IRS Tax Advocate Calls for a Tax Code Overhaul

Tax preparation and the majority of the IRS is nothing more than busy work made necessary by an overly complex tax code. I'd love to see the tax code replaced and understand that it would put a lot of people out of work, but if those people are essentially not doing anything productive than it is basically just wealth redistribution. We are paying millions of people to not produce a useful product or service. Since we are already paying them, change the code and pay them to go back to school to do something else. The savings would be delayed but in the end those people are all doing something else and we have a better tax system. My accountant handles my taxes and all of my business accounting needs. She would not be out of business, she would just lose a "product" line. You know, the production of the automobile put a lot of blacksmiths out of work, we somehow survived it.

I think we do need to reform the tax system:

"Democrats say they want to raise as much as $1 trillion in new revenues through tax reform later this year to balance Republican demands to slash mandatory spending.

Democratic leaders have had little time to craft a new position for their party since passing a tax deal Tuesday that will raise $620 billion in revenue over the next 10 years.

The emerging consensus, however, is that the next installment of deficit reduction should reach $2 trillion and about half of it should come from higher taxes."

Read more: Dems look for up to $1T in new revenues - The Hill

Catawba said:

I think we do need to reform the tax system:

"Democrats say they want to raise as much as $1 trillion in new revenues through tax reform later this year to balance Republican demands to slash mandatory spending.

Democratic leaders have had little time to craft a new position for their party since passing a tax deal Tuesday that will raise $620 billion in revenue over the next 10 years.

The emerging consensus, however, is that the next installment of deficit reduction should reach $2 trillion and about half of it should come from higher taxes."

Read more: Dems look for up to $1T in new revenues - The Hill

Click to expand...

Half from higher taxes, eh? That assumes the other half will come from spending cuts, I suppose.

They'll cut a trillion from the military (effectively gutting it), and then they will proceed to increase spending in social services and entitlements until we are, once again, borrowing over a trillion a year.

That's about all we can expect from the Democrats.

Mycroft said:

Half from higher taxes, eh? That assumes the other half will come from spending cuts, I suppose.

Click to expand...

Yes, that is the deal, "The emerging consensus, however, is that the next installment of deficit reduction should reach $2 trillion and about half of it should come from higher taxes."

They'll cut a trillion from the military (effectively gutting it), and then they will proceed to increase spending in social services and entitlements until we are, once again, borrowing over a trillion a year.

Click to expand...

Poppycock! We spend almost as much as the rest of the world combined on the military/industrial complex. We could cut our military spending by more than half and still be spending more than the next biggest military spender. Let' not forget the Constitution only specifies defense. It says nothing about footing the bill for being the world's cop. Simpson-Bowles fix for SS makes it viable for the long term, and the only viable plan to lower health care costs is UHC. So, let's get it on!

That's about all we can expect from the Democrats.

Click to expand...

Its why we voted for them!

Catawba said:

Yes, that is the deal, "The emerging consensus, however, is that the next installment of deficit reduction should reach $2 trillion and about half of it should come from higher taxes."



Poppycock! We spend almost as much as the rest of the world combined on the military/industrial complex. We could cut our military spending by more than half and still be spending more than the next biggest military spender. Let' not forget the Constitution only specifies defense. It says nothing about footing the bill for being the world's cop. Simpson-Bowles fix for SS makes it viable for the long term, and the only viable plan to lower health care costs is UHC. So, let's get it on!



Its why we voted for them!

Click to expand...

LOL!!!

I'm glad you agree with my summation of what we can expect from the Democrats, though I'm surprised you admitted you voted for the economic destruction of our nation. Cudos for your honesty.

Anyway, we are not the rest of the world and any comparison between our defense spending and theirs is irrelevant. We DON'T determine our defense based on how much the rest of the world spends. We decide our own based on our own interests.

I only wish you Democrats had an interest in our country's financial well being.

Mycroft said:

LOL!!!

I'm glad you agree with my summation of what we can expect from the Democrats, though I'm surprised you admitted you voted for the economic destruction of our nation. Cudos for your honesty.

Click to expand...

The 1990s seemed like economic destruction to you? No wonder you couldn't have said that without laughing!

