>Filing taxes in the rest of the developed world is essentially a one-click process

I'm a little fed up of this canard. No. This is not the case. I've lived in the UK and had to do self assessment filing. It was not "essentially a one-click process". I have lived in Japan and filed taxes there. It was also not "essentially a one-click process".

>have all the information necessary to create such software (and so does the IRS)

No, it does not. A significant chunk of social programs are run in the US via the tax system (primarily through the forms of various credits) and are dependent on facts that the IRS does not know.

The proposals aren't that you have to use a 1 click process, just that it's the default starting point. People will of course need the ability to add deductions and other information if they so choose. But for someone who just needs to fill out a normal return with information that the IRS already has, and is already using to verify that return, why on earth shouldn't we just make that automatic?

It's a massive waste of time to require millions of people needlessly fill out forms that the IRS already fills out on their end! It's a manufactured problem to benefit a scummy company.

>I'm a little fed up of this canard. No. This is not the case. I've lived in the UK and had to do self assessment filing. It was not "essentially a one-click process". I have lived in Japan and filed taxes there. It was also not "essentially a one-click process".

On the other hand, where I live in Sweden the process is essentially one-click, and there are several other countries in Europe where the same is true. No idea why U.K would still be bad, but I can see Japan being bad given their stamps on paper-culture. Pity.

>No, it does not. A significant chunk of social programs are run in the US via the tax system (primarily through the forms of various credits) and are dependent on facts that the IRS does not know.

Is information from these social programs a necessity for filing taxes? If so, the fix is simple: have them report these numbers into the IRS. Otherwise, have a base case of 0 and allow this information to be added as needed.

>Is information from these social programs a necessity for filing taxes? If so, the fix is simple: have them report these numbers into the IRS.

You misunderstand. The IRS implements the social program via the tax system.

For example, most European countries operate some kind of universal child benefit for parents. So maybe parents can receive a weekly payment of some kind.

In the U.S. this program does not exist. Instead, there is a refundable tax credit (the Child Tax Credit). When you file your taxes, you tell the IRS how many children you have, how old they are and so on and if your taxes are low enough that the credit offsets your taxes, the IRS sends you a check for the difference.

Similarly, many European countries have some form of government income support for low earners; again typically paid by some social security agency.

Although there is a program called TANF that does this for the most needy, the majority of benefits are delivered through another refundable tax credit (the Earned Income Tax Credit). Again you end up sending the IRS all the data necessary about why you qualify for this social program and maybe you get a check back at the end.

Basically, a significant amount of the transfer payments for social programs in the U.S. are implemented directly in the tax code, so the "tax filings" that people have to make combine both income information as well as qualifications for social benefits.

Those kids have social security numbers that the IRS definitely has, and social programs are based on income, which is reported to the IRS.

If it wasn't possible, Intuit wouldn't bother lobbying.

Probably depends on the filer's situation.

Except that in American political culture it’s extremely common to argue that such and such thing is either impossible or will introduce a parade or horrible consequences. Those that make this argument depend on voters being ignorant of the existence of other countries that have successfully done that thing or not experienced those consequences or, when those examples are cited, rush to American exceptionalism or other baseless appeals to distinguish them.

Jumping off a cliff is obviously bad because of what happens when you hit the ground at the bottom. One click taxes seem a bit different.

It is more along the lines of "all your friends can excuse themselves to use the bathroom, why do you keep pissing yourself?"

While appeal to consensus is a common logical fallacy, we can make stronger arguments to support government tax software. Tax preparation is 100% deadweight in an economic sense. Nothing useful is created in that time, and yet billions of hours are spent on it each year in the United States. Streamlining the collection of tax revenue seems to be in the best interest of the state and the people, even if a very small minority will be harmed in the process. The additional product of those billions of hours of work time per year would pay enough dividend to cover the development cost virtually overnight.

The answer to if your friends all jumped off the bridge would you? is obviously yes, my friends aren't idiots and they haven't all lost their mind at the same exact time.

I'm not saying you should do it because of the fact that the rest of the world does it - this is merely evidence of its feasability.

You should do it because the alternative is downright dumb. That is to say, what you are doing right now is downright dumb.

If all my friends jumped off a bridge they must've had a really good reason to, so yes I might as well.

Same logic applies here. Just maybe, if everyone does it, we should consider it too.