Americans Will Spend 6.5 Billion Hours on Income Taxes This Year
The IRS takes not only your money, but a lot of your time.

For new father and first-time homeowner Erik Breidenbach, this year's tax-filing season was one of the more difficult of his adult life.
Breidenbach says he spent about 12 hours working through the process by hand, as he does every year, figuring out which business expenses could be deducted, how to factor in the mortgage interest payments, and sorting through the complexities of getting paid in two states as a civilian and an active-duty member of the military. A mix-up involving the amount of federal taxes withheld from his wife's paycheck created another headache. When it was all over, "I thought with the house and baby I would get some amazing refund" that would at least make the effort worth it, he says, "but nope."
It's a frustration that many Americans can relate to—and one that lots of us will be dealing with this weekend, as the federal income tax filing deadline looms on Monday—thanks to the complexities of a federal income tax system that consumes money and time every year.
This year, Americans will spend an estimated 6.5 billion hours trying to file their taxes, according to a new analysis by the American Action Forum (AAF), a nonprofit that has been tracking the burden of tax-related paperwork since 2017.
The aggregate time it takes for Americans to comply with income tax paperwork, according to the AAF's tracker, has fallen a bit in recent years—probably due to the tax reforms passed in 2017 that expanded the standard deduction for all filers—but the overall cost of compliance has kept on growing. This year, the group estimates, Americans will spend more than $200 billion just trying to pay their taxes.
That's an insane amount of added expense—in terms of time and money—being put toward no productive ends whatsoever.
Much of the complexity (and paperwork) of paying federal income taxes flows from the federal government's effort to tax income many times, Grover Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform, a fiscally conservative nonprofit that advocates for lower taxes and flatter rates, tells Reason. Income is taxed "once when you earn it, again if you invest and receive interest or capital gains, again if you invested in a company that is subject to the corporate income tax, again if you are imprudent enough to die," he says. "If they taxed your income one time—when you received it as income—it would be simpler and be less damaging to your privacy."
Some of that complexity is the natural result of a tax system that attempts to do a lot more than simply collect the revenue necessary to run the federal government. The tax code attempts to balance fairness, enforceability, efficiency, and other goals that are often in conflict with one another. "Simplicity often loses out to other priorities," notes the Tax Policy Center, a centrist think tank.
Some of the complexity is not an accident, either. Companies that profit off the complexity of the tax code—like Intuit, which owns the "TurboTax" brand—lobby hard to block changes that would make it easier for Americans to do their taxes without help. They have plenty of help in the form of a multitude of special interests that deploy legions of lobbyists to preserve or create the many exemptions, breaks, and credits that make filing your taxes such a pain. That's why the idea of a postcard-sized tax form has always been a pipe dream.
Some politicians, including Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D–Mass.), see all that as a reason for the IRS to create its own version of a TurboTax-like software system. As opposed to, you know, addressing the actual problem: the complexity of the tax code.
Relying on the IRS for more aspects of the tax-filing process seems like a recipe for more pain and frustration. Indeed, the IRS is barely capable of meeting its existing obligations to federal taxpayers—last week, IRS Commissioner Charles Rettig told the Senate Finance Committee that agents only answer about one in every five phone calls from taxpayers seeking assistance.
How many of those 6.5 billion hours were spent on hold, one wonders.
Each year, the IRS Taxpayer Advocate Service submits a report to Congress that includes a summary of the biggest problems facing the agency. Most of them are usually related to customer service and the confusion created by the tax code, in some way or another. This year's report suggests that Rettig was exaggerating the agency's responsiveness to taxpayer questions: During fiscal year 2021, only 11 percent of phone calls were even answered. "Many taxpayers are not getting answers to their questions and are frustrated," the Taxpayer Advocate Service's report concludes.
As part of a 1998 law aimed at improving the IRS, Congress directed the agency to publish a separate report each year detailing how to make the tax code less complex. That's a good idea, and one that could help Congress identify productive reforms. Too bad the IRS hasn't published such a report since 2002.
The obvious solution to these problems is not giving the IRS more funding or directing it to create a sure-to-be-dysfunctional tax-filing program to compete with the private sector. President Joe Biden has proposed giving the IRS a $2.2 billion budget increase so the agency can target more tax scofflaws, but the president's agenda doesn't seem to include anything about making taxes easier for everyone to pay.
Instead, lawmakers should try to simplify the tax code so every American can pay what is owed without waiting for an IRS agent to finally answer the phone or shelling out $60 to TurboTax for help. The federal income tax, if it is to exist at all, should be simply a tool for funding the federal government—not used as a mechanism for social engineering.
Tax Day is never going to be something worth celebrating. But it would be nice to spend fewer hours trying to figure out what you owe the IRS—or what the IRS owes you.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
It's pointless too. I don't like taxes, but the IRS already has all your income and large transaction data. They should just send you the bill, and you should only have to file if they missed some deduction you could claim.
Or set an "Alternative Maximum Tax" level. Once you've paid 20K (or some appropriately high level) you don't owe any more and don't have to file anything.
