Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | doom2's commentslogin

If the government can determine that my taxes are wrong, then they know the amount I have to pay. So why can't they tell me the correct number up front? (Yes, I know the reason why, but I still feel like it's a valid question)

I've always wondered if I could file some kind of freedom of information act request to get the IRS's opinion of what my taxes should be; and/or to get the source code to the IRS's program to calculate what their opinion of my taxes should be.

---

That being said, my Dad worked for a few years at the IRS part-time before he finally retired. He loved it. (My Dad is one of those people who enjoys taxes and finds them soothing.) I concluded that the IRS is a white-collar make-work program. It also leaks a lot of confidential social information, because he got to see all kinds of tax returns from all slices of economic status.


The issue is the government doesn't and shouldn't know every possible detail of your life so if you're in a complex tax situation (most people aren't and can just take the standard deduction) you'd still need to do the preparations. But for the vast majority of people the government does already know what you're taxes should be because you're just taking the standard deduction which 87% of people did in 2018 and that number has grown slightly since then. [0]

For more complex cases where you have more deduction and income sources the government doesn't really know all the individual setups you may or may not qualify for and they only audit a small percentage of filers every year.

The reason it's been blocked is a mess of ideological and economic. Ideological from people who interested that want to make taxes more annoying so people are generally more anti tax and then they get elected and make cuts to the top percentages/businesses permanent while the tax cuts for the majority of citizens are temporary. This sets up a debt crisis when those 'temporary' cuts are also extended they can use to leverage for government cuts. On the economic side there's a huge amount of money made each year by preparing taxes for people too intimidated by the complexity to DIY it. So they ally with the generically antitax side to keep their business going.

[0] https://www.irs.gov/statistics/soi-tax-stats-tax-stats-at-a-...


They can determine your taxes are "fishy" and then demand further documentation. Say you declared you sold a car and profited, but seemingly under-reported the sale price. They'd show up and demand to see the bill-of-sale, maybe contact the buyer, etc. How would the government know ahead of time what price you sold the car for?

Most fraud about car sales is to claim a lower price in order to skip on sales taxes collected by the states' motor vehicle agencies. Not all states charge a sales tax on individual-to-individual sales. Here in Kentucky, the state constitution says that taxes have to be charged on the assessed value, so part of the annual registration is based on the assessed value (min $100 for boats or $200 for cars/trucks). I used to work for KY's Transportation Cabinet (combo DMV + highway dept).

I don't understand how this changes anything?

How would they know now?

These examples are silly, most people are not selling a car privately all the time and they can handle any reporting or changes when you transfer the ownership.


In many countries for the majority of the population they can and do determine how much tax should be paid, and many people don’t have to file tax returns.

What makes you think the government can determine that your taxes are wrong?

In the large-ish East Coast city I live in, there are so many restaurants making food that a) isn't defrosted Sysco meals and b) is something that would take either a large amount of labor or specialized ingredients to make at home. My home oven is insufficient to make something like Peking duck. Even if I could source the quality of fish the fancy local sushi spot does, would my amateur preparation come close to what they're offering?

Which is all to say that this comment seems limited to people that live in places where the only choices are fast food or fast casual and excludes most everything else. I'm not arguing that restaurant food is affordable, just that there is plenty of non-Sysco food out there.


> in places where the only choices are fast food or fast casual and excludes most everything else.

Which, at least in the US, is pretty much every place that isn't a large-ish city. Lots of people live in such places.


Similarly, the parent comment claims

> There's almost no upside to eating in a sit-down restaurant anymore.

But _lots_ of people live in places where there are multiple choices of restaurants whose menus aren't filled with Sysco food


> _lots_ of people live in places where there are multiple choices of restaurants whose menus aren't filled with Sysco food

Yes, lots of people live in large-ish cities. But also lots of people don't.


Germany and Japan also got to keep their countries in the end. What guarantees do the Palestinians have that they'll get to keep Gaza and not have it be overrun by Israeli settlers (who are already wreaking havoc in the West Bank)?


> Germany and Japan also got to keep their countries in the end.

Germany was split in two for many years. Ultimately they were able to keep their countries because the occupation forces were successfully able to largely de-radicalize those countries.

> What guarantees do the Palestinians have that they'll get to keep Gaza and not have it be overrun by Israeli settlers (who are already wreaking havoc in the West Bank)?

I suppose that would depend on the surrender agreement and whatever agreements are subsequently put in place, but the settler issue differs significantly between Gaza and the West Bank for various reasons. For example the issue of religious sites is a much bigger issue in the West Bank, there has been little desire amongst Israelis to settle Gaza compared to the West Bank. The security issues in the West Bank tend to also be more problematic due to proximity to major Israeli cities.


> Most of America is car-centric and it's pretty good once you buy into that model of living.

Is it though? I'm for public transit because one day I'll be of an age where I probably shouldn't be driving but am still able and independent enough to get around.

In a car-centric culture, what's the solution? Making the elderly take taxis or rideshares everywhere (assuming there is taxi services or Uber available where you live)? That feels like an ageist tax unless those services are heavily subsidized somehow. Or allowing the elderly to drive, which in my experience can be its own hazard both to drivers and everyone else.


> Spend some time not just driving through them, and one may be surprised to find plenty of diverse and interesting people that live full lives with rich family and social bonds

I would argue that this could also be said to people (mainly from more rural parts of the US) who like to disparage large cities. If we're going to lecture city dwellers about how they talk about places like Indiana, maybe it's worth encouraging Hoosiers to go east or west and experience the vibrant neighborhoods and offerings of large coastal cities rather than just assuming they're cesspools of crime and poverty just because they heard a politician say places like Portland, Oregon, are "war ravaged"


Unfortunately, my (Republican) senator doesn't seem to agree with me (a Democrat) on even the smaller issues. Yet he theoretically represents every resident of this state in the Senate, including the ones that didn't vote for him.


> Ego: senior people need to be seen and respected in person

The funny thing is that the CEO of my current employer lives in Connecticut and rarely (ever?) comes into the office in Manhattan. When he does come in, they shut the office down for "leadership meetings" so all the New York based employees can't come in anyway!


> So they are allowed to be as upset as anyone else about this stuff.

My issue with this take is the lack of evidence. I don't read about Trump voters calling their reps to try and push back (and let's be real, most Republican members of Congress these days would likely dismiss such constituents as being "paid protestors" or something). I haven't seen Trump voters out protesting against some part of the administration's policy. I _have_ seen anonymous reddit users in a Trump related subreddit say, "yeah, don't agree with this at all". Which leaves me wondering: how upset are they, really?


If anything, I think we're even closer. It feels like the current administration is stifling speech more than ever. It's open season on people who don't proudly wave the flag or correctly mourn Charlie Kirk. People who dare speak against Israel are being doxxed and in some cases hounded out of their jobs. Books are being taken off library shelves on the whim of a very few community members with objections. And all of it is getting a giant stamp of approval from the White House.


Now you see channels avoiding saying "Gaza" or "genocide". I haven't seen any proof platforms are censoring at least some content related to Israel but I wouldn't be surprised.


Consider applying for YC's Winter 2026 batch! Applications are open till Nov 10

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: