If you object that this isn't sufficient for you or someone else, I'll be happy to argue that whatever behavior would make you 1040EZ-ineligible should either not be permitted in a free society (because it's a tax-avoidance scheme for certain types of rich people with political power) or should be taxed as W-2 income (because otherwise it'd become such a tax-avoidance scheme), but good luck getting the people who benefit from those schemes to allow it.
Foreign tax credits to balance out foreign taxes for overseas income is another thing that nixes an 1040EZ. That's a pretty tough one to argue against.
> Use this form if: Your taxable income (line 6) is less than $100,000.
For a lot of the folks on HN, I'd bet that isn't true.
At the end of the day, US taxes are super weird. This may be an overly simplistic view, but I'm definitely of the opinion that we need to drastically simplify taxes. Complex systems generally produce more opportunities for exploitation.
I wonder just how simple a viable tax system could be.
I assume that's because it gets vaguely into AMT territory (nothing in the normal 1040 changes at or even near $100K), and the AMT mostly exists because of the complications of tax law.
If I change jobs in the middle of the year and my income is high enough I might overpay social security taxes. There is no way to recoup that with the 1040EZ.
The solution to this is to do away with FICA taxes and fold collection of that money into the general tax tables (including the employer side of FICA which a lot of people forget). You may or may not be in favor of this idea?
Do we get more value out of charity donations by normal people than we lose in charities being used as a tax-privileged vehicle for rich people to exert their desire on the world?
Also, charitable donations have weird constraints. My church would like to end deportations of undocumented immigrants based on our reading of Leviticus 19:34, and the most effective way to do that would have been to campaign against certain presidential candidates. We couldn't do that. Another church wanted to end civil recognition of same-sex marriage based on their reading of Leviticus 18:22, but that involved campaigning for a ballot initiative, and they were allowed to do that to the tune of millions of dollars.
I'm obviously not inclined to say "Please start taxing my church," but the fact that we can participate essentially by chance in some political activities and not others doesn't seem like it would exist in a "free society".
First, your distinction between "normal people", which are moral, and "rich people", who are just evil, are kind of disgusting. Having a lot of money doesn't automatically make one evil (to remove all suspicion, I am not rich and likely never will be, at least by US standards :). I'm not sure what your point is there, but it doesn't sound good.
> the most effective way to do that would have been to campaign against certain presidential candidates
That's certainly not the most effective way. US law has very clear immigration provisions, which require certain documentation, and US president swears to uphold the law. Most efficient strategy would be to change the law, thus voting for specific - namely, open-border - candidate for Congress, that can change the law so that US has immigration procedures no longer, and thus does not have to deport people who violate them. Note that I did not say "efficient" but "most efficient" - I see no really efficient strategy that would make US a country without immigration law anytime soon, and having such law, it is natural to have to enforce it - otherwise there's no point in having it.
In any case, nothing prevents you to from campaigning for or against any policy or any candidate, be it open border or not, as a private person or as a part of an organized effort. Why you need the church to do it? Just create an independent organization and campaign as your hear pleases.
> I'm obviously not inclined to say "Please start taxing my church,"
If you register a non-profit and make all the requirements that tax-exempt non-profits have, and do charitable work and so on, nothing prevents you from calling your organization "church", but I don't see why doing so should give you any special status not available to any other nonprofit. And if it doesn't qualify as nonprofit, then it should be taxed by the same rules as the rest of organizations are.
If you object that this isn't sufficient for you or someone else, I'll be happy to argue that whatever behavior would make you 1040EZ-ineligible should either not be permitted in a free society (because it's a tax-avoidance scheme for certain types of rich people with political power) or should be taxed as W-2 income (because otherwise it'd become such a tax-avoidance scheme), but good luck getting the people who benefit from those schemes to allow it.