[HN Gopher] IRS details strategy for replacing its most ancient ...
___________________________________________________________________
IRS details strategy for replacing its most ancient computer code
(2020)
Author : CharlesW
Score : 35 points
Date : 2022-04-06 20:37 UTC (2 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (federalnewsnetwork.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (federalnewsnetwork.com)
| tomohawk wrote:
| > the code blocks IRS efforts to deploy a variety of digital
| services and to improve customer experience
|
| Sounds like a feature
| hanniabu wrote:
| Only if you're TurboTax
| tomohawk wrote:
| Replaing 200k lines of assembler with a mountain of Java code
| written as they describe seems like perpetual job security
| for TurboTax
| rbanffy wrote:
| > a mountain of Java code
|
| Each and every line written by whoever the lowest bidder
| managed to hire to do it.
| hindsightbias wrote:
| Way before Eth, the IMF code (and its business brother BMF) is
| the law. Think the MF is wrong? Open a case and wait a month for
| the tax code analyst (often a lawyer) to respond with a writeup
| why your intepretation of written tax code and regs is wrong and
| the MF is correct.
| humanwhosits wrote:
| Is it possible for a taxpayer to get a copy and dry-run it
| themselves?
| ajxs wrote:
| In France it is: https://framagit.org/openfisca/calculette-
| impots-m-source-co...
|
| The source code is actually available, written in a language
| called 'M'. It's been discussed a few times here on HN
| before: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25208853 (just
| to link one example).
| anoncow419 wrote:
| Someone should update this is from 2020?
| CharlesW wrote:
| Done, thank you!
| jiveturkey42 wrote:
| "Coded in assembly language 59 years ago, the IMF seems small, at
| 200,000 lines of code. But the nature of assembler is that each
| line does a lot. Somehow replicating the logic in a more
| contemporary language has resisted efforts dating back a couple
| of decades."
|
| Considering that average IQ has been dropping for decades in
| developed countries, one has to begin wondering if we are even
| capable of building code or infrastructure as well as they did
| 50-70 years ago
| dghlsakjg wrote:
| Technically the average IQ has always been exactly 100 if I'm
| not mistaken...
| [deleted]
| asperous wrote:
| IQ has actually been increasing
|
| https://ourworldindata.org/intelligence#by-country
| zionic wrote:
| That's only until 2013. As of 2020 the consensus is that the
| Flynn effect has reversed. We are in cognitive decline now.
| wins32767 wrote:
| The part that was shocking to me but shouldn't have been was the
| rationale for not using what sounds like a transpiler from
| Kennedy era Assembly to Java:
|
| > White added, "The Java that was created by the automatic tool
| [Wang's process] looked a lot like the ALC. However, it's not the
| kind of thing where we could hire a journeyman Java programmer
| off the street, and give it to him or her and and have that
| person be able to really understand what it was doing." IRS, he
| said, in effect would have replaced code it can still deal with,
| with code no one could.
|
| That's good engineering management right there.
| le-mark wrote:
| I actually picked up an old book on os/360 assembler at a library
| sale some years ago. Back in those days assembler was the what
| applications were coded in. Some of the airlines had their
| reservation systems in it until fairly recently. It's not bad so
| far as assemblers go.
| jsymolon wrote:
| It's not assembler that'll get ya, it's the JCL.
|
| Past Technical Lead, "Don't bother w/ creating the JCL, copy it
| from <this job>"
| exabrial wrote:
| How about we just replace the IRS instead? 5% flat VAT tax. No
| exceptions. No tax breaks. No more tax incentives.
|
| EDIT: Ope, my original point is a flat tax. I said VAT as I was
| trying to decide 'what' to tax in my head, and it seems thats
| what people are latching onto, instead of my three sentences
| following of "No exceptions".
| nathanvanfleet wrote:
| Making a really strong argument here.
| AnimalMuppet wrote:
| In general, I like the idea. Couple it with a UBI to protect
| the poor, and I like it a lot. (The poor pay very little income
| tax. They would have to pay the VAT. That would hurt them
| compared to the current system.)
|
| But that won't get you where you say you want to go. Who's
| going to collect that VAT, and make sure that everybody pays
| it? The IRS. Your approach would get rid of the tax code, but
| not the IRS. (In getting rid of the tax code, it would let you
| get rid of the computer code in question, though.)
