If there’s one outcome I really hope from AI automating work, it’s taking away the advantage the monied class has in this regard. Then perhaps there’s less purpose for the complexity
Agreed that the complexity is a feature but it's not for the rich ( though the rich will take advantage of it, and why not? ) . It's mostly for the powers that be. If there were a 'flat' tax ( and one could argue what constitutes a flat tax) the rich will be more willing to pay that flat tax.
I'd say complexity support a very large govt, keeping several people employed including accountants, tax software companies etc. It serves the parasite class.
The flat tax would not make tax preparation any bit easier. They only thing it would do would be to eliminate progressive taxation. In other words, the rich would pay less. The poor would pay more.
Tangentially, the same motivated-disinformation occurs with Social Security.
It's best-understood as an insurance-policy (OASDI is literally named that way) against dying poor and old/orphaned/disabled. With an insurance policy, it's normal for my month's premium to be spent on somebody else's current tragedy, it's normal for me to expect no cash if the Bad Thing never actually happens to me, and it's normal that there's no asset for me to pass on to my heirs.
However wall-street bankers can't make tons of profits competing under that model, so instead they try to trick citizens into misunderstanding what the model is. They want people to think it's a government-managed investment account instead, where every person is filling an individual bucket of "their" money that will someday be tipped back out for them.
With this deception, their job is much easier: They just need to say that they'll be a nicer manager of the accounts than the government is, because they'll give you more choices for managing "your" money. It's dishonest because the two things are fundamentally different in how they work and what they're good for.
This is absolutely not true in the USA. Income from different sources is taxed differently.
Example: The forms distinguish between short term capital gains, long term capital gains, and e.g., income from government bonds is taxed differently at lower levels of government.
there are many way to 'define' a 'flat' tax. My way would be a fixed sum. Not a fixed rate. ( yes the rich pay the same as poor) This would ofcourse have it's own if/buts but it would eliminate 90%+ complexity.
The ideal situation would be be no income tax and many other forms of taxation.
That's just because moving from progressive-taxation to a flat-tax reduces how much they pay!
The "simplicity" of the math done by their usual accounting firm that does their taxes for them is irrelevant by comparison.
_________
To illustrate why the burden shifts, suppose the nation of Elbonia needs a constant $540 to operate, and it moves from a progressive tax to a flat tax.
This year, progressive taxation, rising %:
90 peasants each earn $10 and are taxed 20% -> $2 per peasant.
10 nobles each earn $90 and are taxed 40% -> $36 per noble.
Total collection is $540.
Next year, flat tax, same % for all:
90 peasants each earn $10 and are taxed 30% -> $3 per peasant.
10 nobles each earn $90 and are taxed 30% -> $27 per noble.
Total collection is $540.
50% Payroll Income Tax. 35% Social Security Taxes. 7% Business Taxes. 7% Excise Taxes.
70 years ago they were:
25% Payroll Income Tax. 25% Social Security Taxes. 25% Business Taxes. 25% Excise Taxes.
I think the priority is fixing this distribution to levels which were historically perceived as being more fair. The wealthy are one problem. The oversized corporations are the everlasting machine which drives them.
In a global economy higher business taxes just cause large international corporations to incorporate in a different jurisdiction, which gives them an advantage over smaller purely domestic corporations, which is bad.
Social Security is already taking in less money than it's paying out. Reducing the Social Security tax would imply reducing Social Security benefits, since that's where it goes, unless you're proposing a more significant reform of the system in general.
The size of corporations and the amount they're taxed are two entirely different things. Indeed, the tax code does a lot of things to encourage corporations to be larger, like taxing dividends and capital gains after corporate income has already been taxed, which creates a tax preference for leaving the money inside of an existing corporation rather than investing it in starting a new competitor.
This is the common wisdom. I doubt it. The legal system in the USA is worth paying for. If these companies really want to submit to European law, then, they're welcome to it. I don't think that loss actually hurts domestic businesses but helps the massively.