Anyway, we are not the rest of the world and any comparison between our defense spending and theirs is irrelevant. We DON'T determine our defense based on how much the rest of the world spends. We decide our own based on our own interests.

Click to expand...

For defense, you only have to spend more than the next biggest spender. If you want ventures to profit the wealthy, let them pay for it!

I only wish you Democrats had an interest in our country's financial well being.

Click to expand...

There can be no financial well being as long as we continue to spend as much as the rest of the world combined on the military/industrial complex.

President Eisenhower warned us of the dangers of a military/industrial complex that grows too large:

tererun said:

Typical conservative, put 3 million people out of work, and then start bitching about why our unemployment is so high. You know, if you are going to cut out all the busywork people have we are going to have to accept socialism and less work hours much sooner than you wish for.

Click to expand...

so you hope cancer is not cured so all those oncologists and their support staffs won't have to find new trades?

Mycroft said:

LOL!!!

I'm glad you agree with my summation of what we can expect from the Democrats, though I'm surprised you admitted you voted for the economic destruction of our nation. Cudos for your honesty.

Anyway, we are not the rest of the world and any comparison between our defense spending and theirs is irrelevant. We DON'T determine our defense based on how much the rest of the world spends. We decide our own based on our own interests.

I only wish you Democrats had an interest in our country's financial well being.

Click to expand...

somehow, i think there is going to be some non-critical money spent on defense that can be cut:

Considering that I've tried to get a job at the IRS, I'm gonna say "uh no" on reform.

justabubba said:

somehow, i think there is going to be some non-critical money spent on defense that can be cut:
View attachment 67140730

Click to expand...

Like I said...we base our defense money spent on OUR interests...not on how much others spend.

Your chart is irrelevant.

Catawba said:

The 1990s seemed like economic destruction to you? No wonder you couldn't have said that without laughing!



For defense, you only have to spend more than the next biggest spender. If you want ventures to profit the wealthy, let them pay for it!




There can be no financial well being as long as we continue to spend as much as the rest of the world combined on the military/industrial complex.

President Eisenhower warned us of the dangers of a military/industrial complex that grows too large:

Click to expand...

No. We need to spend enough to enable us to manage our interests. The spending of other countries is irrelevant.

Since Defense is mandated in our Constitution...and most other spending is not...we should prioritize our spending accordingly. Anything else is asking for an out of control, bankrupt government.

Mycroft said:

No. We need to spend enough to enable us to manage our interests. The spending of other countries is irrelevant.

Since Defense is mandated in our Constitution...and most other spending is not...we should prioritize our spending accordingly. Anything else is asking for an out of control, bankrupt government.

Click to expand...

As has been explained to you, we do not need to spend as much as the rest of the world combined for defense. When we have so much debt from wars of choice and 30 years of excessive military spending, it has gotten to the point where we will have to cut back on investing in our own infrastructure and people, it has grown way out of hand.

The $2 trillion dollar war in Iraq on behalf of big oil was the straw that broke the camel's back as far as losing public support for wars of choice where there was no threat to our defenses.

I'm usually not too controversial but this thread contains some of the most preposterous statements I can even imagine.

There isn't such a thing as "The Tax Code". Maybe, at one point there was, but in a most bi-partisan way there have been tens of thousands of modifications passed attached to every piece of legislation in order to reward one "special" enterprise or another. That's why those high priced CPAs can get the richest to pay the least, by knowing at least a good percentage of the end;less loopholes that our fearless leaders have created over the years. All of it is deliberately complicated so ordinary citizens will be as confused as possible.

Lets just look at brackets.
10% $0 to $8,700 $0 to $17,400 $0 to $8,700 $0 - $12,400
15% $8,700 to $35,350 $17,400 to $70,700 $8,700 to $35,350 $12,400 - $47,350
25% $35,350 to $85,650 $70,700 to $142,700 $35,350 to $71,350 $47,350 - $122,300
28% $85,650 to $178,650 $142,700 to $217,450 $71,350 to $108,725 $122,300 - $198,050
33% $178,650 to $388,350 $217,450 to $388,350 $108,725 to $194,175 $198,050 - $388,350
35% $388,351+ $388,351+ $194,175+ $388,351+

How did they come up with these figures like $36,350? Wouldn't it be more logical to have even amounts instead of $142,700? Its the same kind of con when you go to a store and they are selling something for $99.27. Its just to confuse you, not to give you a better deal than $100.

Every one of our rulers has gotten a bunch of oscure tax breaks written into the "code" in order to get paid off by the beneficiary.

To claim the "Republicans proposed to fix this" is just not valid. Their big proposal was to cut taxes for the dear friends, "The Wealth Creators" and nothing more than that.

To claim the code needs to be the ****ed up mess it is to provide jobs for IRS nitwits is another magnificently ludicrous claim.

I could rewrite the entire tax code in less than 50 pages. You'll never see that happen in our corrupt bi-partisan political system. Never.

specklebang said:

There isn't such a thing as "The Tax Code". Maybe, at one point there was, but in a most bi-partisan way there have been tens of thousands of modifications passed attached to every piece of legislation in order to reward one "special" enterprise or another. That's why those high priced CPAs can get the richest to pay the least, by knowing at least a good percentage of the end;less loopholes that our fearless leaders have created over the years. All of it is deliberately complicated so ordinary citizens will be as confused as possible.

Click to expand...

Yeah, it is spread out. Although the IRS does a lot of the work to drag that back together, this sprawling nature is part of the mess.

Lets just look at brackets.
10% $0 to $8,700 $0 to $17,400 $0 to $8,700 $0 - $12,400
15% $8,700 to $35,350 $17,400 to $70,700 $8,700 to $35,350 $12,400 - $47,350
25% $35,350 to $85,650 $70,700 to $142,700 $35,350 to $71,350 $47,350 - $122,300
28% $85,650 to $178,650 $142,700 to $217,450 $71,350 to $108,725 $122,300 - $198,050
33% $178,650 to $388,350 $217,450 to $388,350 $108,725 to $194,175 $198,050 - $388,350
35% $388,351+ $388,351+ $194,175+ $388,351+

How did they come up with these figures like $36,350? Wouldn't it be more logical to have even amounts instead of $142,700? Its the same kind of con when you go to a store and they are selling something for $99.27. Its just to confuse you, not to give you a better deal than $100.

Click to expand...

This however, I have no problem with. Part of the reason for these having more precision has to do with them being scaled over time to adjust for inflation. So any nice “round” numbers are going to go away shortly.

Further, it does not make really a lick of difference for the bands when the calculations are performed by computer (or calculator if you are “old school”). If you are enough of a luddite that you refuse the benefit of a 4-function calculator, which cost less than a soda, I really cannot muster any sympathy for your cause. Pity, maybe.

Apparently you missed my point and thus found an opportunity to question my competence. Surely my presence here must have indicated my familiarity with computers.

Dwight said:

Yeah, it is spread out. Although the IRS does a lot of the work to drag that back together, this sprawling nature is part of the mess.


This however, I have no problem with. Part of the reason for these having more precision has to do with them being scaled over time to adjust for inflation. So any nice “round” numbers are going to go away shortly.

Further, it does not make really a lick of difference for the bands when the calculations are performed by computer (or calculator if you are “old school”). If you are enough of a luddite that you refuse the benefit of a 4-function calculator, which cost less than a soda, I really cannot muster any sympathy for your cause. Pity, maybe.

Click to expand...

specklebang said:

Apparently you missed my point and thus found an opportunity to question my competence. Surely my presence here must have indicated my familiarity with computers.

Click to expand...

1) Your apparent ability to use an internet browser for a message board does not guarantee ability, or more importantly, inclination to use a calculator or tax preparation software. Oh sure it could seem nonsensical that you would choose not to use the same browser to avail yourself of one of the free online tax filing tools. But not only can I conceive of a reason why you would not (trusting a website/internet with your SSN) but I have learned that nonsensical is something that one runs into on occasion when dealing with people.
2) I meant it as the royal “you”, as there really is not a problem with having any given number of non-zero digits in the income band boundaries (they likely are avoiding round-offs having 0 zeros, though). I apologize for not being clear about that and for the implied slight.
3) I got the point and found it entirely lacking. How often do you actually need to know the income bands to that precision? I would guess no other time than you happened to be set down and doing the calculation of the tax owed, and I submit that the number of times is ZERO for people that use any one of the number of cheap/free software tools or just send it off to an accountant (who most certainly will not be hand calculating it) because it is a bit more complicated due to rules that have absolutely nothing to do with that chart.