I would appreciate that tax cut.
Tax cut? That is easy. Get out of the country. Then you won't be required to pay for the society you so greatly benefit from.
Yeah because society in no way benefits from me. Dont worry folks, Vendi is perfectly positioned to know what the right level of support for society is from person to person.
Leaving the country doesn't free you from having to pay taxes. US citizens living (and working) abroad are still required to pay US income taxes. And renouncing US citizenship comes with lots of costs, too, as the US imposes fees and an 'Exit Tax' when you renounce your citizenship.
I'm still waiting for someone, anyone, to define what a persons FAIR SHARE would be, in concrete terms that can be applied universally. E.g., "a fair share is 35% of all income". Taxers will never do such a thing, because for them a fair share means "you pay more, while I pay less".
They're happy that 45% of Americans don't pay any federal income taxes, and having the top 10% pay 71% of all federal income taxes. The top 1% of taxpayers paid a 25.6 percent average individual income tax rate, but it's ALWAYS too low. The top 1% earned 20% of all the taxable income, but paid 39% of all federal income taxes.
Special interests (H&R Block, TurboTax) are largely to be blamed for this! The IRS has tried to make this simple… They already KNOW about every penny you make, and every dingleberry on your asshole… So there is NO reason why they can’t just TELL you what you owe! Except for special interests and the politicians that like to take bribes, Ooops, I mean, campaign contributions!
Free tax filing software taken down by bastards… https://freefile.intuit.com/
https://www.theverge.com/2019/4/26/18518211/turbotax-free-tax-filing-hidden-google-search-results
This is a well-documented problem, with a simple fix! Good luck getting it fixed!
https://www.theverge.com/2020/1/1/21045779/irs-turbotax-free-file-h-r-block-tax-preparation-new-rules
https://news.yahoo.com/irs-already-income-tax-data-130029063.html
Tax Day should be moved to October 15th and withholding should be abolished.
Keep the election the same day is is now.
That's literally how it happens in many countries. I guess the U.S. has the feel that there is some semblance of privacy. How else do they know how to audit?
Yeah, it's only $10 so maybe it's a rounding error, fuck it but how did this guy afford a new $900 refrigerator? We'll need to crawl up his asshole for no other reason than to teach him respect.
Correct.
Taxes are the price people pay for the society they reap such tremendous benefit from.
Kill yourself.
EvilBahnFuhrer, drinking EvilBahnFuhrer Kool-Aid in a spiraling vortex of darkness, cannot or will not see the Light… It’s a VERY sad song! Kinda like this…
He’s a real Kool-Aid Man,
Sitting in his Kool-Aid Land,
Playing with his Kool-Aid Gland,
His Hero is Jimmy Jones,
https://www.britannica.com/biography/Jim-Jones
Loves death and the dying moans,
Then he likes to munch their bones!
Has no thoughts that help the people,
He wants to turn them all to sheeple!
On the sheeple, his Master would feast,
Master? A disaster! Just the nastiest Beast!
Kool-Aid man, please listen,
You don’t know, what you’re missin’,
Kool-Aid man, better thoughts are at hand,
The Beast, to LEAVE, you must COMMAND!
A helpful book is to be found here: M. Scott Peck, Glimpses of the Devil
https://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1439167265/reasonmagazinea-20/
Hey EvilBahnFuhrer …
If EVERYONE who makes you look bad, by being smarter and better-looking than you, killed themselves, per your wishes, then there would be NO ONE left!
Who would feed you? Who’s tits would you suck at, to make a living? WHO would change your perpetually-smelly DIAPERS?!!?
You’d better come up with a better plan, Stan!
It’s a shame leftists won’t retroactively self abort. Although by their logic, if my doctor and I decide I’m healthier by aborting them after they’re already born, it’s my right to decide. As they have no agency.
Everyone should lick at least democrats to abort. I’m sure we can find some doctors to sign off on a note for that.
LOL@thinking that 20k is a "high level" of taxes. That's on the order of what I've been paying out of pocket on tax day, on top of taxes already withheld. Thanks, Trump!
Yeah, it’s Trump’s fault……..
You got anything else that’s unsupportable and stupid that you would like to get off your chest?
My taxes went up significantly as a direct consequence of capping the SALT deduction under Trump's "tax reform" bill. The 2017 tax changes were almost tailor-made to soak taxpayers like me.
I went from paying maybe a few thousand around tax time to being socked on the order of $20k-plus.
Why should you get out of some of your federal obligation because your state taxes you at a high amount? You have a legit complaint, but your target should be the state in which you pay taxes.
First, my point was that Trump sent my taxes higher. Vexatious asserted this wasn’t true; he’s incorrect.
Second, this is a tax benefit everyone in the country has, subject to a cap, The cap was set at an arbitrary level, to try to pick and choose “winners.” Why should my federal tax dollars go to subsidize the benefit for low tax states? Why do people in low tax states deserve the benefit?
