Simple poll: Taxes too complicated for individuals?

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Federal Income Tax for individuals too complicated?

  • Too complicated! I'm republican / right / conservative

  • It's good as is! I'm republican

  • Too complicated! I'm democrat / left / liberal

  • It's good as is! I'm democrat


Results are only viewable after voting.

QuantumPion

Diamond Member
Jun 27, 2005
6,010
1
76
Or you can just use your W2s and fill out the 1040A or EZ using them and you will not be wrong. You only go to jail or have to pay extra if you try to get creative.

Well I guess if you use the 1040EZ, do not own any property, are single, no children, no dependents, never bought goods out of state, have no student loans, credit cards, or interest, and both have and do not have health insurance, then perhaps your return may be correct. ():)
 

MovingTarget

Diamond Member
Jun 22, 2003
8,999
109
106

Yeah, every time I fill out my form and mail it into the IRS with my included check, I get a letter from the IRS asking if I have tried that E-File feature yet. No. I haven't. I don't want to give my information to some third corporate party like intuit or turbotax just to get it to where it needs to go. I'd rather have the open source software to do it myself without any third parties if I am to do it electronically. The letter reads as follows:

Dear Mr. MovingTarget,
Thank you for sending in your 20xx tax forms. I'm curious, Mr. MovingTarget, have you heard of E-File? It is a brand new service we have provided for years that allows you to electronically file your taxes free of charge, without using a postage stamp. We can process it quicker and more efficiently. E-File is great! You should seriously try E-File. Just go to the website of any major tax preparer software. They might have it for free. Did I mention E-File was free? I know I said E-File. I hope you try this next time as it will make it much easier for you to do your taxes. E-File, E-File, E-File, and did I say E-File? Yeah, E-File.

Hugs and Kisses,
-The IRS

P.S. E-File!!
 

ShawnD1

Lifer
May 24, 2003
15,987
2
81
Well I guess if you use the 1040EZ, do not own any property, are single, no children, no dependents, never bought goods out of state, have no student loans, credit cards, or interest, and both have and do not have health insurance, then perhaps your return may be correct. ():)
What's so difficult about this? It's not like they're asking you to estimate how many kids you have. Just fucking count them. It's not hard.
 

ShawnD1

Lifer
May 24, 2003
15,987
2
81
Yeah, every time I fill out my form and mail it into the IRS with my included check, I get a letter from the IRS asking if I have tried that E-File feature yet. No. I haven't. I don't want to give my information to some third corporate party like intuit or turbotax just to get it to where it needs to go. I'd rather have the open source software to do it myself without any third parties if I am to do it electronically. The letter reads as follows:
In Canada I think it's against the law for the data to pass through a third party. TurboTax gets to the end part then it gives instructions on how to efile it. It says they're not allowed to do the e-filing for you.
 

cybrsage

Lifer
Nov 17, 2011
13,021
0
0
Well I guess if you use the 1040EZ, do not own any property, are single, no children, no dependents, never bought goods out of state, have no student loans, credit cards, or interest, and both have and do not have health insurance, then perhaps your return may be correct. ():)

You can do all that with 1040A and easily do it. I was also continuing the discussion about federal only, which does not care about out of state goods. If you want to not take the standard deduction, you are complicating things for yourself, so you cannot blame others for the complications you added.
 

nehalem256

Lifer
Apr 13, 2012
15,669
8
0
If filing taxes is so easy why do so many Obama administration people have issues doing it correctly?

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-4908247-503544.html
Kathleen Sebelius, President Obama's nominee to become Health and Human Services secretary, said in a letter obtained by the Associated Press that she made "unintentional errors" on her taxes and has corrected her returns from three different years.

In the letter, which was sent to senators and dated today, Sebelius wrote that she had made changes related to charitable contributions, business expenses and the sale of a home, according to the AP.

The wire service reports that she and her husband paid just over $7,000 in back taxes, along with $878 in interest, for the years 2005-2007.

Tom Daschle, the president's first HHS nominee, previously withdrew from consideration over tax issues, as did chief performance officer nominee Nancy Killefer.

Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, US Trade Representative Ron Kirk and Labor Secretary Hilda Solis, meanwhile, were confirmed despite issues related to their taxes.
 

dank69

Lifer
Oct 6, 2009
35,204
28,223
136
It appears that a majority of Republians are too stupid to figure out their taxes. I would have never seen that coming. :hmm:
 

Throckmorton

Lifer
Aug 23, 2007
16,830
3
0
It's too complicated once you start doing things like starting a small business or taking money out of your retirement accounts. The first time I did my taxes I did the forms myself, because I just had 1 job and no other kind of income. But I don't anymore.
 

Bitek

Lifer
Aug 2, 2001
10,647
5,220
136
Can you give an example?

GE's bazillion page return. All that paper to figure out they didn't make any money.

All those enormous tax depts are to calculate what the actual income was, what type of income, and what losses/deductions are factored in.

Its easy for workers, just look at the bottom of the W2. For businesses (more so when they get larger and more complex) this # is not so clear.

