Thread

1. joegibbs · 1790897129 · focus · HN ↗

   There's one of mine in there where I predicted in 2023 that it would be 20 years until AI would be reliably able to entirely build and deploy arbitrary applications from a prompt. I was off by about 18 years on that one!

   1. ASalazarMX · 1790898900 · focus · HN ↗

      One challenge of mine is a self-hosted AI doing my full tax return, without errors that would get me in trouble. Bonus points if it exploits legal loopholes.

      I want AI to replace me in my chores, not in my enjoyable activities.

      1. tehjoker · 1790900377 · focus · HN ↗

         That particular one is solved in other countries. The tax authority just sends you a bill and you text yes or no. Only people with very complex situations need to file.

         They don't do this in this country because (a) it's a political project to make people to sympathize with the rich by feeling their pain (b) it's a great scheme for legalized corruption by creating incentives to build companies around a fake problem.

         1. AnthonyMouse · 1790919088 · focus · HN ↗

            > They don't do this in this country because (a) it's a political project to make people to sympathize with the rich by feeling their pain (b) it's a great scheme for legalized corruption by creating incentives to build companies around a fake problem.

            It's worse than that. Nobody is actually sympathizing with Mark Zuckerberg, the reason US taxes are complicated is so Congress can confuse people about how they really work.

            One of the examples in this thread is the complexity of the EITC. The EITC is one of the most "efficient" tax credits -- it's much better to give people money (or not take it from them to begin with) than having systems of complicated vouchers for some specific thing or another with a bunch of strings attached and bureaucratic paperwork. But that same efficiency means that if it was working as it was supposed do, most of the lower middle class would be getting a piece of it. So why is it so complicated?

            First, to hide this part of it: The end of the phase out range for an individual with no dependents, i.e. the most money they can make and still receive it, is $19,540. Which is to say, is less than what you make by working a full time job at the minimum wage in 30 states. None of those people get any of it. Neither do the people who are unemployed, because you also don't get it if you don't have any earned income. The primary way to receive any of it is to have a child -- but not too many of them, because you get no additional credit for having more than three. Moreover, the caps for married couples are only a little higher than they are for single people, so a married couple in California with two incomes gets nothing even if they have three children because the credit is fully phased out by making their state's minimum wage.

            And second, because if they make it complicated enough then even some of the people who are eligible for it won't notice.

            The combination of these is the reason a credit that should be going to a significant percentage of the population is somehow only ~1% of the federal budget. Because then Congress gets to pretend to be helping people while minimizing the amount of helping people they actually do.

            1. sokoloff · 1790933560 · focus · HN ↗

               It’s entirely fair to have a policy debate about how the phase in and phase out should work (what levels, what slopes, and what factors) or whether an Nth child should add to the EITC for various values of N.

               But realize that changing it is a policy debate not a “this should be going to a significant percentage of the population [but isn’t because of tax code complexity]” debate point.

               (I happen to agree with you that this type of credit is highly beneficial.)

               1. AnthonyMouse · 1790958503 · focus · HN ↗

                  It's not about whether the EITC is a good policy. If someone thinks it's a bad policy then they should argue that we shouldn't have it.

                  But that's a different matter than pretending to have it while disguising the fact that it's structured to make sure hardly anybody actually gets it beneath a layer of impenetrable complexity.

                  1. sokoloff · 1790960925 · focus · HN ↗

                     I'm not sure I follow exactly. I think of all tax policy as being "whatever the tax code says it is". There's no pretending; the policy is written and I don't know who or what is pretending to be different.

                     If EITC increases are capped at 3 children, it's because the policy that was passed made that choice. If we want to debate whether that cutoff should be 2 or 4, that's a valid policy debate.

                     If EITC credits are capped at just under $20K of income, that's perhaps because the policy targeted the very lowest income working poor and by policy did not allocate funds for the next tiers of income earners. Again, that's a policy debate to be had.

                     1. AnthonyMouse · 1790961304 · focus · HN ↗

                        So there's policy (we should have something in the general shape of a credit for working people who make below the median income) and there's policy (the amount of the credit is X if you're married and have two children and have a combined income of Y).

                        The issue is that Congress is making the details of the second type of policy complicated on purpose to conceal the fact that they're not really doing the first one, while making it seem like they are to mollify the people who want something like that.

                        1. sokoloff · 1790964049 · focus · HN ↗

                           > we should have something in the general shape of a credit for working people who make below the median income

                           That wasn't the framing of the EITC when introduced. The framing when introduced was in opposition to basic income proposed by Nixon and instead to offer a temporary stimulus via refundable credits to the working poor that would roughly offset their social security taxation, to ensure that "work pays more than welfare," and to try to stimulate the economy to exit the severe recession of 1974.

                           It had nothing to do with supporting working people in the 4th and 5th decile of income. Getting that policy agreed to is a policy debate that hasn't been had.

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.