Hacker News Reader

Comment by glofish | Hacker News Reader

The strength of the lobby is purely attributable to the policial will that wants to allow that lobbying to be effective.

The main argument I heard against simplifying the tax code (and allowing automated free filing) is that it would eventually lead to a slow but steady increase in taxes. Another way of saying this is that: the "pain" of paying taxes makes people scrutinize the tax code and acts as a deterrent.

If you were to frame it in that context (and if that statement were indeed true), I am sure more people championing a simple tax code would stop doing so. I would rather pay $100 to Intuit's potentially unneeded service than $1000 as a tax increase.

I am not claiming that it is true - I don't have a way of testing this hypothesis - but it is something that is worth musing about. There are always unintended consequences.

View on HN

That is the entire Grover Norquist argument in a nutshell, and I call bullshit. Most people are not involved enough in legislature to have any meaningful input into whether taxes will rise or not, so they are eating the complexity cost with no benefit. Sure, people in general should be more involved in their government, bit that is a totally different issue. I think it is more likely that people are confused by the currwnt tax laws and forms, so they aren't clear on what their tax obligations really are.

I think the issues that you mention were overly conflated.

People do not need to get "involved" into legislating beyond voting for someone representing them - and choosing the person they believe will do so.

People do most certainly are clear what their obligations end up being when they submit their tax return.

The question is only whether the process should be easier or is it better if it is tedious and ineffective. The question of whether Intuit also profits along the way is almost marginal here.

As much as I wish the world was logical, I came to believe it isn't - it is always full of unintended consequences.

The problem with this argument in general is that there might always be unintended consequences for any change. Hence one should never try to change anything.

In this case, the argument about rising taxes seems completely arbitrary. Why couldn’t I likewise argue that they would actually be lower (e.g., by closing loopholes)?

Why couldn’t I likewise argue that they would actually be lower (e.g., by closing loopholes)?

Well for one, there is no incentive to lower taxes.

Loopholes have nothing to do with the ease of submitting a document. Loopholes exploit the various requirements of the law and play them out against each other.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com