Its not like taking Rick Perry's idea of the one rate/one page return makes any difference here. Are capital expenses still amortized? How are offshore operations handled? Still clear as mud.

I mostly think this complaint is a scheme by the wealthy to get middle class voters to give them more tax cuts, and give up their few deductions if need be to pay for it.
 

thraashman

Lifer
Apr 10, 2000
11,063
1,464
126
www.fairtax.org if you're going to claim it's regressive you're an idiot who hasn't read up on it.

There's actually a lot of reasons why it's bad. It's being regressive is ONE of the reasons and not even the biggest. It's a stupid idea thought up by stupid people marketed to utter retards who think it's the bees knees because they have as a group the combined IQ of cheese.
 

BoomerD

No Lifer
Feb 26, 2006
62,679
11,023
136
WAY too complicated.

The PERSONAL INCOME tax form should be:

1) How much money did you make from ANY/ALL sources?
2) See the tax schedule to determine what percentage of that total you owe in taxes.

NO deductions, NO exemptions, NO exceptions.

No mortgage deductions, no medical deductions, no work-related deductions...just pay the flat percentage for your income bracket.

Of course, the various tax preparation companies, CPA's, tax lawyers, etc. will hate this...and will rally against it.
Why should the US tax code exist to support an industry? Let them all find HONEST work...well, except the liars lawyers. There's no such thing as "honest work" for them.
 

shira

Diamond Member
Jan 12, 2005
9,567
6
81
title says it all. This'll be my I think third thread on the topic over the course of the past year. . first time with a poll though! For individuals the tax code is overly complicated, it serves as a costly burden for the poor and middle class to file, and provides too many "outs" for those in the rich class. The AMT for example affects those in the 75-500k range the hardest but not the super rich. For individuals should regular income be taxed at these rates? Provide perhaps 10 possible deduction types. A single sheet of paper to fill out at the end of the year. Won't go into CG tax, but that is another matter as well.

Simplifying would generate more revenue and waste fewer dollars, both on part of the indivuduals and the IRS. .

bracket / married / single
10% $0 – $17,400 ___ $0 – $8,700
15% $17,400 – $70,700 ___ $8,700 – $35,350
25% $70,700 – $142,700 ___ $35,350 – $85,650
28% $142,700 – $217,450 ___ $85,650 – $178,650
33% $217,450 – $388,350 ___ $178,650 – $388,350
35% Over $388,350 ___ Over $388,350

It's the congress's responsibility to fix this, the IRS is limited in what they can do. If there is ANY non-partisain issue, this should be an easy one to make happen if the citizens get loud enough. Problem is the "loopholes" are put in there for the congressmens rich friends .. . .

Your post seems to be making the point that federal income tax is complicated BECAUSE there are six tax brackets. That's absurd. Once you know your taxable income, the EASY part is determining what your tax is. What makes the tax system so complicated is that it can be amazingly complex to determine what your taxable income is, and having six tax brackets or just one doesn't change that at all.
 

BoomerD

No Lifer
Feb 26, 2006
62,679
11,023
136
Your post seems to be making the point that federal income tax is complicated BECAUSE there are six tax brackets. That's absurd. Once you know your taxable income, the EASY part is determining what your tax is. What makes the tax system so complicated is that it can be amazingly complex to determine what your taxable income is, and having six tax brackets or just one doesn't change that at all.

Not if you eliminate all the loopholes, deductions, and exemptions. personally, I'd set a bottom cut-off at $10,000 for a single, $20,000 for a couple/family though. Those people are barely scraping by as it is. (maybe $7500/15000)

ALL income*, regardless of the source, gets taxed at the same rate for the tax bracket. Wages, dividends, capital gains, etc.

*Types of income that WOULD NOT count might include:
Sale of primary residence. (limit one per family per year)
Unemployment insurance
Worker's Compensation
Welfare
 

cybrsage

Lifer
Nov 17, 2011
13,021
0
0
There's actually a lot of reasons why it's bad. It's being regressive is ONE of the reasons and not even the biggest. It's a stupid idea thought up by stupid people marketed to utter retards who think it's the bees knees because they have as a group the combined IQ of cheese.

It is not regressive, but you would know that if you actually knew anything about it. From nehalem's link:

Under the FairTax, family households of lawful U.S. residents would be eligible to receive a "Family Consumption Allowance" (FCA) based on family size (regardless of income) that is equal to the estimated total FairTax paid on poverty level spending according to the poverty guidelines published by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.[2] The FCA is a tax rebate (known as a "prebate" as it would be an advance) paid in twelve monthly installments, adjusted for inflation. The rebate is meant to eliminate the taxation of household necessities and make the plan progressive.[5]


It would also ensure the drug dealer, illegal worker, and prostitute all pay their share of taxes...something they currently do not do.
 

Double Trouble

Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
9,272
103
106
As someone who works in finance and taxes, I can assure you that anyone who thinks the tax code is not too complicated simply has no clue what they're talking about.

