hides the amount of sales tax you pay.

The VAT is usually declared somewhere in the bill.

It is very misleading: do it the other way around and people would complain about the tax constnatly, which is what people do in the US and in Canada.

Whether I'm going through the terrible process to pay $20 vs $20,000 doesn't make a difference. How would a lower tax rate improve anything in this scenario?

You're more likely to pay attention and double check some maths when writing out a $20,000 check as opposed to a $20 check.

The easier and more "automatic" any tax is, the easier it is to hide, and the less people understand that they're paying it. And as they become less aware of what they're paying, it becomes easier to take more.

OP is acknowledging the inverse is also true, and that if "automatic" aspects of the system were removed, people would become much more aware of what taxes they are paying, which would lead to public support for reducing the amount.

> Withholdings exist now as a forced savings plan

A pretty lame forced savings plan that nets you zero interest. I'd rather park the money I expect to need to pay in taxes in at least a high-yield savings account and get a couple percent rather than let the gov't have it.

But this ignores the fact that the US income tax system is actually a pay-as-you-go system, not a "you owe your taxes every April" system. You'll note that if you fill out a W-4 form such that your employer doesn't do much or any withholding, you'll find you owe late-payment penalties come April.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com