tax freedom day – USA Gov Policy

Americans are filing their taxes today, but “Tax Freedom Day” won’t occur until April 24, one day later than last year, according to the Tax Foundation.

“Tax Freedom Day® is the day when the nation as a whole has earned enough money to pay off its total tax bill for the year. Tax Freedom Day provides Americans with an easy way to gauge the overall tax take-a task that can otherwise be daunting due to the multiplicity of taxes at various levels of government and “hidden” taxes and fees that are often buried in the cost of living. Tax Freedom Day computed by dividing total tax collections by the nation’s income, as reported by the Bureau of Economic Analysis. Every dollar that is officially called income by the government is counted, and every payment that is officially considered a tax is counted. The resulting percentage is then converted into days of a 365-day calendar year.”

It’s not only the amount of taxes that vexes Americans; it’s the complexity of the tax system.

The National Taxpayers Union Foundation (NTUF) has released a new annual study of tax code complexity in the U.S., “finding the economy lost $233.8 billion due to 6.1 billion hours of lost productivity (an estimated value of $202.1 billion) and $31.7 billion in out-of-pocket costs spent complying with a complex and invasive tax code.”

‘Americans face a rising tax complexity burden that essentially prevents anyone from being able to comply without assistance,’ Study author and NTUF Policy Analyst Michael Tasselmyer said. ‘This year’s study gives an indication of future challenges, revealing the additional complications the Affordable Care Act will add to the Tax Code and filing.’
“Additionally, a new analysis of the Affordable Care Act’s (ACA’s) impact on complexity found 3,322 pages of legal guidance related to the ACA added to IRS.gov – this overlaps partially with 1,865 pages of new ACA regulations.

“NTUF’s report also highlights complexity issues related to the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act (FATCA), heavier paperwork burdens, taxpayer service challenges, and identity theft.

“This year’s key findings include:

According to the IRS National Taxpayer Advocate, the total time burden of tax compliance totals an astounding 1 billion hoursthis year.
- That is the equivalent of 152.5 million 40-hour workweeks. It would take 59,580 American workers working every week with no days off from age 18 until reaching the full Social Security retirement age of 67, to account for that much time.
- Or, enough time for the Voyager spacecraft to fly to the nearest star (Proxima Centauri) and back four times!
Thus a man is able to get get cialis cheap midwayfire.com rid of Ed naturally. It also offers a significant approach to avail the drug has been admired because buying generic cialis of a number of males & led for destructive performance during foreplay. Thus physician will look for any sort online purchase viagra visit this drugshop of allergic disorder. One viagra levitra online thing else that you will realize…….all too soon.
The total compliance cost is $233.813 billiona year. More than the GDP of Ireland, Portugal, or Pakistan.
- Of this, individuals spend a combined $31.72 billiona year on tax software and other out-of-pocket costs.
- When calculated at the average hourly wage, the value of the labor involved in tax compliance is a jaw-dropping $202.093 billion.
NTUF found a staggering 3,322 pagesof legal guidancefor the Affordable Care Act added to IRS.gov – including regulations (1,077), Treasury decisions (1,377), notices (669), revenue procedures (100), and revenue rulings (12).
The Treasury’s paperwork burden (most of it due to taxes) imposed on the public has grown from 6.4 billion hours to 7 billion hours over the period from fiscal year 2005 to 2013, never making up less than 74 percent of the burden imposed by all government agencies combined.
With paid preparers and tax preparation software accounting for 94 percent of returns, it is nearly impossible for any taxpayer to file without assistance.Meanwhile, the average retail fee per return for H&R Block rose to a high of $215.
Most estimates put the length of the Tax Code at roughly 4 million words. This is seven timesthe length of Leo Tolstoy’s War and Peace; more than two times the length of the King James Bible plus the entire works of Shakespearecombined; or, for a more modern reference, well over twice the length of the five Song of Ice and Fireseries books that inspired the TV show “Game of Thrones.”
Over 75 years ago, the Form 1040 instructions were just two pages Today, taxpayers must wade through 209 pages of instructions, quadruple the number in 1985, the year before taxes were “simplified.”

“Between 2009 and 2011 the cost of tax complexity spiked from under $150 billion per year to well over $200 billion per year. It has not fallen below that threshold since, and 2015’s estimates are nearly $10 billion higher than last year, showing complexity costs are back on the rise.

‘The IRS has never had more power over America’s taxpayers, thanks to even greater cost and complexity added to the code by Obamacare and FATCA,’ added Tasselmyer. ‘Without reform there is little reason to expect anything other than a rising time and financial burden, not to mention more invasion of privacy.”