The IRS tax code is roughly 73,000 pages. Granted, only a part of that has to do with individual income taxes, but think about that for a second, 73,000 pages. Do you think it's likely that anyone outside of a tax expert has actually read 73,000 pages of tax code? Do you think that even if you did read some of those pages that you could fully understand what they say? (hint: the answer is "no", even tax lawyers have difficulty interpreting a lot of tax code).

Most of us now rely on software to do our taxes, and would have no clue if the taxes we file are really right or not, we're just assuming the tax software is right.

Think of the billions wasted each year for individuals and corporations to deal with the insane tax regulations.
 

Triumph

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
15,031
13
81
You're never going to simplify the tax code and get rid of deductions. Why? Because that's one of two main methods that Congress has to affect any change. If they want you to behave a certain way, they have two options: pass a law prohibiting a certain activity, or adjust the tax code to provide a monetary benefit to doing the opposite of that activity. The first faces constitutional scrutiny, the second does not (as much). Congress has no incentive to reduce their ability to wield power over their subjects.

What they should do, is have a sunset provision for everything that Congress produces. This would force them to look at what they've already done, see how well it worked, and adjust, on a regular basis. The emphasis here would be editing the tax code rather than adding to the tax code. They'd spend all their time fixing what they've got rather than just piling on more legislation. Of the 73,000 pages of tax code mentioned, how much of that is outdated? There's probably deductions in their for plantation owners who sell their slaves at a loss.

I've never filed taxes, but it looks quite complicated. All taxes are complicated though.

the complications of the income tax are due to disagreements on what income is. Also, if the government wants the maximum amount of revenue from income tax and if they wanted the working poor to be able to live, then there will have to be exemptions and deductions now that we have the payroll tax. I mean, if I ever get a job and make enough to pay income tax, then I may just have them send me to prison.

...What?
 
Last edited:

PokerGuy

Lifer
Jul 2, 2005
13,650
201
101
It's rather ironic that (according to the poll results) the dimlibs seem to favor the complex tax code, when the increased complexity is exactly what allows those at the higher end of the income scale to set up schemes to reduce their tax burden. Loopholes and exceptions work best for those who can afford to pay for experts to figure out how to take advantage of them, not for the average Joe.
 

dank69

Lifer
Oct 6, 2009
35,204
28,223
136
WAY too complicated.

The PERSONAL INCOME tax form should be:

1) How much money did you make from ANY/ALL sources?
2) See the tax schedule to determine what percentage of that total you owe in taxes.

NO deductions, NO exemptions, NO exceptions.

No mortgage deductions, no medical deductions, no work-related deductions...just pay the flat percentage for your income bracket.

Of course, the various tax preparation companies, CPA's, tax lawyers, etc. will hate this...and will rally against it.
Why should the US tax code exist to support an industry? Let them all find HONEST work...well, except the liars lawyers. There's no such thing as "honest work" for them.
The mortgage deduction is a tax break for the middle class. Why do you hate the middle class? :D
 

dank69

Lifer
Oct 6, 2009
35,204
28,223
136
It's rather ironic that (according to the poll results) the dimlibs seem to favor the complex tax code, when the increased complexity is exactly what allows those at the higher end of the income scale to set up schemes to reduce their tax burden. Loopholes and exceptions work best for those who can afford to pay for experts to figure out how to take advantage of them, not for the average Joe.
Just because we can understand how to do our taxes doesn't mean we agree with the rules that are in place. ;)
 

dank69

Lifer
Oct 6, 2009
35,204
28,223
136
As someone who works in finance and taxes, I can assure you that anyone who thinks the tax code is not too complicated simply has no clue what they're talking about.

The IRS tax code is roughly 73,000 pages. Granted, only a part of that has to do with individual income taxes, but think about that for a second, 73,000 pages. Do you think it's likely that anyone outside of a tax expert has actually read 73,000 pages of tax code? Do you think that even if you did read some of those pages that you could fully understand what they say? (hint: the answer is "no", even tax lawyers have difficulty interpreting a lot of tax code).

Most of us now rely on software to do our taxes, and would have no clue if the taxes we file are really right or not, we're just assuming the tax software is right.

Think of the billions wasted each year for individuals and corporations to deal with the insane tax regulations.
Bolded, because this thread IS about individual taxes, not corporate taxes. I've never read anything in the IRS instructions that I didn't understand when doing my taxes.
 

nehalem256

Lifer
Apr 13, 2012
15,669
8
0
Not if you eliminate all the loopholes, deductions, and exemptions. personally, I'd set a bottom cut-off at $10,000 for a single, $20,000 for a couple/family though. Those people are barely scraping by as it is. (maybe $7500/15000)

ALL income*, regardless of the source, gets taxed at the same rate for the tax bracket. Wages, dividends, capital gains, etc.

*Types of income that WOULD NOT count might include:
Sale of primary residence. (limit one per family per year)
Unemployment insurance
Worker's Compensation
Welfare

Just make a bottom tax bracket of 0 - $10,000 ---- 0%

No need to deal with deductions, exemptions etc to do that. Effectively we have that now. But if we made that actually true then liberals would not be able to show their "upsetting" graphs about marginal tax rates for rich vs. poor.