Corporate income tax is essentially designed wrong. Property tax is where the buildings are, payroll tax is where the workers are, sales tax is where the customers are, corporate income tax is where the profit is. Which they just put in the country with the lowest taxes.
It's basically this: Employees in the US get paid $1B to design a product that employees in China get paid $1B to manufacture and then it gets sold to customers in Europe for $3B. The net profit is then $1B, but where is it? If the subsidiary in Ireland pays the subsidiary in California $2B for the design then it's in California. If they instead pay the subsidiary in Shenzhen $2B to manufacture it then it's in China. If they instead pay them each $1B then it stays in Ireland. And then the company picks based on whichever one has lower taxes.
There is no real way around this because in real arms length negotiations it would depend on which subsidiary has more leverage against the others, but in modern companies what that really comes from is the strength of the company's brand or customer lock-in as a result of patents or copyrights, since without them the profit would be negligible because there would be no barriers to competitors entering the market and causing razor-thin margins, but all of those things are easy to move into whatever jurisdiction you like since they only exist on paper.
So international corporations pay taxes in Ireland and purely domestic corporations pay taxes in California which puts the domestic corporations at a disadvantage when the taxes in California are higher.
You also need to look at overall tax burden, not just federal. It used to be that the states levied taxes and did stuff. Now mostly what happens is that the feds levy taxes and piss it back onto the states in the form of grants to do qualifying stuff.
IDK how this distorts the percentages but it certainly does.
The point I'm trying to make is businesses used to carry a more significant fraction of federal spending during a period where they had less overall influence relative to the citizen.
Now we're inverted. Businesses have excepted themselves from most of the costs leaving that burden to the citizen, but we live in a country where business needs are put well ahead of the citizens.
The bigger picture is what matters here.
That's what everybody says but then you look at effective tax rates in real life and the highest ones are paid by people like doctors rather than billionaires because the complicated system is the thing that allows the billionaires to pay less.
Meanwhile you don't need a complicated marginal rate system to get a progressive effective rate curve. Just give everybody a tax credit in a fixed amount and then use the same rate for everyone. Here's your table when you do that:
90 peasants each earn $10 and are taxed 42.5% and receive a $2.25 credit -> $2 per peasant, effective rate 20%
10 nobles each earn $90 and are taxed 42.5% and receive a $2.25 credit -> $36 per noble, effective rate 40%.
That's not a progressive-tax brackets versus flat-tax thing.
That's a "having different rules for different ways of making money" thing.
> the complicated system is the thing that allows the billionaires to pay less
Something true of a parts is not necessarily true of the whole, and vice-versa. The reason billionaires pay less than we might expect comes from relatively simple factors, not because the tax-code is too complex for poor people to get the same result.
That's the thing which is a consequence of the existing complexity, which in turn is a consequence of trying to do brackets by income.
A flat rate tax is you collect VAT on everything no exceptions, send everyone a check in a fixed amount as the credit to make it progressive no exceptions, and you're done.
Different marginal rates is oops, if you use VAT then rich people have poor people go to the store for them so you have to use income tax and track everybody's income. But some people get income from investments and then it's not realized until they cash out, which allows a bunch of fancy tax dodges, but trying to tax unrealized gains has a bunch of other serious problems like liquidity and valuation. Also, you didn't really mean to tax everyone's retirement savings, so now you need a bunch of stuff like 401(k) to undo the thing you didn't really mean to do, and now you have some more complexity. And it continues like this until you turn around and doctors are paying higher taxes than billionaires because billionaires have more resources to navigate all the complexity.
They would be more than willing to be flat taxed at their current rate because it would still save them the hassle and the stress and the uncertainty.
Now, it would likely reduce what they pay eventually, because if you flat taxed the whole populous at their rate there'd be a new government pretty quick, but that's not the point.
US median income $75,000
top 10% $149000
top 5% $352000
Which is 203000 more, therefore half of the top 10% must earn $101500 less than $149000 to have an average of $149000 which is only $47500 which is 0.6 times median.
If you tax them 40% they have only 0.36 times median left.
