
Would You Let the I.R.S. Prepare Your Taxes? - raldi
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/04/16/technology/personaltech/turbotax-or-irs-as-tax-preparer-intuit-has-a-favorite.html?_r=0
======
japhyr
Previous discussion:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9380232](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9380232)

~~~
sobkas
adding ?_r=0 at the end doesn't suddenly change the content of the article...

------
FreakyT
It's absolutely ridiculous that we can't get pre-filled tax forms here in the
US. As the article notes, a large part of the reason for that stems from
questionable behavior on the part of Intuit, which has been known to not only
engage in lobbying [1] but also astroturfing, creating fake "grassroots"
campaigns made up of "concerned citizens".[2] (I guess these "concerned
citizens" just _really enjoy_ spending time doing paperwork and buying tax
software.)

[1] [http://capitolweekly.net/turbo-tax-maker-intuit-again-is-
mir...](http://capitolweekly.net/turbo-tax-maker-intuit-again-is-mired-in-
political-turmoil/) (link from the article)

[2] [http://www.propublica.org/article/turbotax-maker-linked-
to-g...](http://www.propublica.org/article/turbotax-maker-linked-to-
grassroots-campaign-against-free-simple-tax-filing)

~~~
grandalf
I used TurboTax this year and it's horribly buggy. I ended up having to print
and mail two state returns due to TurboTax bugs. Not using it again.

~~~
arbitrage
I've used turbotax for years, including this one, with some rather ...
interesting ... returns in some years, and have never had a problem.

I've used TurboTax this year and it's frighteningly stable.

Anecdata isn't terribly helpful.

~~~
undersuit
I also used Turbotax this year, and like every year at the end when asked how
the process could be improved I made a similar, albeit less convincing,
argument to FreakyT's. This is my 4th year of telling Turbotax I hate them
after using them.

------
justinsb
All the arguments against seem to stretch credulity. The IRS already computes
your taxes, they are just not allowed to share that with you (thanks to
Intuit's lobbying). Instead, you must repeat the computation, and hope that
your computations match what the IRS has.

If you don't match, then the IRS will either audit you or send you a proposed
correction (along with penalties); i.e. once you fail to match, then the IRS
is allowed to show you the correct calculations.

This is an incredibly convoluted system.

~~~
nsxwolf
Seems to be how many Federal forms work: Fill out this form accurately, under
penalty of perjury. We already know all this information, but reserve the
right to prosecute you if your answers don't match ours. Don't forget to sign.

~~~
SilasX
State too -- I remember when I did a defensive driving course in lieu of
paying a ticket, you had to get a certified state copy of your driving record
... that the state already has.

------
vesinisa
I live in Finland, and I have never filed a tax return. The tax office here
has used pre-filled annual forms since the mid 1990s, and since 2006 the pre-
filled form is automatically accepted if you take no action. For me, the
information has always been 100% correct, and should there be an error you can
correct it in an online service using two-factor e-banking login or a
government-issued ID card with smartchip for authentication.

~~~
rogerbinns
The US tax code is stupidly complex. There are over 500 changes a year made.
That is just federal taxes. You are also affected by state, county and city
laws. For all practical purposes, it is impossible to do the returns 100%
correctly. Legislators use the tax code extensively to achieve things, from
social good through corporate welfare and what most would consider outright
corruption. Voters in areas may also add to laws with various funding
initiatives (eg extra taxes to cover funding for school construction).

Look at sales tax just for California -
[http://www.boe.ca.gov/sutax/pam71.htm](http://www.boe.ca.gov/sutax/pam71.htm)
\- and that table of quicklinks should frighten you. That is just scratching
the surface. For example sales tax for in person transactions is charged based
on the address of the store. Unless you buy a car, in which case it is your
home address.

Two other factors apply. One is an American mentality that doing minor things
against the law isn't _that_ wrong, and being caught is where it becomes real.
An example is speeding - it almost seems a contest of wits to not get caught,
rather than fixing the limits or realising why they exist. Is it wrong to lie
on your tax return about something, where the odds of getting caught are very
low, and everyone else is doing it anyway? An example of that is how people
call Amazon sales tax free because they are out of state. The supreme court
says yes they are sales tax free (to not hinder interstate commerce), but then
states charge a "use tax" which happens to be exactly the same as the sales
tax. Very few people admitted to their out of state purchases since they were
so unlikely to get caught.

The final factor is a distrust of government. They are seen as plodding,
corrupt, useless, expensive, political, uncaring and largely pointless. They
are very rarely seen as an instrument of voter will. This is what provides the
perennial source of jokes - the DMV (department of motor vehicles), the IRS,
city hall and all that. Who would trust government to get things right?

So tax returns turn into a contest. What do people think they get away with?
Which of the many rules will they obey to the letter? What are their
neighbours and others getting away with? Was that really a business lunch? How
am I paying more tax than I need to?

Despite their values, neither of the main two political parties do anything to
fix this. They are however happy to keep adding to the piles of laws, which
makes it more expensive to comply, and increasingly unfair.

I often end up paying fines on my returns. This is not because I am a bad
person, and I actually try very hard to get it all correct. It is just cheaper
than doing some things the right way, and fairly normal! Some of those fines
are also because I don't have a time machine, and I couldn't actually do
things correctly without one.

(Note that factors above are generalisations, and don't apply to every last
person.)

~~~
s73v3r
"The final factor is a distrust of government. They are seen as plodding,
corrupt, useless, expensive, political, uncaring and largely pointless. They
are very rarely seen as an instrument of voter will. This is what provides the
perennial source of jokes - the DMV (department of motor vehicles), the IRS,
city hall and all that. Who would trust government to get things right?"

This I find to be the absolute dumbest reason of all. The IRS already knows
everything about your income that you would be telling them anyway.

~~~
rogerbinns
> The IRS already knows everything about your income that you would be telling
> them anyway.

Not even close. For example they don't know how much you paid in state taxes,
and which portions of that are also considered okay for fed taxes. Eg in
California a portion of your annual vehicle registration fee can be taken
against state taxes. Do the feds also allow that?

They don't know what you consider business expenses. They don't know how much
of your house you used for business purposes. They don't know where you
resided during the year and the tax treatment of the various places you did
live. They don't know about your moving expenses.

They don't know about income you received in cash. They don't know about your
Amazon purchases. They don't know about your medical expenses. They don't know
about your losses.

They don't know about your foreign income or assets.

They don't know about dependents, or how they have changed. Or your marriage,
or divorce. Or how you want your married taxes to be treated (there are at
least two different ways).

That is just scratching the surface of the tax relevant things - there are a
huge amount more. As an individual you couldn't get your tax return 100%
correct, and the government certainly can't.

Edit: various institutions and employers are required to file information with
the IRS. However this is big picture information - for example how much
interest you were paid on your bank account, or what the employer paid you.
They do not get individual transaction information, cash withdrawals or
similar details.

~~~
jotm
I was under the impression that the IRS has access to all your bank account
transactions (or rather, financial institutions are required to disclose that
information)?

------
dankohn1
Could I just call out David Williams, Intuit's Chief Tax Officer, for making
statements that range from disingenuous to despicable. I mean, he may coach
his kid's little league team and be a wonderful co-worker, but could you
imagine having a job that required you to actively lie and make tens of
millions of people worse off so that you can make more money?

'And rather than download people’s financial data from government sources —
which Mr. Williams said might not be very secure — Intuit prefers to connect
its systems to banks, employers and other private companies to obtain
taxpayers’ information, he said.'

David Williams knows perfectly well that every US taxpayer's tax transcript
(showing W-2s, 1099s, etc.) are available online at
[http://www.irs.gov/Individuals/Get-
Transcript](http://www.irs.gov/Individuals/Get-Transcript) . Intuit is using
security as a cover for their regulatory capture
<[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulatory_capture>](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulatory_capture>)
of the US tax paying system.

------
grandalf
The best way to simplify tax preparation is to simplify the tax code. The
percentage of people who save money by itemizing deductions is extremely
small, as is the percentage who claim (or are eligible for) any of the more
generous deductions.

Doing taxes in the US feels like going through a garbage can of bad social
program ideas, bureaucratic waste, etc. Then to make matters worse we get
expensive wars...

~~~
JoshTriplett
> The best way to simplify tax preparation is to simplify the tax code.

That much I absolutely agree with. A flat tax would require a single tax form
the size of a business card.

> The percentage of people who save money by itemizing deductions is extremely
> small, as is the percentage who claim (or are eligible for) any of the more
> generous deductions.

Not true at all. Anyone who owns a home itemizes to deduct interest. Anyone
who pays enough state taxes itemizes because you can deduct state tax payments
on your federal taxes.

I do agree that taxes should be drastically simplified, but in the process
they would also need to be lowered so that the average person pays the same or
less in taxes as they would have with today's high taxes and deductions.