Third, there’s something wrong in principle with taxing money as “income” when I never received it. I am essentially being taxed twice on these dollars - something that conservatives always bitch about, when it comes to taxing dividend income.
Finally, we should not be using our tax policy to try to incentivize state governments to lower their tax burdens, since the result of that will be for them to try to offload more of their expenses to the federal government (as low tax states generally have already done). States should be able to set tax and spending policy according to the will of their citizens; if New Yorkers want to tax themselves to provide for better public services, we should be able to do so without also having to subsidize states that want highway and elder care and school money without having to pay for it,
The $300 I spend on a CPA is well worth it, since it would take me a day to do what takes him an hour.
Spent about 90 minutes for 2 income household with rental properties.
If one isn't scrambling to find everything the day they do their taxes it isn't tedious.
And how much time do you spend throughout the year?
Not much. Save receipts. Save hoa costs for rentals. Save tax documents when they come in. A few minutes for each. Standard depreciation for upgrades. Maybe half an hour extra.
Since the personal exemption increased i haven't had to worry about charity forms or anything.
Longest part of my taxes is the rental parts.
Agreed. I did my taxes in one day. Bought audit insurance from Turbo Tax. I hate this system, but not because it is too opaque.
I bought it just cause of the hidden bullshit like pushing child tax credit out for the year. Coworker of mine didn't realize it happened, did his taxes without noting he recieved the payments, now he has to pay the full child tax credit back, about 6k, until his amended form is accepted.
How many taxpayers didn't include the prepayment of the child tax credit biden forced on them?
I guess I was lucky that the various credits and stimulus thrown against the wall in pandemic didn't screw up my taxes. No children, so no fronted child tax credit, and didn't qualify for stimulus so those didn't mess up my taxes either.
I've had a CPA do my taxes for the past two years because I made the mistake of buying into a K-1 investment. I've since sold it that annoying shit and I'll be able to go back to doing my own taxes next year.
6.5 Billion hours? Really?
Assuming that there are 130 million households in the U.S., that works-out to 50 hours per household. My wife and I spent about two hours (each) figuring our taxes this year.
The link to the AAF report links to an IRS publication that includes all tax filings - individuals, partnerships, corps, trusts, NFP corps, etc. At least that's what it looks like to me.
Largest partnership return I've ever prepared took 4,000 man hours, and that excludes the partnership's internal accounting staff and their recordkeeping. Total federal return was a few thousand pages (with 23 state returns it was 110,000 pages in PDF). The 4,000 hours was just the actual tax return and the related support needed to substantiate the return's positions.
There are larger returns than that, and these large returns are taking up a lot more time than the 130 million tax returns that take an untrained taxpayer a couple hours to prepare.
Don't assume that the people who came up with that number can actually do their own taxes. Math is hard.
You don't expect the authors at Reason to tell the truth do you?
They lie through their teeth at every opportunity.
That is what they are paid to do.
Gosh, imagine that - trying to recast a problem for corporate and wealthy taxpayers as an "everyman" problem? I've certainly never seen that on Reason before!
You really are ruled by envy, aren’t you? No wonder you’re a democrat.
A previous study in 2020 from the National Taxpayers Union Foundation had a breakout:
US Business Income Tax Return: 3.344B hours
US Individual Income Tax Return: 1.717B hours
Returns for 501(c), 527, ... tax exempt orgs: 0.052B hours
Other compliance (e.g., brokerage producing 1099B statements): 2.741B
Total 2020 compliance time estimate: 7.854B hours
Total 2020 compliance cost estimate: $367.33B
Didn't someone promise me I could do my taxes on a postcard? Did that not work out? Did they just lie like they always do?
The point is the complexity. Turbotax and others never want to give up the entire reason for their existence and our politicians don't want to end the carve outs for everyone either.
Your 1040 EZ should take under 15 minutes.
If it took longer due to the forced child tax credits into your bank account Biden put in place, that's on him. But even that was 3 lines on the form if I remember.
The postcard guy didn’t get reelected.
You keep blaming Turbotax - Turbotax would not have a leg to stand on if *the government you want to give so much power to* wasn't using the tax code as a social engineering tool.
Government created this mess. TT came into existence to help people deal with it. The root problem lies with government, not lobbyists.
So many life years lost. Do we have a pandemic of taxation?
Masks will not protect you from the Cronyvirus.
Masks will help if one starts a tax rebellion, though. Up until the point when the feds and the left-leaning shit for brains declare it an insurrection, a dogwhistle to qanon and white nationalists, and all the usual ridiculous assertions.
For new father and first-time homeowner Erik Breidenbach, this year's tax-filing season was one of the more difficult of his adult life.
Both of those things are simple one line entries... Doubt he struggled for that reason.
And with the doubling of the individual exemption, there is no need to go through charity receipts, etc to try to garner every dollar. If he truly has that much in business expenses he should be using a program to keep track of his taxes, not waiting for the end of the year.
Please find better examples Eric. This one was terrible.
They always are terrible.