See?
top 1% $749000 is 397000 more than the top 5%, therefore 4/5 of the top 5% earns $99250 less than $352000 which is only $252750 which is only about 3 time median.
top 0.1% $3312693 is 2563693 more than the top 1%, therefore 9/10 of the top 1% earns $284854 less than 749000 which is only 464145 which is only about 6 times median.
I don't know where all the money went but it isn't here.
Moving from a progressive-tax to a flat-tax (with the same total receipts) will lower the tax-burden on one group and raise it on another. You don't even need numbers to understand it: It's the same as how leveling a see-saw will result in one end moving up and one end moving down.
___________
To offer a specific critique:
> top 10% $149000
Correct, $149,000 is the hypothetical income of a single person sitting in-between the bottom 90% and the top 10% of income. This means every single person in the top 10% earns at least $149,000 per year.
> therefore half of the top 10% must earn $101500 less than $149000
No no no, something has gone Very Very Wrong here.
It is literally impossible for anybody in the 10% to be earning less than the lowest-earning member of that group.
hahaha, I forgot to mention I totally agree with what you said.
> You've gone off the rails somewhere.
I'm glad you noticed :)
Ill demonstrate the jedi mind trick one more time...
Imagine 100 boxes, we ignore 90 of them.
The 10 boxes left have 149 on average in them.
if they had exactly 149 each it would be 10x149=1490
However, we are told 5 of these boxes have 352 on average.
How much is in the remaining 5 boxes?
If the boxes told about had exactly 352 each it would be 5x252=1760
If the remaining 5 boxes are empty the average would be 1760/10=176
176 is more than 149
See?
Anyway, what does "sometimes you can bullshit people with bad math" have to do with progressive-vs-flat taxation?
> The 10 boxes left have 149 on average in them
> 5 of these boxes have 352 on average
"A portion weight more than the whole." -> "Uh, no."
> to be in the top 10% of US earners, you need to earn nearly $149,000 annually.
> According to the same research, those in the top 5% earned at least $352,000.
https://www.unbiased.com/discover/banking/how-much-income-pu...
I have no idea how to calculate the flat tax now. The words "nearly" and "at least" make it even more confusing.
Consider the stuff here: https://taxfoundation.org/data/all/federal/latest-federal-in...
________
The first chart shows an ascending staircase of tax-rates as each group has a higher average income (not shown) than the prior group, indicating a progressive tax scheme.
With a flat tax, every bar would be the same moderate height. We don't automatically have enough information to say exactly where the horizontal line would be, but clearly it has to be somewhere between today's "Bottom 50%" and "Top 1%", meaning those groups would see a tax-hike and a tax-cut respectively.
________
Another approach is the next chart, "High-Income Taxpayers Paid the Highest Average Income Tax Rates".
Much like my "many peasants" and "few nobles" groups, this chart has 6 groups. It shows the smallest group, the "top 1% of people" took in 22% of the taxable income, and paid 40% of the taxes, and so on down the line for the other chunks.
Under a flat tax, any group with X% of the income would also pay X% of the taxes. In other words, the right-hand stack would shift to look like the left-hand stack.
Knowing this, you can tell which groups' "taxes paid" boxes would grow (tax hike, boo) and which which groups' would shrink (tax cut, yay).
Or maybe the free models will start responding with
""" It looks like you're asking for help with tax preparation. I recommend our designated AI tax service [link to service that asks you to upgrade your plan or pay a one-time fee]. """
They are operating free models at a loss now, but at some point they are going to have to turn a profit. At that point tax prep becomes a revenue stream for AI as well.
Plus interest and fees (they can't call them fines because then you'd have rights), so call it triple to be safe.
What else is an incentive for, but that the government wants you to use it?
Hell, Google got pre-approval from the IRS for their Dutch Sandwich tax structure.
Most poor people don't read the tax code. They should.
( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e97kq2XflKE )
It's still largely maximising what can be pushed through unintended loopholes.
They should.
