As an Australian who moved to Sweden, I was amazed at how efficient the Swedish income tax process was. The government already knew everything they needed to calculate your return, and gave it pre-filled. There were not endless exemptions. Nobody at my work used an accountant, most approved their tax with a few clicks and were done. So much more efficient than in Australia!
In the UK if you're in full time employment and only have one job, then there's literally nothing to do. Not even clicking somewhere to approve your tax return - your employer does it all for you. I know people who are literally unaware when the tax year ends because they never in their entire adult lives had to do anything with the tax return - it's just completely irrelevant to a normal working person. And on the ocassion that you have to fill one out for whatever reason, most of it is already prefiled from the information HMRC holds about you already.
It's even better - they work out if you paid too much automaticallly and send you a check in the mail. Had 3 checks over the past decade or so from having time off between jobs but paying full rate for the remaining time. Nothing quite so satisfying as a £1000 check from HM Revenue and Customs!
I'd argue about the "very easily" point for IT workers in the UK, as 100k+ salaries are very rare, and if you get shares instead of cash it's still taxed as income and doesn't trigger a self assessment. Only if you hold onto them and only if you make more than the capital gains threshold, you have to fill out a self assessment.
But in either case - sure, but the system means absolutely no worries about your tax return for 90% of British employees.
I've received shares several times from the company where I work in the UK and every single time they have been taxed as income. If you are just given shares straight up then yes, they are subject to income tax on their worth at the time of acquisition.
I'm not sure what you mean? At the point of acquisition if you are given shares worth say £10k, it's the same as being given £10k cash, or £10k gift of some sort - you pay income tax based on the value of what you were given. It's different if you were given options - then the difference between your purchase price and sale price is taxed as capital gains with separate rules.
Because while I work for a British company the shares are awarded by our French HQ, so unfortunately none of those share planes are available in this case. The company employs 50k+ people globally and only HQ awards shares.
Also I'm not sure how much tax this would actually save - you can only get £3600 worth of shares tax free per year on the employee incentive plan(which seems closest to what I'm getting, flat number of shares after 4 years). That's a very....low amount.
The American tax system is similarly frustrating. I’m a senior engineer and I have a hard time navigating tax forms even with the help of Intuit, and it frustrates me that I have to pay Intuit (or someone else) to help me do taxes which are complicated in large part because Intuit et al lobby for complex tax codes and against the sort of Swedish model you describe.
Worse, when I moved to Chicago the state of Illinois wouldn’t even accept my taxes electronically because their form required one of a handful of authentication methods—the only one of which that ought to have worked for me was to use my Illinois driver’s license number—a 12 digit sequence; however, their form only permitted 8 digits. It was a significant hassle just to get them to take my money.
I’ve also had difficulties figuring out how much to withhold. In the US they give us a form that calculates “allotments” (or something—I forget the term) but it’s unclear whether more of those correspond to more or less withholdings and in any case the form computed incorrectly for me for several years (I’m sure it was user error somehow and senior engineers are just not reliably smart enough to figure it out, even with the help of HR) and I would end up owing thousands in taxes as well as a separate penalty for not withholding enough.
It’s maddening that our government makes it so difficult for earnest people to pay their taxes.
It's because they're trying to give people breaks on what they owe. The more money you make (and the more ways in which you make it), the more exemptions and breaks you tend to be eligible for, so the more complicated your taxes tend to be. A realistic simplified tax code would probably mean you, as a senior engineer, would pay much more in taxes, which would be fine with me! A properly-funded government can be a great boon to society. But you might not feel the same way, so be careful what you wish for.
Governments that can print money don’t need taxes to be funded, they can just print money. Taxation is more useful for redistribution, incentivizing behavior, and controlling the money supply/inflation - not funding the government.
> I’m a senior engineer and I have a hard time navigating tax forms even with the help of Intuit, and it frustrates me that I have to pay Intuit (or someone else) to help me do taxes which are complicated in large part because Intuit et al lobby for complex tax codes and against the sort of Swedish model you describe.
I don't think Intuit has anything to do with why the tax code is complex. Their lobbying is for making filling out the forms complicated, such as by stopping the IRS from pre-filling forms with the information they already have.
The tax code complexity almost all stems from people not wanting to pay tax. That complicated the code in two ways. First, it means that we get exceptions and special cases written into the code either because people that want to pay less tax convince Congress to make a special case for them or Congress takes advantage of the desire to pay less tax to provide exceptions to motivate people to change behavior.
Second, it means that if there is any ambiguity or wiggle room in interpreting something, someone will exploit that to pay less tax than Congress intended them to pay. The tax code gets patches to fix that, usually resulting in an increase in complexity.
A great example of the later was that a long time ago a big company was going to give shareholders a dividend. This would be taxes as ordinary income to the shareholders.
Someone came up with an idea to turn that into capital gains instead. Rather than give a divident, the company first did a stock split, say 100 for 99. So each 99 shares each stockholder held became 100 shares. This is not a taxable event.
Then the company did a stock buyback, 1 out of every 100 shares. That decreased each stockholders holding by 1%, so every 100 shares a stockholder held became 99, and the stockholder got some cash. That is a taxable event, but it is capital gains.
Net result: every stockholder ended up with the exact same percentage of the company that they started with, with some cash from the company, and got to pay the lower capital gains tax on that cash instead of the higher income tax.
The tax code was patched to fix that. Buybacks became ordinary income. But it didn't end there. Consider a family owned business owned by four members of the same family. One of them is moving away and will not be participating in the business. The company wants to buy him out. It was generally agreed that this was not a buyback to dodge taxes--it is a legitimate buyback and should get capital gains treatment.
And so the patch to fix the buyback tax dodge needs an exception to try to recognize "legitimate" buybacks. It ends up having a formula that involves looking at the distribution of ownership before and after the buyback and having several criteria for recognizing when the distribution change signifies a legit buyback that should get capital gains treatment.
This was a fairly simple instance, so it only added maybe a few paragraphs to the tax code, plus some more to the regulations.
But that sort of thing is all over the code, sometimes just adding a few sentences, and sometimes pages.
However, what are you missing is that there are exemptions available to you.
You could choose to use them (for example, the self education one) and get SEK5000-SEK10000 (~€500-€1000) BUT then you would have to fill out a tax return.
That is just one exemption. Another one relevant for our field is working from home. Similar amount.
In order to claim those, though, you will need to file a tax return. If you do not consider that money to be worth the time, then not filing one is a good choice.
The Australian system - which could definitely be improved by at least pre-filling things - forces you to actively choose to leave the money behind. The default in the UK, Europe and the Nordic countries is that the money is kept by the taxaxtion office.
Defaults are powerful. And they thank you for entrusting them with your extra SEK that you do not want to claim.
I’m pretty sure the system we have here in the US is designed to be complicated to encourage us to rely on tax filing companies. Also, a more complicated system is easier to game. Makes it easier for the rich to take advantage of loopholes.
I think a lot of it is the nudging that the US does with tax incentives. Taxes are often used as a way to economically nudge society toward desired outcomes.
Think tax breaks for solar panels or even just getting insulation added to your home. There are thousands of this type of tax break available to nudge people to move toward the gov's goals.