This is our side doing the same thing we laugh at the others for doing - the Milennial wasting money on avocado toast and Starbucks or the teacher who can't make ends meet because they're paying off three cars and a boat used as examples of how hard it is for people.
Speaking of terrible examples, you used individual exemption when you meant standard deduction. The individual (personal) exemption is something entirely different.
Same shit. The need to not itemize was one of the biggest tax changes for the vast majority of people. Doubling that shaved about an hour off my taxes each year.
Well, it only shaved off time once I realized that the remaining pile of charity receipts and vehicle taxes, etc. was not going to change the outcome, so I didn't bother to enter them. Still had to enter a lot of data into TT before that moment came up.
For the first time in my adult life, except for perhaps a few college-year returns, I took the standard deduction. The $10K SALT cap and having paid off mortgage early last year left us with few deductions. Was a little shocking, since for the last 30 years or so, our deductions were cut every year due to AGI limitations.
I would like to see 'tax day' moved to the day before 'election day'.
"The federal income tax, if it is to exist at all, should be simply a tool for funding the federal government—not used as a mechanism for social engineering."
For this to occur, we will have to outlaw the democrat party.
(R) too.
The LP will still lose though.
I owned houses, rented, had kids, formed and ran (small) corporations; taxes never took over two hours. But then I used a computer for record keeping, and "doing taxes" meant copying a few numbers off the spreadsheet and running the adding machine tape twice.
Now I do it online for free and it takes 10 minutes.
I just hand my w2's to an accountant friend of mine. She knocks it all out, including e-filing in 15 minutes and I'm out 40 bucks.
I could do it online but that crap takes a fucking hour to go through their script page by page. And they'll still want me to pay them 40 bucks.
You don’t have to go through the script.
taxation is theft! repeal the illegally ratified 16th amendment.
Permitting scummy private companies that couldn't make it in a real free market to buy congresspeople is the essence of the libertarian project. You made it so TurboTax could dictate how we file taxes. It's literally the libertarian dream.
And yet you were against increasing the standard deductions to make them less complicated for the majority if people. Weird.
I don't remember that, but now that you mention it, the effect is to reserve all those specific subsidies for the rich, and I don't know if that's good. But it's irrelevant minutiae compared to what I'd do to the tax code.
So you were for the Trump tax cuts? Which the deduction changes were the biggest part in dollars?
The very fact that you are concerned about sticking it to the rich is the social engineering that made the accountant lobby the money it uses to buy more power.
^
Tony says all that in a world where joe Biden exists.
*You* made it so that there was a reason for Turbotax to want to lobby.
If you didn't love you some government meddling and social engineering the the tax code would have never gotten complex enough for the accountant lobby to make enough money to make it worth becoming a lobby.
Actually, your government did that.
Isn't that a bit like the involuntary servitude the 13th Amendment was supposed to outlaw?
And just suppose EVERYbody paid federal income taxes and not just half of us?
Just suppose the states paid federal taxes and we only paid state income tax.
States like Florida, that don't have a state income tax, would then have a hard time paying the federal government. Florida's wealthy and retirees love the lack of an income tax. Of course, that leaves the GOP that they tend to support to whip up culture war issues rather than doing anything to address the financial struggles of those that aren't as likely to line their campaign coffers.
My lease is due for renewal. My rent is going to go up 20% over last year. How much I pay in income taxes is not my biggest financial concern. It isn't even in my top 10.
Than you probably don't pay very much in federal income taxes. Don't worry, you're just like half of all Americans.
Then... oh for an edit button!
As long as there is an income tax, there will be strong motivation for Congress to give favors to campaign contributors in the form of special tax rules. The solution is to get rid of income tax and payroll tax, and replace all Federal taxes by one simple, anonymous tax that cannot readily be evaded. That would be a consumption tax administered the same way as state sales taxes. The best version of this that I've ever seen is the Fair Tax (fairtax.org), which includes a monthly "prebate" of the amount of tax that would be paid by a family at the Federal poverty level. Then we can abolish the IRS.
Agreed. And for this reason, everyone you suggest this to will explain in the most sage way that the Fair Tax is naive and unworkable.
The really devious ones will say it is doable, so long as you give them this concession on houses or cars- thus destroying the whole system.
The solution is creating a population that doesn't feel the need to use others' bucks to provide cradle to grave services for the citizenry.
Agreed. And for this reason, everyone you suggest this to will explain in the most sage way that the Fair Tax is naive and unworkable.
Ha. I wrote my 'sage' reply about it being 'naive and unworkable' before I saw yours. Although, my skepticism does not come out of any desire to "use others' bucks to provide cradle to grave services" for lazy people. It comes from long experience with seeing people proposing what they view as simple solutions to complex problems. And then those proposals almost inevitably falling short of their promised simplicity or even likelihood of solving the problems they are supposed to address. If someone wants to radically change a system as important as taxation, it is on them to support their claims with enough detailed analysis to be convincing. Assuming that someone skeptical has selfish motivations would only be a way to dodge having to do that.