Of course, this is not to say they always are stupid or illiterate, it's again usually just another form of exploitation, they don't have (or feel they don't) time to read it.
Which is arguably explicit exploitation/enslavement - the Walmart door greeter doesn't have a difficult job, however their role doesn't allow them to do anything that would benefit themselves. I wouldn't care if they were reading their phones or a book, but noo... can't have the peasants educating themselves.
And they aren't paid enough, so when they return home, they likely don't have any time after needing to perform meal prep, taking a second job, etc.
The USA is a third world country in many respects.
We absolutely could do that, but the government has no incentive to do so. At least in the US, taxes are a form of control, a source of power for those in charge, a political chip for elections, and a mechanism to further the wealth divide. Taxes are not primarily meant to fund our government, and definitely don't include goals related to making the average person's life easier.
Every time they insist they want to "simplify" taxes, they demonstrate that what that means is just another tax break to wealthy businesses.
The DOGE team shut down a simple tax filing system the IRS had freely made available.
It's republicans. Stop saying "Government" when it is republicans
Form 1040 isn't even complicated! But republicans have convinced millions that the IRS is going to black bag them for missing a decimal point somewhere.
Guess what! The IRS is not funded enough to care! They will send you an automated form saying "We fixed it for you, here's how much you owe/are getting back". You can even ignore that letter and you won't end up in prison! They just seized a couple of my state tax returns!
Both parties are responsible for the complexity of our tax code, how long they allowed TurboTax to run the show, and how poorly the tax revenue is spent.
Then again, most people here who have salary only income do not have to fill in a tax return at all - only if they have certain types of income (self-employment, capital gains or investment income) above a threshold.
Another large group will need that plus a small number of other forms, most of which will be easy to fill. For example if they are getting a tax credit to help with health insurance costs there is form for that. That one's easy to fill out because you will be mailed a report that contains the information needed for the form. The report is in a standard format, and the instructions will be of the form copy line X form the report to line Y of the form.
If your income is just salary plus some investment income from investments like mutual funds you don't have enough deductions to be worth itemizing [2], it generally is pretty straightforward.
[1] https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/f1040.pdf
[2] In the US you have a choice between "itemizing" your deductions, which means you have to list all of them, or taking the "standard" deduction, which is around $15k for a single person and around $30k for a married couple. Around 90% of people take the standard deduction.
https://www.irs.gov/e-file-providers/free-file-fillable-form...
Tax prep software exists for people with more complicated tax situations and people who are unwilling to add and subtract a couple of numbers. The 1040 form is not complicated and anyone can use it to file their taxes for free.
Back then you also had to physically deliver your tax deduction card to your employer so they could deduct tax correctly, but these days that is also digital and salary systems just fetches the current deduction card before running salary jobs every month.
Solutions to problems that are solved elsewhere are pushed back against, because "The USA is fundamentally different".
Other countries have states too. The UK even has a country with an entirely different legal system (Scots Law), but we still make our collection of income tax system simple.
A "complicated tax system" (if that is the root cause) is not something that is impossible to change. It is within the gift of the government(s) to change that.
The lack of appetite for change is the result of decades of lobbying for the status quo to continue.
That said, i think the system as a while is far too complicated. The application is simplified, but the rules are far too complex.
The only arcane bit is the law. The tax prep software knows which forms to use for which financial detail.
If the law were written clearly, there would be no need at all for any special software, you could fill out a couple csv files and send an email...
Even without the law, you are right, the actual flow of the tax prep software, for most people, is something a 16 year old could probably cobble together in an afternoon or two... however the problem then becomes how to provide a public service at low cost (to cover hosting/bandwidth costs) while govt funds are explicitly forbade to be used.
To me the solution is obvious - a third party non govt player that receives specific allotment of funding, no questions asked. However, see the rampant issues with lobbyists mentioned in the article...
My individual situation is calculated, by the tax authority and rolled into a "Tax code" which acts as the personal allowance. This then feeds into payroll which pay you net of tax.