~~~
jbooth
A progressive tax would require the same size tax form, even a progressive tax
that went negative at the lower incomes.

Flat isn't the simplification -- elimination of the billion deductions is the
simplification.

~~~
JoshTriplett
Not when you take into account that the tax form needs to include
instructions, and any necessary tables.

> Flat isn't the simplification -- elimination of the billion deductions is
> the simplification.

If you have deductions, it isn't a flat tax. "Flat" typically implies both
rate and lack of deductions.

~~~
jbooth
Ok, it would require 30 seconds of 3rd grade level math. That's clearly
unacceptable, and we need to instead pursue a solution that pushes wealth
upwards. Because simplicity, right? No other agendas involved there? Let's
talk about job creators.

~~~
JoshTriplett
There are many arguments in favor of a flat tax beyond just simplicity,
fairness among them. Also, I wasn't just suggesting a flat tax, I was
suggesting a much _lower_ flat tax.

If you took current government revenue from income taxes as a percentage of
total personal income and just used that as the flat tax rate, that would
indeed be quite unreasonable, mostly because that revenue number is far too
high. On the other hand, a flat rate in the 4-5% range might not be
unreasonable.

Or, alternatively, a simple formula that would still count as "flat tax":

    
    
        tax = flat_rate * max(income - floor, 0)
    

Where "floor" is a threshold below which you pay no taxes. That would address
the set of people for whom even a tiny increase in taxes could make the
difference between making ends meet and not.

------
rebootthesystem
How about this: NO

The IRS needs to go away. It is an organization responsible for the execution
and enforcement of the enslaving of the American people.

Our tax system has devolved from "let's collectively pay for our expenses" to
a system using financial punishment for behavior modification. Freedom my ass.

The other problem is that, through attrition, people have become comfortable
with taxing just about anything, even farts:

[http://dailycaller.com/2014/04/11/republicans-warn-of-a-
fede...](http://dailycaller.com/2014/04/11/republicans-warn-of-a-federal-tax-
on-cow-flatulence/)

Not only do we have to kill off or massively reduce the size and influence of
the IRS, we need serious controls on how government spends our money.
Government is huge beyond belief and grotesquely inefficient. Of course, the
crown jewel of this and what probably brought it home for a lot of people is
the ridiculous cost and mess that the Obamacare website became.

How should we pay for running the country? A flat tax is one idea. A
consumption tax is another.

I personally think that no government should take more than 20% of your money.
In our case this would include state and federal added up. Government needs to
be the most frugal, efficient and effective enterprise in a country, not the
most wasteful, inefficient and ineffective organization, which is what we
have.

~~~
ctdonath
This is "The United States of America". It was intended as an association of
states. Get rid of the creeping direct taxation, and just bill the states. Let
each state decide how its share of federal revenue is raised (income tax?
sales tax? mineral rights sales? port fees? smart investing? etc).

The IRS should be two guys who work a couple days twice a year. When the
Congress & President pass a budget, these two take the bottom line revenue
needed, divide by number of congressmen, aggregate by state, and send each
Governor a bill (overnight courier); next day they confirm the bills were
received. On April 16, they open the IRS mailbox, cash the checks for each
state; next day they confirm the funds transferred, and inform the President
which states did/didn't pay on time (subject to Executive enforcement). Done.

------
sophacles
My understanding is that they _already do_. That is, I send in my tax
documents, and they check the documentation against what they've _already
received_ from others. Then upon comparison, they decide, if things match up,
I'm OK. If not, they send me a notice that they think I owe more or less than
I think I do.

It seems to me an altogether more sensible approach to have them make
available the records they have for me, and I can check them, or ask someone
to check them, or whatever. I'm tired of the fact that in 2015, I am still
waiting until sometime in February to get that one piece of paper about my
house mortgage before I can go off and pay someone to do a bunch of mindless
redundant (see above) paperwork for me.

I'd much rather my financial planner just pull up my information, and file
adjustments on my behalf, etc, and go about my business.

~~~
15155
> It seems to me an altogether more sensible approach to have them make
> available the records they have for me

[http://www.irs.gov/Individuals/Get-
Transcript](http://www.irs.gov/Individuals/Get-Transcript)

If the IRS has any documentation on you, it's available on the web. This
includes notices, etc. sent out.

~~~
justinsb
But not until you've filed the tax return that requires those documents,
right?

~~~
15155
No. If your employer has issued a W2, anyone has issued a 1099 to you (via
SSN), or any other documentation has been sent to or from the IRS, it's there.

I used it this year to verify my tax filings.