|
| The other problem is, you can't implement a "soak the rich"
| approach with a VAT. And currently, there's a _lot_ of angst
| around wealth inequality, and most plans to do something about
| it involve taxing the rich more than everyone else. So your
| idea is fighting an enormous political headwind.
|
| You could propose something like VAT + income tax for those who
| make over $1 million/year or something...
| exabrial wrote:
| > You could propose something like VAT + income tax for those
| who make over $1 million/year or something...
|
| What did a person making $1m/year do wrong they are penalized
| unfairly against another person that doesn't? I have a
| feeling, much like now, all this accomplishes in reality is
| the rich hire good enough accounts to hide their largest sums
| from the IRS. That leaves the middle class and poor once
| again bearing everything... and we're back to where we
| started. Carving out 0 exceptions and sticking to it ensures
| that that literally nobody can say they are being treated
| unfairly.
| AnimalMuppet wrote:
| Well, spin it how you will, but we've had this idea of a
| "progressive" tax system for quite a while now.
| ("Progressive" in the sense that those who make more, pay
| more, presumably because they can afford it more.) Our tax
| system has been that way for more than a century. So, you
| can call that "penalized unfairly", and others can call it
| "paying their fair share", but the reality is that it is
| the current default option. If you want a different system,
| you're going to need a _lot_ better argument than
| "penalized unfairly". You're going to need an argument that
| can move the majority of voters, most of whom do not make
| more than $1 million/year.
|
| My previous point wasn't anything about "should", by the
| way. I was merely saying that, in the current political
| climate, _not_ hitting the rich harder was something that
| would make it harder for a VAT-only scheme to become
| reality.
| jfengel wrote:
| _You 're going to need an argument that can move the
| majority of voters, most of whom do not make more than $1
| million/year._
|
| Note that a lot of voters are convinced that they will
| make $1 million/year some day. Perhaps not today, but
| some day, and they seem happy to pay more today to ensure
| that they are not "penalized unfairly" when it's their
| turn.
|
| This is not necessarily a rational approach, since very
| few of them will ever earn that much money. But if your
| goal is to get votes, you can go a very, very long way
| with "penalized unfairly". Note how many oppose an
| inheritance tax that they'll never pay, simply by the
| expedient of dubbing it a "death tax".
|
| The "penalized unfairly" argument wouldn't wash with most
| economists, but there's not all that many of them. And
| nobody really listens to them anyway.
| TAForObvReasons wrote:
| VAT is generally considered to be regressive (lower and middle
| class people tend to spend a larger percentage of their income
| and therefore are disproportionally affected).
|
| The taxation system reflects our societal values to an extent:
| tax breaks incentivize some activities and excess taxes
| disincentivize. Pure VAT disincentivizes spending and rewards
| wealth hoarding.
| jonnycomputer wrote:
| A tax system can be regressive and more efficient. The
| regressivity of a tax system can be offset by benefits, such
| as UBI, etc. Why is it that Europe has less income inequality
| and VAT? Because it is offset with a generous welfare state.
| TAForObvReasons wrote:
| European countries also have significantly higher income
| and other taxes. For example, in Germany, the marginal
| personal tax rate above 57K euros per year is 42% and the
| top rate is 45%. In the US, at $100K the marginal rate is
| 24% and the _top_ marginal rate (above $540K) is 37%. That
| 8% difference at the top probably explains the income
| inequality situation moreso than any other difference
| noodlesUK wrote:
| I hear this from a lot of Europeans (I am also European),
| but it's not really an apples to apples comparison. In
| the UK for instance we have a higher income tax rate of
| 40%. The US 37% rate is lower (but also comes in at a way
| higher threshold). However, in the US you also have state
| income taxes which range from 0-12ish percent, so your
| overall tax rate can end up _higher_
| jakearmitage wrote:
| VAT hurts the poor and the middle class. Seems like a bad move
| when we have billionaires playing around with rockets in space.
| tablespoon wrote:
| > How about we just replace the IRS instead? 5% flat VAT tax.
| No exceptions. No tax breaks. No more tax incentives.
|
| How about we not? And instead of a some VAT flat-tax nonsense,
| how about progressive income and wealth taxes with no tax
| breaks or incentives at the higher brackets?
|
| Now that we've settled that, lets talk about the IRS's
| software.
|
| Edit:
|
| > EDIT: Ope, my original point is a flat tax. I said VAT as I
| was trying to decide 'what' to tax in my head, and it seems
| thats what people are latching onto, instead of my three
| sentences following of "No exceptions".
|
| That doesn't improve your point as much as you think it does.