Quick Analysis

Judge Merchan continues to deny justice to Donald Trump

In August of 2024, we discussed the US Supreme Court’s decision in Trump v. United States. We described the three tiered system enunciated by Chief Justice Roberts to determine whether or not the actions taken by the President of the United States are entitled to immunity from criminal prosecution or not. The first tier are acts within the President’s constitutionally mandated authority which are subject to “absolute immunity.” The next are acts that may have “presumptive immunity,” and are subject to examination with evidence that rebuts the presumption of immunity. The third are acts which are unofficial, and which enjoy no immunity. In September, we also discussed the effect this decision should have on the New York County criminal case currently pending against President-elect Trump before Judge Juan Merchan. We cited to a CNN report, which described the evidence used against Donald Trump at the trial of that matter: “Trump’s lawyers pointed to testimony at trial – including from White House officials Hope Hicks and Madeleine Westerhout – they argued should not have come before the jury…'[a]ll of Hicks’s testimony concerning events in 2018, when she was serving as the White House Communications Director, concerned official acts based on [Presidential] authority for which President Trump is entitled to absolute immunity,’ Trump’s attorneys argued. ‘[the Supreme Court’s ruling] specifically forbids prosecutors from offering ‘testimony’ from a President’s ‘advisers’ for the purpose of ‘probing the official act.’” Sure enough, as Chief Justice Roberts stated in the Presidential Immunity decision, “[a]llowing prosecutors to ask or suggest that the jury probe official acts for which the President is immune would thus raise a unique risk that the jurors’ deliberations will be prejudiced by their views of the President’s policies and performance while in office. The prosaic tools on which the Government would have courts rely are an inadequate safeguard against the peculiar constitutional concerns implicated in the prosecution of a former President.” At the time, we stated that “Judge Merchan allowed testimony regarding Donald Trump’s official acts as President, acts which enjoy absolute immunity and which cannot be used against him, or even be entered into evidence in a criminal trial, a situation which could have been avoided had Judge Merchan delayed the trial until he’d received the guidance of the US Supreme Court.” Nonetheless, we predicted that Judge Merchan “will find a way to justify his actions once again, and let stand the unlawful conviction of former President Donald Trump.” You know how much we hate to say we were right…but…we were right. “This Court…finds that the evidence related to the [President-elect’s] claims relate entirely to unofficial conduct and thus, receive no immunity protections,” Judge Merchan wrote in his December 16, 2024 decision. “Further, even if this Court were to deem all of the contested evidence…as official conduct falling within the outer perimeter of Defendant’s Presidential authority, it would still find that the People’s use of these acts as evidence of the decidedly personal acts of falsifying business records poses no danger of intrusion on the authority and function of the Executive Branch, a conclusion amply supported by non-motive-related evidence.” In so ruling, the Court denied Donald Trump’s motion to dismiss his New York County conviction. Let us examine these findings, in light of the evidence admitted at the President-elect’s trial, and then compare that evidence to the acts granted absolute immunity by the US Supreme Court. In his decision, Judge Merchan discusses the testimony of Hope Hicks, who served as the Communications Director for the Trump White House. “Defendant argues that in her roles at the White House, any communications between Ms. Hicks and Defendant must receive absolute immunity…as Defendant’s ability to speak freely to Ms. Hicks was a core function of the Executive. According to Defendant, because Ms. Hicks wielded executive power on his behalf, authority that exists pursuant to Article II of the Constitution, any communications [President Trump] had with [Hicks] are subject to absolute immunity,” the Court wrote. Judge Merchan also noted that “[t]he People argue that the communications Defendant had with Ms. Hicks…constitute unofficial acts not entitled to any level of immunity.” In his inevitable agreement with the arguments presented by Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg’s office, Judge Merchan wrote “Defendant’s argument that any communication he had with Ms. Hicks is subject to absolute immunity by virtue of the position she held in the White House is mistaken…the President himself may speak in his unofficial capacity as a candidate or party leader, and certainly he can do so in his private capacity as well. Any argument that private conduct transforms into official conduct by communicating about the same to an individual with a particular title is without merit.” Thus, it is Judge Merchan’s position that the conversations Donald Trump had with his Communications Director are not entitled to immunity, even though those discussions were held at the White House, while Donald Trump was serving as President of the United States, merely because those discussions were not related to official Executive Branch activities. Sounds possibly reasonable – until you examine the Presidential Immunity decision more closely. In September, we wrote that “the statement made by Chief Justice Roberts in his majority opinion in the Presidential Immunity case [is significant]; ‘Presidents cannot be indicted based on conduct for which they are immune from prosecution…[t]estimony or private records of the President or his advisers probing such conduct may not be admitted as evidence at trial.’” This statement by Chief Justice Roberts points to a blanket immunity for ANY discussions had between the President and his advisors, regardless of the nature of those communications. Further, we noted that the Supreme Court issued the following warning: “[t]he government…contends that a jury could ‘consider’ evidence concerning the President’s official acts ‘for limited and specified purposes,’ and that such evidence would ‘be admissible.’” In rejecting that argument, Chief Justice Roberts states “[t]hat proposal threatens to eviscerate the immunity we have recognized. It would permit a prosecutor to do indirectly what he cannot do directly – invite the jury to examine acts for which a President is immune from prosecution […]