~~~
justinsb
Wow - thank you for the tip! Going to double-check my own details now.

------
Karunamon
_Groups that call for lower taxes, like Grover Norquist’s Americans for Tax
Reform, say it is a “conflict of interest” for the government to both collect
taxes and calculate how much people owe._

I think there's some logic in this objection, but then again, I don't see
these same complaints levied against the other "post-billed" taxes people deal
with, like property, vehicle, and so forth.

Really, there's no likeable side in this. The tax prep software people (
_never_ buy Intuit!) have a vested interest in keeping the tax code
complicated, and decent portions of the government has a vested interest in
same.

The solution to both problems is a massive simplification of the income tax
code - too many people opposed to it for that to ever happen, though.

~~~
grandalf
> it is a “conflict of interest” for the government to both collect taxes and
> calculate how much people owe

Doesn't the government do this anyway? Try claiming that you owe $0 and see
how that goes over. The individual taxpayer has already had the money withheld
and then submits paperwork after the fact just in case any of the business
entities involved failed to submit their required documentation.

~~~
Karunamon
In about 15 years in the labor force, I've never once had the withholding
match up perfectly with the taxes owed. Either not enough is withheld or too
much.

Either way, I'm stuck filing the #($&ing paperwork.

~~~
raldi
The withholding is calculated by you and your employer, not the IRS.

~~~
grandalf
So how can I request $0 withholding?

~~~
raldi
If you underwithhold several years in a row, you get hit with fines and
retroactive interest.

~~~
grandalf
I'm aware of that but my point is that most employers would not allow that
since the employer is also liable if it under-withheld for a W2 employee.

~~~
dragonwriter
> I'm aware of that but my point is that most employers would not allow that
> since the employer is also liable if it under-withheld for a W2 employee.

AFAIK, they aren't liable for under withholding if they withhold correctly
according to the W-4 signed by the employee, even if the W-4 claims things
(e.g., "exempt" when the employee does not meet the qualifications) that are
not accurate.

------
gyardley
Nope, for a few reasons.

First, the IRS has already screwed my taxes up with faulty assumptions - three
times over the last decade. Each time it's been a huge pain to correct. I
simply don't trust them to get it right.

Second, I don't particularly trust them to notify me when there's something in
the tax code that works in my favor. They're not going to file your 83b
elections for you. They certainly aren't going to tell you about, say, the
special rules for the Qualified Small Business Stock that you've held for five
years. However, they'll happily take your overpayments if you don't know about
these rules yourself.

Third, I want everyone to be more aware of the taxes they're paying. You're
not going to get informed citizens and intelligent voters if the system's set
up to hide the financial consequences of their voting decisions. It'd be
better for America and American politics if we moved in the opposite
direction, and got rid of automatic tax withholding.

~~~
raldi
How do you feel about this quote from the article?

 _“Imagine if your vehicle registration fee was done the same way,” Mr.
Bankman asked in a recent interview. “Imagine if the state said, ‘Go to your
car, find your VIN number and then look at this table that has different tax
rates to find out how much you owe.’ If they did, people would probably need
to hire an expert for that too.”_

~~~
gyardley
Honestly, I'm a little torn.

It sounds like a huge pain, and I wouldn't want to do it. Neither would anyone
else.

On the other hand, huge pains like this are how policy gets changed. If it
became more obvious to everyone that this was yet another hidden tax, perhaps
there'd be more pressure to eliminate it or make it more rational.

~~~
raldi
How far would you take it? Would you support a law that mandated that taxes
had to be paid in person, at one central office, with a long line in a hot,
crowded room, and also they have crying babies and car alarms? That would be
an even bigger pain and lead to even more pressure to eliminate taxes.

~~~
gyardley
When someone already says they're torn about an intermediate position, they're
not likely to be in favor of one taken to cartoonish extremes.

~~~
raldi
The thing is, though, I find it cartoonish to force people to calculate and
file their own income tax. Especially since many of them just pay someone else
(a person or a computer program) to do it for them. Which, in a way, is like
yet another tax.

------
yc1010
"Why are taxes not easier?"