| It's still the kind of tax proposal that the wealthy put out
| because it's friendly to them (e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wi
| ki/Steve_Forbes#Campaigns_for_pre...).
| kodah wrote:
| What are "the higher brackets"?
| deeptote wrote:
| Agreed, consumption taxes overwhelmingly favor the rich.
| zionic wrote:
| Progressive (numerically) taxes are socially regressive and
| profoundly unjust.
| tablespoon wrote:
| > Progressive (numerically) taxes are socially regressive
| and profoundly unjust.
|
| What do you mean, exactly? My intuition tells me the
| definitions you're assigning to "socially" and "unjust"
| would prove to be peculiar after being unpacked.
| pooper wrote:
| > No tax breaks. No more tax incentives.
|
| While I strongly disagree with the rest of the comment, I also
| am furiously in support of getting rid of all credits,
| deductions, exemptions, incentives, and so on.
|
| I think we need a VAT at the federal government level but we
| also need to increase the federal income tax on everyone. I
| would like this tax hike to pay for Medicare for all.
|
| Problem is that over sixty percent of the people seem satisfied
| with the current status of healthcare. Also I imagine they tend
| to vote in higher proportion than people like me. I have no
| idea how to fix this situation. Anyone have any thoughts?
| arghnoname wrote:
| I used to be vehemently in favor of medicare for all. I still
| see all the many problems in the American healthcare system I
| ever did, but I don't want medicare for all anymore. My faith
| in our political system and its authoritarian impulses makes
| the thought of our government having a monopoly on healthcare
| unacceptable to me.
|
| As someone who has been on both sides of this issue, I think
| this is common. It isn't about loving the private insurance
| companies--everyone knows they suck--it's about trusting that
| the government solution will be better. With our government,
| can you honestly and with full confidence say it would be? My
| confidence totally flipped. I'm more confident it would be a
| disaster than not and then would be weaponized politically.
| helloooooooo wrote:
| So you want to cause the greatest impact to those who spend the
| largest portion of income, rather than invest? This is frankly
| a terrible policy proposal and would only serve to harm the
| least well off. Leave it to Silicon Valley types who make a
| large enough fortune to retire by 40 to not understand the
| needs of those less well off.
| ghaff wrote:
| Wealthier people would love it. This was a pretty popular
| conservative tax proposal back in the 1980s or so. (Actually a
| flat VAT tax is even more regressive than a flat tax
| generally.)
| czbond wrote:
| "I will replace you with a small shell script". We only need
| taxes because of government. How about a law that shrinks the
| size of all governmental budgets and personnel by 3% every year
| until we decide to stop? We'll make do, I promise. Then our
| taxes naturally go down.
| glerk wrote:
| If we can dream of reforming the whole system, how about a
| voluntary tax in exchange for a governance stake? Like, the
| more tax I pay, the more say I have in the decisions my
| government makes?
| gleenn wrote:
| Sure if you want an even more contorted version of corporate
| America and to disenfranchise even more poor voters. I'm all
| for changing up the rules because there are plenty of
| problems but handing the government to the highest bidder
| sounds like a big step in the wrong direction
| Johnny555 wrote:
| Isn't that kind of where we are now? Wealthy people and large
| corporations have an outsized say in decisions by elected
| officials?
| jlawson wrote:
| Plutocracy.
| glerk wrote:
| Yep, plutocracy in the open without loopholes, lobbying and
| corruption. Just directly weigh the votes by the amount of
| participation to the common pot.
| meetups323 wrote:
| We already do, those taxes just go directly to the salaries
| of elected officials.
| exabrial wrote:
| In my opinion, I think a completely voluntary tax system is
| what we have to achieve as a race to get to the next level as
| a civilization. I think a flat tax is a step in the right
| direction because it eliminates an entire swath of
| corruption.
| colejohnson66 wrote:
| The US tried a voluntary tax system with the Articles of
| Confederation. It didn't work.
| night862 wrote:
| What about instead, make voting rights a promisory note which
| can be traded and sold?
|
| Eg, "My share of the House Rep vote from this Friday until
| next Tuesday" can be traded until "This Friday" for a
| "Burger" at Double Burger, or maybe some cash.
| jonnycomputer wrote:
| Its not that I disagree, I think the VAT is much better than an
| income tax; but that has nothing to do with the IRS. The IRS
| would still have to administer the collection of tax revenue.
| [deleted]
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-04-06 23:01 UTC)