I am skeptical of the 'fair tax' idea, because it seems so transparently designed to favor those with high incomes that don't want to pay higher tax rates. Consumption taxes (like sales taxes) are generally regressive at the state level, as people with higher incomes spend a smaller percentage of their income on things subject to such taxes. To implement that kind of system and yet keep a similar progressiveness to federal taxes as exists now sounds to me like it would be at least as complex as the current system. To really account for how people at different income levels spend their money would also seem likely to be more intrusive of people's privacy than tax law already is.
Your comments show that you don't understand two of the primary aspects of the "Fair Tax".
First, the prebate excludes taxes for everyone, in the amount of the poverty-line, making it exceptionally progressive. No one ever pays any taxes on necessities-of-life spending, as defined by the poverty-line. Anyone with income above the poverty line that they chose to spend will be taxed and their effective tax rate will approach the maximum level quickly. It's pretty easy to do the math to see how it is progressive. There are certainly going to be some cases where some billionaire lives like a recluse and spends nothing (which is not markedly different than flaws in the current system that allow Warren Buffett to pay so little).
Second, that you assume there is some record-keeping overhead. Since the FT is a consumption-based tax, when you buy something, you pay the tax because the seller collects it and remits it, just like state and local sales taxes. Do you file some sort of tax return explaining how the 5% sales tax you paid on your soda? No. There would be some record-keeping overhead for vendors, but not much more than they currently expend processing state and local sales taxes. Bonus for them, they are provided some remuneration for their role, as FT proposes that vendors keep a quarter of a percent collected to cover their costs associated with being a tax collector. Unlike state and local sales taxes, where they are conscripted as tax collectors without pay.
The only privacy-invasive aspect of the FT is the form that you fill out once a year to attest how many people are in your household, listing their SSNs. This would be used to define the prebate you receive.
No one ever pays any taxes on necessities-of-life spending, as defined by the poverty-line.
Are "necessities" defined by the category of the item or will it also take into account the cost? If you need a car to drive to work, would a BMW be exempt from the tax the same as a used Chevy? Or is it buying a vehicle not going to be considered a necessity of life at all, since you could always walk or choose a job that wasn't 20 miles away? Of course, that is often a problem for people with lower incomes, such as those near the poverty line. They often have to take what they can get in terms of work, where to live, etc. And what about food? Is boneless rib eye going to be tax free, just like chicken?
Like I said, there are just so many details that would matter, that I would want to see proposals and analysis that that has that kind of detail. How would it actually work out for typical individuals and families with different circumstances? I'm not simply going to take the word of advocates in the comments at a libertarian publication, even if they are well-meaning arguments like yours that are too thin on such details.
It's pretty easy to do the math to see how it is progressive.
If it is easy to have done the math, then I'm sure that someone has done it somewhere that you could point me to, right?
There are certainly going to be some cases where some billionaire lives like a recluse and spends nothing (which is not markedly different than flaws in the current system that allow Warren Buffett to pay so little).
The main 'flaw' in the design of the current system that allows wealthy investors to have a lower effective tax rate than other high income individuals is the different treatment of investment income from labor income. An entertainer making millions a year has their income in the same category and tax rate scales as someone earning wages or salary. Someone like Buffett earning income from investments is paying mostly capital gains and dividends rates, which have a much lower top rate than for ordinary income.
And losses on other investments can be used to reduce those taxes even further. I don't know how it all works, as I assume that it is quite complicated, but that kind of thing is how Donald Trump was able to pay hardly any federal taxes for over a decade despite living a luxurious lifestyle. Some of this business ventures lost so much money, that he was able to count those losses against other income for years after he incurred those losses. As far as I know, any expenses you can deduct against wages or salary have to have occurred in the same tax year. We could have deductions that might completely cancel out our taxable income this year, but even if those costs exceeded our income this year, we wouldn't be able to apply those deductions against any future year's income, right?
"Are "necessities" defined by the category of the item or will it also take into account the cost?"
No. They are defined in the same way that the poverty-line is set. A set amount of money is deemed adequate (all spending up to poverty line is tax-free). What you spend it on is 100% up to you, there is no record keeping, no tracking. Your necessities are not necessarily my necessities. All new retail sales are subject to fair tax (so a new BMW is taxed), but used items (having presumably been taxed once) are not.
"Like I said, there are just so many details that would matter, that I would want to see proposals and analysis that that has that kind of detail. How would it actually work out for typical individuals and families with different circumstances?"
There are several books on the topic.