Because Revenue/Tax collection services in many countries operate on the
principle of "guilty until proven innocent", they simply view every
individual/company as being guilty by default and it is the job of that entity
to prove they are not (hence lack of motivation in pre-filling forms as is
suggested in article)

The same line of thinking is also why the tax code is so complicated and seems
to always get more complicated, it becomes almost impossible to become tax
compliant for average person/company since there are so many caveats and
loopholes and exceptions and so on, tho it also leads to employment for armies
of accountants, advisors etc and of course the people working for Revenue/Tax
entities themselves. Why would the give us simpler tax codes and procedures
when it can put them out of job? Reminds me of CIV quote "The bureaucracy is
expanding to meet the needs of the expanding bureaucracy."

------
marpstar
I'm in the Midwest USA, I work a 9-5 day job (W2) and brought in $45k in side
income freelancing (1099) last year, with a few grand in expenses. I own a
house (home office deduction, mortgage interest, etc) and have two kids
(deductions), trade stocks for fun (dividends, capital gains/losses). I paid
my brother $5k as a subcontractor on a project.

Admittedly, as a sole proprietor my taxes are simpler than many business
owners' taxes would be, but their considerably more complicated than the
average Joe's. My accountant charged me $135 to handle everything for me. He's
been doing business with my family for years, but I'm more than happy to pay
him and he seems to do a pretty good job of finding me deductions.

Is this uncommon? Are reputable tax accountants that hard to find, or are they
really that expensive? I can't think of a reason I'd buy TurboTax or anything
else when I can have someone with 30+ years experience taking care of it for
me...

~~~
adventured
I would have expected closer to $250 to $300 from a decent accountant for your
tax work. $135 is a pretty good price, if we're talking, say, two hours of
total billing time.

I think it's very easy to find good tax accountants, it just becomes a pricing
matter. I think you're getting a great deal and I'd absolutely stick with your
accountant.

------
upofadown
>No other industrialized country asks its citizens to jump through as many
hoops to calculate their taxes as ours.

Except for Canada? The same sort of situation exists here. The Canada Revenue
Agency enthusiastically supports the private tax preparation companies. It's
pretty much the same deal except perhaps a little worse. The private companies
will extend you charity here as well, but if you have any amount of income you
don't even get online forms to fill out.

Presently in Canada the only way for a citizen to file their own taxes is by
filling out paper forms. Ironically the easiest way to get the forms is to
download them off the internet from the CRA website. Then you fill them out
and mail them.

The really ridiculous thing is that since the CRA already has all the
information it doesn't really matter how you fill out the forms. Just get your
deductions and withholding on there and you are good. You can put whatever
other gibberish on there you want.

I actually file on paper on the principal that I don't want to support a
corrupt system. This year I am considering just drawing pictures on the parts
that are ignored and putting down a hundred billion jillion dollars as my
refund... I strongly suspect that the people made to do the data entry could
use a bit of entertainment.

------
Sharlin
The Finnish tax authority switched to prefilled tax forms years ago - I have
literally never had to do my taxes unless I have wanted to report some extra
deductions. Usually I don't bother. You don't even have to provide receipts
for your deductible expenses, just store them for some number of years for the
purposes of a potential audit (a mostly hypothetical scenario for a middle
class private person.)

------
thisone
I let HMRC do it, and they've been good enough to even refund me when I was
overpaying. So, yeah, I'd let the IRS do it if I moved back.

------
tvanantwerp
This is certainly feasible from a technology standpoint. But so is backing up
emails, and the IRS doesn't have a very good track record on that
comparatively simple task. I'm no fan of filling out taxes each year, but it's
reasonable to exercise skepticism when contemplating large US Government IT
projects.

------
Cshelton
Another issue, before we even talk about letting the IRS filing for you, is
the amount of redundant paper work and mailing.

Entities are required to provide your W2, or 1099, or whatever have you
through the mail. They have to provide several copies as well.They still
provide a 'send to the IRS with your return' copy, which is not required, but
also redundant again by the amount of people electronic filing.

The flow of -> entity printing the documents -> mailing them -> individual
then either entering in themselves or having somebody else prepare their taxes
-> the information is, for the most part, entered into the computer via plane
ole' data entry...by a person -> the return is e-filed to the IRS...who
already has an electronic copy of said document...from the Entity that sent it
to you...

Let's face it, before we even debate about letting the IRS just do it for
us...let's at least get them to streamline the process. The IRS single handily
keeps the Post Office in business, not to mention the cost and time/labor
expense of the tax payers. (at least we get to deduct tax prep cost...if you
can actually itemize..)

Let's get the basic forms first. The IRS should have an easier method of
somebody getting the information about them that was sent in from entities
electronically. Set up an API, I'm sure the NSA will let them use their server
farms... This alone would probably eliminate the need for 80% of the
population to ever have to file. All Capital gains will be in, unless the
basis was not submitted to the IRS of course.

Now, I don't see a blanket, "The IRS will file your taxes for you" for
everyone. Most people who have K1's or Sch C's, etc, will most likely need to
make estimated payments. Many of the decisions on what to classify things and
best place to 'deduct' them can become an art. But that is not going to apply
to most people.

I've probably repeated some stuff in the article, I only skimmed it.

------
guelo
Anti-government ideologues don't want taxes to be easy because they want
people to complain and hate the government more. Anti-government ideologues
are why we can't have a lot of nice things.

------
jrs235
[Duplicate] (except this is using the mobile subdomain)

Previous discussion here:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9380232](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9380232)

Mods, is it possibly to merge these two discussion?

------
Spoom
Lobbying is how laws get made and unmade in the US. If you want laws changed,
you had better have a lot of money or the right connections. Your voice might
as well be non-existent if it's not accompanied by a campaign contribution.

------
mgarfias
My dad works for the IRS. Got an SMS from him the other day: "I owe 11k!”
Guess working for the IRS is no guarantee of getting your withholdings right.

------
golemotron
It's funny that that the article lists Intuit as the primary opposition. Every
company that does tax preparation and creative loopholing, as well as the
people taking advantage of the loopholes is a likely opponent.

------
gfilice
I would. But I'm sure YC techno-libertarians will find a reason it's a bad
idea.

