Federal Tax Deductions (Split From Interesting Articles)

[ExGingi]

Of course. Make it simple and lawyers and accountants go bankrupt.

Or actually become productive members of society. 

[hachover]

Or actually become productive members of society. 

The wording could be more ideal so it doesn't get taken the wrong way, but it could not be more true that the tax code is a major brain drain.

Imagine if all the tax accountants could instead apply their collective brainpower towards allocating the world's agricultural crop equitably to all citizens of earth. And imagine if all the tax attorneys could instead apply their collective brainpower towards crafting a set of universally agreeable terms for managing carbon emissions and other pervasive causes of global warming.

Quite simply, the tax code is destroying the world.

[henche]

Of course. Make it simple and lawyers and accountants go bankrupt.

There were way more tax scams back when the tax code was simple. Business for tax lawyers was good back in the good old days of leasing cows.  See this article http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterjreilly/2014/08/15/irs-stampedes-a-cattle-shelter/#540a016c4d75

[ExGingi]

The wording could be more ideal so it doesn't get taken the wrong way, but it could not be more true that the tax code is a major brain drain.

Imagine if all the tax accountants could instead apply their collective brainpower towards allocating the world's agricultural crop equitably to all citizens of earth. And imagine if all the tax attorneys could instead apply their collective brainpower towards crafting a set of universally agreeable terms for managing carbon emissions and other pervasive causes of global warming.

Quite simply, the tax code is destroying the world.

Let's just settle on the Jewish ones sitting and learning.

[henche]

Imagine if all the tax accountants could instead apply their collective brainpower towards allocating the world's agricultural crop equitably to all citizens of earth.

That's what they're already doing.  That's what the tax system is, minus the rest of the world. 

[ExGingi]

There were way more tax scams back when the tax code was simple. Business for tax lawyers was good back in the good old days of leasing cows.  See this article http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterjreilly/2014/08/15/irs-stampedes-a-cattle-shelter/#540a016c4d75

A really simple code (consumption based, or flat with no non-cash deductions) wouldn't allow such shelters.

[henche]

A really simple code (consumption based, or flat with no non-cash deductions) wouldn't allow such shelters.

right, but we've already agreed that that's a bad idea because it doesn't count non-U.S. spending.

[aygart]

right, but we've already agreed that that's a bad idea because it doesn't count non-U.S. spending.

Except a flat tax

[henche]

Except a flat tax

Not really.  Tell me the rules of your flat tax, and I'll ask.

[aygart]

Not really.  Tell me the rules of your flat tax, and I'll ask.

Definitely no non US spending issue.

[henche]

Definitely no non US spending issue.

Yes. But there will be complications. And I'll still have  a job.

Heck, it will make my career, because I'll be in position to learn the rules from scratch and grow into it.

[ExGingi]

Yes. But there will be complications. And I'll still have  a job.

Heck, it will make my career, because I'll be in position to learn the rules from scratch and grow into it.

I too, derive a business benefit, from the current code. Yet, just because I am able to take advantage of its inequality (and advise clients on ways to take advantage) doesn't make me believe it should stay this way.

I don't believe the government should be practicing social engineering through the tax code, as it currently does. I also detest the fact that the current code discriminates between people based on how their income is earned. And I think it is shameful that so many decisions are skewed because of tax considerations, rather than evaluated on their own merits.

[henche]

I too, derive a business benefit, from the current code. Yet, just because I am able to take advantage of its inequality (and advise clients on ways to take advantage) doesn't make me believe it should stay this way.

I don't believe the government should be practicing social engineering through the tax code, as it currently does. I also detest the fact that the current code discriminates between people based on how their income is earned. And I think it is shameful that so many decisions are skewed because of tax considerations, rather than evaluated on their own merits.

Ok, but you do realize that those complications are not what employs people like me. I'm employed by things like partnership regs, which are pure tax theory.

[ExGingi]

Ok, but you do realize that those complications are not what employs people like me. I'm employed by things like partnership regs, which are pure tax theory.

I hope you do realize that my comments about CPAs were meant with a light heart and definitely not personally.

While I am not a CPA, I do work closely with CPAs, and I also have CPAs defer to me in areas where I am more proficient than they are.

I just listened today to a certain webinar presented by two attorneys, and while I was in taken aback by some planning techniques mentioned, which simply transcend the practical world.

[Menachem613]

I too, derive a business benefit, from the current code. Yet, just because I am able to take advantage of its inequality (and advise clients on ways to take advantage) doesn't make me believe it should stay this way.

I don't believe the government should be practicing social engineering through the tax code, as it currently does. I also detest the fact that the current code discriminates between people based on how their income is earned. And I think it is shameful that so many decisions are skewed because of tax considerations, rather than evaluated on their own merits.

+1 especially re social engineering

[hachover]

At the end of the day having lawyers and accountants expend their (vast) capabilities on something that creates no value is a sad waste of human resources. Our tax system occupies so much valuable talent and extracts far less value than it consumes. Any amount that complexity can be reduced would free up some of those capable people to follow other pursuits that could contribute tangible benefit to society.

We don't even have to get too extreme about what they could pursue - move those people into watchdog roles to manage public funds and watch the cost of government drop.

[henche]

I hope you do realize that my comments about CPAs were meant with a light heart and definitely not personally.

While I am not a CPA, I do work closely with CPAs, and I also have CPAs defer to me in areas where I am more proficient than they are.

I just listened today to a certain webinar presented by two attorneys, and while I was in taken aback by some planning techniques mentioned, which simply transcend the practical world.

That's ok, I'm not a CPA

[henche]

At the end of the day having lawyers and accountants expend their (vast) capabilities on something that creates no value is a sad waste of human resources. Our tax system occupies so much valuable talent and extracts far less value than it consumes. Any amount that complexity can be reduced would free up some of those capable people to follow other pursuits that could contribute tangible benefit to society.

We don't even have to get too extreme about what they could pursue - move those people into watchdog roles to manage public funds and watch the cost of government drop.

I don't disagree, but I don't think it's correct that to make this point more about tax lawyers than any lawyers, or than about farmers.

Why do you need farmers? They're just wasting their time riding around on tractors when the crops grow themselves.  Wouldn't it be great if we could move them all to a job where they actually make something?  Yes, but the reality is that crops require people riding on tractors.

And getting crops to people requires investment bankers and investors.

And getting investors requires lawyers.  And tax lawyers.

Yes, if there were no tax,  you wouldn't need tax lawyers.  But there is tax, and having tax is a good thing.  And you can't have tax without tax lawyers any more than you can have apples without johnny on a tractor.

[skyguy918]

That's the danger with extreme arguments. You can argue that the current extreme is bad. But to argue that the other extreme is the ideal is foolish too. As always, the truth lies somewhere in the middle.

[hachover]

I don't disagree, but I don't think it's correct that to make this point more about tax lawyers than any lawyers, or than about farmers.

Why do you need farmers? They're just wasting their time riding around on tractors when the crops grow themselves.  Wouldn't it be great if we could move them all to a job where they actually make something?  Yes, but the reality is that crops require people riding on tractors.

And getting crops to people requires investment bankers and investors.

And getting investors requires lawyers.  And tax lawyers.

Yes, if there were no tax,  you wouldn't need tax lawyers.  But there is tax, and having tax is a good thing.  And you can't have tax without tax lawyers any more than you can have apples without johnny on a tractor.

Farmers are going the way of the dodo. They really are unnecessary. 1 teenage computer engineer can program an army of roombas to do all the farm work. This is no more than a couple of years off. Now to the lawyers and CPAs