Yes, it was a terrible illustration of my objective and you did a good job of pointing that out.

I was trying to illustrate complexity but I failed. Maybe the tax code is much simpler and more logical than I imagined.

Dwight said:

1) Your apparent ability to use an internet browser for a message board does not guarantee ability, or more importantly, inclination to use a calculator or tax preparation software. Oh sure it could seem nonsensical that you would choose not to use the same browser to avail yourself of one of the free online tax filing tools. But not only can I conceive of a reason why you would not (trusting a website/internet with your SSN) but I have learned that nonsensical is something that one runs into on occasion when dealing with people.
2) I meant it as the royal “you”, as there really is not a problem with having any given number of non-zero digits in the income band boundaries (they likely are avoiding round-offs having 0 zeros, though). I apologize for not being clear about that and for the implied slight.
3) I got the point and found it entirely lacking. How often do you actually need to know the income bands to that precision? I would guess no other time than you happened to be set down and doing the calculation of the tax owed, and I submit that the number of times is ZERO for people that use any one of the number of cheap/free software tools or just send it off to an accountant (who most certainly will not be hand calculating it) because it is a bit more complicated due to rules that have absolutely nothing to do with that chart.

Click to expand...

specklebang said:

Yes, it was a terrible illustration of my objective and you did a good job of pointing that out.

I was trying to illustrate complexity but I failed. Maybe the tax code is much simpler and more logical than I imagined.

Click to expand...

I think you just picked a bad example.

Ironically picking and trying to explain a good is very hard…in no small part because you are, overall IMO, right.

Catawba said:

As has been explained to you, we do not need to spend as much as the rest of the world combined for defense. When we have so much debt from wars of choice and 30 years of excessive military spending, it has gotten to the point where we will have to cut back on investing in our own infrastructure and people, it has grown way out of hand.

The $2 trillion dollar war in Iraq on behalf of big oil was the straw that broke the camel's back as far as losing public support for wars of choice where there was no threat to our defenses.

Click to expand...

Explained to me? Sorry...you haven't explained anything. You've only expressed your opinion (we should only spend as much as any other country) as have I (we should spend what is necessary to accomplish our interests in accordance to the Constitution).

Now...if you want to talk about whether we should have gotten into one war or another, that's a different issue...for another thread.

But the fact remains that defense spending is mandated in the Constitution while the bulk of spending our government engages in is not. If the country is serious about cutting government spending, we should start with what's not mandated by the Constitution.

Mycroft said:

Explained to me? Sorry...you haven't explained anything. You've only expressed your opinion (we should only spend as much as any other country) as have I (we should spend what is necessary to accomplish our interests in accordance to the Constitution).

Click to expand...

Sorry, the majority don't agree with your interests, nor do they think we have to live by your own personal interpretation of the Constitution.

Catawba said:

Sorry, the majority don't agree with your interests, nor do they think we have to live by your own personal interpretation of the Constitution.

Click to expand...

My personal interpretation of the Constitution???

Dude...I simply read the words.

Perhaps that's your problem, eh? You think the Constitution is something that can be "interpreted" to suit your desires?

Mycroft said:

My personal interpretation of the Constitution???

Dude...I simply read the words.

Perhaps that's your problem, eh? You think the Constitution is something that can be "interpreted" to suit your desires?

Click to expand...

No, unlike you, I go by the Constitution which specifies that the courts are the only body authorized for its interpretation.

Catawba said:

No, unlike you, I go by the Constitution which specifies that the courts are the only body authorized for its interpretation.

Click to expand...

:lamo really? it does? where does it do that?

...cause I can't find that part. :mrgreen:

cpwill said:

:lamo really? it does? where does it do that?

...cause I can't find that part. :mrgreen:

Click to expand...

Its really not that hard to find, :mrgreen!

"Article III.

Section. 1.

The judicial Power of the United States shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office."

Catawba said:

Its really not that hard to find, :mrgreen!

"Article III.

Section. 1.

The judicial Power of the United States shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office."

Click to expand...

Yeah, I know that part. What I'm asking is for where it says that the courts are the only body authorized to interpret the Constitution, as you claimed.

I'll give you a hint: the answer is "nowhere".