~~~
mycroft-holmes
Maybe it's just me but I see a lot more liberal leaning comments on here than
I do libertarian.

~~~
sophacles
It seems to be pretty even split IMO. It depends on your personal bias - if
you lean in X direction, comments leaning in X direction will seem
"reasonable", therefore not trigger your "oh crap this person is a Y" alarm.
Since the human brain isn't really wired with an "all is as expected" alarm,
it tends to not notice these things.

~~~
mycroft-holmes
But wouldn't "reasonable" comments trigger an "oh crap this person is like me"
alarm?

~~~
dang
No, for the same reason that pain is more memorable than pleasure.

------
kylec
Yes

~~~
cmdrfred
1

~~~
frostirosti
^

~~~
lfowles
this

------
maratd
> Would You Let the I.R.S. Prepare Your Taxes?

No.

Stop with these stupid stop-gap measures. Income taxes are inherently flawed
on so many levels, it's absurd. They're difficult to calculate, easy to cheat
on, don't tax swaths of people who don't have a traditional income, cause
grief every year and untold resources to calculate, verify, audit, etc.

Just stop.

A national sales tax, property tax, or frankly, any other option, would be
better by far.

~~~
15155
> easy to cheat on

> national sales tax

Haha, good luck with that. Sales taxes are substantially easier to cheat than
income taxes for most people.

Nationalizing sales taxes just provides more incentive to cheat.

[https://craigslist.org](https://craigslist.org)

~~~
objclxt
Sales taxes are also a regressive tax. Low income households and those living
paycheck to paycheck end up paying as a proportion of their income far more
than high income households, since they consume more relative to the money
coming in (and there's no exemption or deduction).

~~~
15155
I was going to comment this as well.

OR has no sales tax, everyone goes crazy about it, yet they have one of the
highest income taxes in the nation.

Even for the poorest, it's very difficult for that to be a good bargain.

~~~
bhayden
I moved from a state with no income tax and a sales tax to Oregon. I don't
make six figures and I definitely pay more in OR state income tax than I did
in sales tax in my previous state.

~~~
15155
6-8% of taxable expenditures, by definition, will equal less than the
equivalent state income tax.

Even if you spend every dime you make, your expenditure will almost never be
completely sales-taxable (in our current system).

The national, tax-everything sales tax doesn't tax idle money. People with
money have lots of it and can spend it non-domestically.

~~~
dragonwriter
> 6-8% of taxable expenditures, by definition, will equal less than the
> equivalent state income tax.

Not true; _actual_ state income tax isn't its nominal rate on all income
(state income tax usually starts with AGI and then has state deductions and
credits). So 6-8% on some subset of expenditures may be more, equal, or less
than 6-8%on subset of income.

Heck, its not even true without considering that; it would be -- without
considering that income tax excludes some income in the same way that sales
tax excludes some expenditures -- if expenditures had to be less than income,
but its possible to run a deficit as long as your income is sufficient to pay
the increasing debt service cost, which (particularly with an increasing
income over time) can be an arbitrarily long period of time.