All data Circa 2019 Income Fair Tax Effective Rate Effective Federal Income Tax Rate
Poverty Line (1) $12,490 $0 0.0%
Poverty Line (4) $25,750 $0 0.0% 3.54%
Top 50% $44,269 $4,259 9.6% 14.55%
Top 25% $87,917 $14,298 16.3% 16.79%
Top 10% $154,589 $29,633 19.2% 19.89%
Top 5% $221,572 $45,039 20.3% 21.98%
Top 1% $546,434 $119,757 21.9% 25.57%
Top 0.1% $2,458,432 $559,517 22.8% 26.12%
All data Circa 2019 Income Fair Tax with 1% savings Effective Rate Effective Federal Income Tax Rate
Poverty Line (1) $12,490 ($29) -0.2%
Poverty Line (4) $25,750 ($59) -0.2% 3.54%
Top 50% $44,269 $4,158 9.4% 14.55%
Top 25% $87,917 $14,096 16.0% 16.79%
Top 10% $154,589 $29,277 18.9% 19.89%
Top 5% $221,572 $44,529 20.1% 21.98%
Top 1% $546,434 $118,501 21.7% 25.57%
Top 0.1% $2,458,432 $553,862 22.5% 26.12%
All data Circa 2019 Income Fair Tax with 5% savings Effective Rate Effective Federal Income Tax Rate
Poverty Line (1) $12,490 ($144) -1.2%
Poverty Line (4) $25,750 ($296) -1.2% 3.54%
Top 50% $44,269 $3,750 8.5% 14.55%
Top 25% $87,917 $13,287 15.1% 16.79%
Top 10% $154,589 $27,855 18.0% 19.89%
Top 5% $221,572 $42,491 19.2% 21.98%
Top 1% $546,434 $113,473 20.8% 25.57%
Top 0.1% $2,458,432 $531,245 21.6% 26.12%
All data Circa 2019 Income Fair Tax with 10% savings Effective Rate Effective Federal Income Tax Rate
Poverty Line (1) $12,490 ($287) -2.3%
Poverty Line (4) $25,750 ($592) -2.3% 3.54%
Top 50% $44,269 $3,241 7.3% 14.55%
Top 25% $87,917 $12,276 14.0% 16.79%
Top 10% $154,589 $26,077 16.9% 19.89%
Top 5% $221,572 $39,943 18.0% 21.98%
Top 1% $546,434 $107,189 19.6% 25.57%
Top 0.1% $2,458,432 $502,973 20.5% 26.12%
All data Circa 2019 Income Fair Tax with 20% savings Effective Rate Effective Federal Income Tax Rate
Poverty Line (1) $12,490 ($575) -4.6%
Poverty Line (4) $25,750 ($1,185) -4.6% 3.54%
Top 50% $44,269 $2,223 5.0% 14.55%
Top 25% $87,917 $10,254 11.7% 16.79%
Top 10% $154,589 $22,522 14.6% 19.89%
Top 5% $221,572 $34,847 15.7% 21.98%
Top 1% $546,434 $94,621 17.3% 25.57%
Top 0.1% $2,458,432 $446,429 18.2% 26.12%
"And what about food? Is boneless rib eye going to be tax free, just like chicken?"
No, neither is tax free. But since you've been given cash to cover your family's next month's poverty-line spending, you choose which is necessary for your family, pay the tax, and net $0. If you want to feed your family prime-rib every night and can afford it, you'll use up your prebate funding quickly and start actually paying tax.
The function of the prebate is to remove the hardships associated with paying the tax without the overhead of endlessly arguing about what is and is not a necessity of life and creating a long series of exemptions. Everything in the store is always taxed. But the first $493 in paid Fair Tax per month (for a family of 4...) has been sent to you to cover that tax.
You start actually paying taxes once you've spent more than $2145 per month (for a family of 4). It is a reasonable assumption that any spending one does that is above the poverty-line is, more or less by definition, spending on luxury items.
No tax system is ever going to be perfect, especially if one desires to punish people one disagrees with, or for other sorts of social engineering. But if one is focused simply on raising revenue from the broadest possible tax base with the fewest number of moving parts, record-keeping, and compliance overhead, it seems hard to beat the Fair Tax.
I see what you meant by a "prebate" now, thank you. That does address a lot of my concerns, but a couple remain.
One is how this will affect SS and Medicare/Medicaid, which are currently supported by payroll (income) taxes. Those programs were, by law, supposed to have separate revenue streams from the Treasury and can only pay benefits from the money collected from those payroll taxes. (The 'trust funds' that the Treasury borrowed from are a whole separate thing to discuss.)
Another thing I quickly noted in the 2019 figures you posted is that everyone would end up paying a lower effective tax rate. While still fairly progressive, that seems to inevitably lead to less revenue in total, which is not viable. Despite all of the talk from the right on this, the U.S. is not a high tax country at all. It has been near the bottom of the OECD in government revenue (at all levels, not just federal taxes) as a % of GDP every time I've looked it up.
"The United States ranked 32nd out of 37 OECD countries in terms of the tax-to-GDP ratio in 2019."
From this document put out by the OECD in 2020.
It is easy to say that we have a spending problem and not a revenue problem, but it is also clear from similar analyses that the U.S. does not spend more than average among industrialized economies. In fact, we spend quite a bit less on the kinds of transfer payments Republicans and libertarians often bemoan. (Relative to GDP, again.) We essentially expect private social spending to cover a much larger share of assistance for the needy than other countries. (OECD figures show the U.S. near the average for public social spending as a share of GDP, but well above average on private spending, which includes tax breaks as well as private charity.)
Lots of words boiled down to "Gimme more".
And why exactly is that a bad thing? Wealthy people who don't engage in consumption necessarily invest their money, thereby contributing to economic growth and the wealth of their fellow citizens.
The US income tax system is ridiculously progressive. Not only does that hurt economic growth because it reduces investments, it also results in voters voting for new expenditures without facing the consequences of their votes.
The "fair tax" is essentially a flat tax on consumption with a personal exemption at the poverty line. That is a good balance between progressive taxation and not burdening the poorest and a tax system that actually encourages economic growth and investment.
It's also pretty easy to administer, since businesses already collect sales taxes.
And why exactly is that a bad thing? Wealthy people who don't engage in consumption necessarily invest their money, thereby contributing to economic growth and the wealth of their fellow citizens.
This is more about ideology than sound economics, if you ask me. Investors are seen as the 'heroes' of capitalism, and us poor schlubs that work for a wage or salary should just be happy about how their brilliance at picking stocks has some of that trickling down our way.
The fact is that treating investment income different than labor income only makes sense if you assume that investment income takes skill, knowledge, and risk. But once wealthy, people can sit on passive investments and still earn large returns without any effort, expertise, or even risk.
Wait! Did uncle Joe fuck up the latest tax form so it's a mandatory 28 pages again? Come one man, for 80% of people it should fit on a post card.
Lies, lies, lies, lies.
"Americans Will Spend 6.5 Billion Hours on Income Taxes This Year"
6,500 million hours 100 million house holds = 65 hours per household.
Reason caught lying again.
The link to the AAF that these numbers come from shows 24.5 hours per tax return, so it isn't based on households. Though that would mean almost 250 million tax returns. The only thing I can figure, then, is that they are basing these numbers not only on individual tax returns, but also those of businesses, which clearly would drive up the number of hours involved. A more useful analysis, since the article's one anecdote is about an individual that doesn't own a business, would be to focus on the time spent by individuals filing individual federal tax returns. And also to provide a median as well as an average per individual and total number of hours.
The whole analysis seems designed to create an impression of it being difficult and expensive for individuals to file taxes, so including data on business tax returns. if I'm correct about that, shows this analysis to be agenda-driven. Quelle suprise
I've used TurboTax for over a dozen years, and I have no complaints about the software itself. The efforts to upsell me from the free version are annoying, as are the efforts to link me to companies selling other services, like Credit Karma. But my taxes are simple, and it took me less than 30 minutes from start to finish. Doing the whole thing on paper by myself probably wouldn't have taken much longer.
I would like there to be more of a competitive market for such software (I don't even know of any other product like TurboTax), and I agree that simple is generally better. But one thing that I see in articles like this one that I do disagree with is the equivalence of a flat tax with simplicity. They aren't the same thing, and conflating them is not about making taxes simpler, but reducing the progressiveness of tax rates so that those with higher income pay less than they do now.
Whether there is a single, flat tax rate on income, or a dozen tax brackets, the math is done for you. Once you've added and subtracted to find your taxable income, you look at a table to find out the tax owed (starts on p65 of the 2021 1040 instructions). Simple. You don't even need a calculator or to understand what marginal rates are.
The complexity of individual income taxes is only in the categories of income, what deductions are available, filing status, and so on. Tax rates have nothing to do with it, and to argue otherwise is either ignorant or disingenuous.
I agree that the flat tax is mostly a con. It is sold as simple but it will actually shift the tax burden to those less wealthy. Proponents often low ball what the tax rate would be making it seem more reasonable. Using 10% as an example. But the math suggests a higher rate would be needed.
If you want a progressive social welfare state without going bankrupt, you need much higher tax rates on the middle class. It's basic math. Countries like Germany tax income at close to 50% for incomes over $50000, and on top of that have a 25% sales tax (technically VAT), and you pay for healthcare and retirement separately from that. Not only is that fiscally necessary, it is also fair: people ought to pay for the services they consume.
You pulled the 10% out of your ass. Flat tax proposals generally have suggested something in the range of 17-25% with a substantial personal deduction, possibly in combination with a national sales tax. Given how lopsided the US tax system is right now, that is probably enough.
But no tax system can pay for the current level of spending, about $55000/worker/year just in federal spending, on top of state spending and unfunded liabilities.
If it helps, I switched to Tax Act from Turbo Tax and yeah, 30 minutes seems about right.
Then again I also have a spreadsheet to do the calculations ahead of time. Once it's set up it's pretty trivial to adjust year to year and when my wife had her business I'd tweak my W-4 several times a year to compensate for her income. I haven't been off by more than $100 in years and now that she's retired it's trivial.
Congress has the perfect scapegoat in the IRS. Congress has created the complex tax code, but much of the anger gets directed at the IRS as the administrator of that tax code. What's more Congress can score points by criticizing the IRS and threating punishment upon it for the it simply doing the job Congress assigned it.