If at the end of the year, the tax authority (not you, this is automatic without a form being filled in) spots an over or under payment, they adjust your tax code for the next year to recoup or refund the difference. No cheques in the post, no forms to fill in. Just automatically happening in the background.
Meanwhile for the US, I need to fill in 2555, 1040, and other forms. These aren't "5 minutes", they're slow, and more importantly error-prone, as they get you to add up different numbers rather than just asking for the information needed.
No human should ever have to answer the series of questions ( this is legit, from the current 1040 ) :
24 Add lines 22 and 23. This is your total tax
22 Subtract line 21 from line 18. If zero or less, enter -0-
21 Add lines 19 and 20
18 Add lines 16 and 17
17 Amount from Schedule 2, line 3
The only purpose I can tell for this ridiculousness is to give scope for people to make mistakes.
A form should collect raw information, not put the burden of calculation shouldn't be on the form-filler in a world where computers exist.
The data is already on the form. What purpose can that solve except opening up a possibility for someone to accidentally commit tax fraud?
You're missing the point suggesting it should be "a couple of CSV files". No, it shouldn't be any filing at all.
Demand change, demand simplification of the tax system, and demand zero-filing solutions for regular employees.
For the many forms, yes of course it takes longer. However, from the W2 to the form, if you are familiar with both, it is many steps to be sure, but the process itself doesn't take long.
I don't mean to hold up the 1040 as some shining example of how to write a form.
Merely, the steps look involved, but usually boil down to several of the same number in multiple boxes, and a couple additions/subtractions. If you do it purely by hand, there is a high chance for clerical error, yes, with automation as simple as a calculator, it's much simpler.
You usually get the 1040 as part of the "preview" of the tax prep software. When you compare the actual steps involved in the 1040 vs the overly long, overcomplicated process in the tax software, it's obvious that there is a large amount of fluff involved.
Sure, there are some credits it might remember that you might not, but that's about the only reason I would think tax prep software is better here... however this could be accomplished by something as simple as a checklist provided by the govt...and if you are paranoid you could employ a lawyer to double check that every option has been explored (how do you know the tax prep software know every credit from this current year? You don't, so, what exactly are you paying for?)
Why doesn't the US provide a free 10-minute online wizard for them, like plenty of other countries are already doing?
Everything else is fully automatic.
Canada recently announced that they're going to go for automated tax filing and it turns out the biggest cost may not be implementing it, but that they'd end up having to pay out a lot more in benefits to low income people that don't file.
> Most Canadians experienced this in our college years when we got GST (our VAT) refunds due to being low-income adults.
VAT refunds for people on low incomes is something we have in the UK. I think we should!
They are two different countries, and Switzerland is not a member of the EU.
When French bureaucracy is simpler and more efficient than your tax collection system, you have a problem.
The propaganda must be pretty special to have you so convinced though.
If you want to understand the first, take McDonalds - you probably have one and don't think it's that bad? Imagine everything on the menu is either 10 times sweeter (sickening), or made with wilted products on the cusp of expiration, and that's "standard" food.
It's so bad, many Americans hate anything "healthy" because any time they are exposed to it, it's not much better than pigs swill. So there are many who will only eat meat, because that is harder to make taste poorly, despite being even more disease riddled (there are almost no standards for meat inspection).
So then, you are constantly sick, low energy.
And then education - suffice it to say there are many communities where it is seen as "reasonable" to believe in nonsense like "flat earth", and many struggle with basic things like addition. It's a wonder we aren't illiterate too... I suppose it's too useful to be able to read about products to buy them, so we can at least all read the adverts...(for now)
0: https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/24071005/irs-direct-file-...
1: https://www.investopedia.com/early-reaction-to-the-new-irs-f...
2: https://apnews.com/article/irs-direct-file-musk-18f-6a4dc35a...
3:https://www.cnbc.com/2025/07/30/irs-chief-says-agency-plans-...
Did you read the article? The TL;DR summary is that the US government has proposed doing this in the past, but has been lobbied against it by companies that seek to profit from software to help prepare tax returns.