If people want things changed, they have to demand accountability from Congress not the IRS.
That's why elections aren't held on the third Tuesday of April.
Not me. I haven't filed any returns since 1998.
10 minutes in Sweden. Via text message.
Any income-based tax will necessarily suffer from the fundamental flaw: defining "income".
It takes thousands of words, if not thousands of pages.
We see a lot of proposals for a "flat tax on all personal income, including wages, salaries, dividends, capital gains, rents and interest", which sounds simple enough.
But it's not.
If Susie gets a $20,000 scholarship for college, is that income for her? Are life insurance proceeds income to the beneficiary? How about gambling winnings (vs gambling losses?)? Are those capital gains net CG or gross CG (how are losses counted)? How about if a bank allows a short sale on writes off the loan difference? Are federally forgiven student loans income? Income earned in a foreign country? Sold a used car? Sold a house? Sold rental property? How are rental incomes offset (if at all ) by expenses related to the rental property? Have a hobby selling things on Etsy? That's income. Garage sale: income or not? Is inherited money "income"?
If grandma gives Johnny $100 for his birthday, does she have to provide a 1099MISC with it? It's income to Johnny...Now consider the nature of a gift exclusion that allows small amounts to be gifted without a need to report as income on the part of the recipient (or file a 1099MISC). First, how small is small? $10, $100, $1000, is that indexed to inflation? Can Grandma give $1000 *and* Grandpa give $1000 each? How often can a gift be given? Or is the limit a cumulative annual amount? If it's $10, then lots of people will have to file 1099 and cause way more work than it's worth. If it's $1000, a lot of people will start black-marketing "gifts": e.g. maybe I can convince my boss to "gift" me the maximum amount every year? Etc. Etc.
This can keep going and going and going and that's just the income...if we start allowing deductions and exemptions, the list goes on and on for those too.
Whenever you receive cash, ownership of something valuable, or transfers into one of your bank accounts, it is taxed at a fixed rate. So, scholarships, life insurance proceeds, gambling winnings, inheritance, etc. are all taxed at a flat rate.
Presumably, there would be exclusions for reporting (but not for taxing). So, you could probably get away with not reporting the $100 gift, but that wouldn't make it legal.
So, it can be simple. Whether it's a good idea is another question. If the tax is small enough, it might well be better than the current system.
"Whenever you receive cash, ownership of something valuable, or transfers into one of your bank accounts, it is taxed at a fixed rate."
So if someone borrowed $1000 from me and I transfer it into their bank account, they pay taxes on it? And when they pay me back--since they were a friend I charged them 0% interest--and they transferred the money into my account, I pay taxes on it?
If my wife dies, and I inherit her separate bank account, I pay taxes on it? Even in joint-property states?
If my parents die, and I inherit some stock, do I pay taxes on the amount I receive? Does their original basis in the stock come into play at all?
If I win $10000 at a casino in the morning and cash out and they issue me a 1099 on the amount, then I go back after lunch and lose the whole $10K, do I pay taxes on the winnings only and ignore the losses? If I had played straight through and skipped lunch I would have avoided a hefty tax bill?
A few years back they puportedly simplified the 1040. I stopped itemizing years ago when l paid off my mortgage and they raised the standard deduction. It was just a schedule C, SSE and 1040. Now I have to file 2 or 3 additional redundant forms. The tax system is geared to W2 employees. It's a pain in the ass for the rest of us.
It’s not the filling out time that’s wrong with taxes. It’s the miss location of resources away from those that created them.
Neutral Tax!
https://neutraltax.com/
I'm sure that kind of well-reasoned argument will convince a lot of progressives to change their mind! This is why Libertarianism has become such an unstoppable political force! /sarc
Seriously: every tax is a mechanism for social engineering: you tax something, you get less of it; you subsidize something, you get more of it.
Seriously: every tax is a mechanism for social engineering: you tax something, you get less of it; you subsidize something, you get more of it.
The principle of taxation is that government services need to be paid for somehow. Unless you believe in anarcho-capitalism or some other such fantasy economic philosophy, taxes are necessary. The 'social engineering' is a by-product of how the sausage is made, but it is not the point. At least, it certainly shouldn't be. I would agree, in principle, with libertarians and others that would argue that tax systems should have the least distortion to the economy as is possible while still raising needed revenue. But the truth is that markets also get distorted in ways that have nothing to do with taxes. Regulation, or the lack thereof, externalities, and so on, can all cause problems with market signaling, even including market failure.
"Sin taxes" are an example of "social engineering" through taxation that I would argue is necessary. Tobacco use is absolutely a social cost, as the negative health effects result in economic drains for everyone, even though tobacco companies would otherwise pay none of those costs.
Of course, no one likes to pay taxes and fees, but nevertheless something has to be paid. Unlike taxes, I do not pay fees for card processing merchant account services. I recommend you to read about how you can use a surcharge to make your customers pay for card processing services for you.