Slashdot Mirror


Tracking Your Taxes

CTealL writes "Apparently Intuit thinks it's okay to share information about taxes with third paries. According to this article, Intuit is using a third party tracking technology on all tax forms submitted to the IRS. "We could capture your name, your Social Security number or any other information that you willingly pass to a Web site," acknowledged Matt Belkin, who serves as vice president of best practices for Utah marketing giant Omniture, which tracks the online activities of people using Intuit's TurboTax. The IRS disavows any knowledge of this, saying "The IRS does not take a position on Web tracking tools." Makes you wonder where your tax information is going..."

593 comments

  1. The moral of the story: by Future+Man+3000 · · Score: 5, Funny

    Paper has nothing on electronics for leaving a trail.

    --

    I never vote for anyone. I always vote against.
    -- W.C. Fields

    1. Re:The moral of the story: by Gentlewhisper · · Score: 5, Insightful

      No.. the true moral of the story is.. American corporate greed knows no bounds...

    2. Re:The moral of the story: by oirtemed · · Score: 5, Insightful

      shorten it to greed and you got it right. Americans are no worse than other humans.

    3. Re:The moral of the story: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Americans are no worse than other humans.
      And they're no better, either.

      I think our financial instutions need to be run by the bushmen because, well, they're just too damn innocent.

    4. Re:The moral of the story: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      I think the real story is don't be a fucking pussy and use software to do something as simple as taxes.

    5. Re:The moral of the story: by monkeydo · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Well this story would be interesting, if it weren't for the fact that people are willingly trusting the companies in question with their personal information. When Intuit asks for your SSN to prepare your return, it isn't exactly covert. If you don't trust them not to disclose it to other companies, then you should probably stop before this step.

      Yeah, they use third party web bugs, but they say that they don't send those bugs your private data. If you don't believe them when they say this, see above.

      --
      Si vis pacem, para bellum
      The only thing more annoying than a Libertarian is an (un|mis)informed Libertarian
    6. Re:The moral of the story: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Well, for those of us who don't have the benefit of a single W-2 from Burger King, tax preparation software can be very useful.

      My wife, who graduated from Pepperdine with a degree in accounting, has used TurboTax for years.

    7. Re:The moral of the story: by Zork+the+Almighty · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Our greed is eclipsed only by our stupidity.

      --

      In Soviet America the banks rob you!
    8. Re:The moral of the story: by hyfe · · Score: 1, Interesting
      shorten it to greed and you got it right. Americans are no worse than other humans.

      Aww.. come on, I might just be succombing to popular myths here, but I seriously don't think that is true.

      Morals and behaviour are what you make it out to be. Americans generally (or atleast; more than Europeans) equate money with success, have a high focus on making it the business-life and are generally extremely hard-working. Aswell,a larger percentage of Americans identify themselves by how much money they earn.

      Add up all those factors, and I'll think you'll end up with Americans being much more greedy than others.

      Just like Americans generally are more shallow (or rather, on the positive side; more friendly/open..which means pretty much the same just with different connotations) than Europeans, partly due to moving around more (more mobile work-force, lack of good social security making people have to move to where they get jobs) and thus less likely to keep the same friends for extended periods of time.

      --
      "" How about taking the safety labels off everything, and let the stupidity-problem solve itself? """
    9. Re:The moral of the story: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just like all Arabs are terrorists, the Chinese are hackers, French people are seriously into themselves, and Mexicans are thieves, right?

      OR

      you could stop and think that maybe you shouldn't take every stereotype in existance and believe it's true. If you honestly think that Americans are more 'shallow' than Europeons then you are a fool.

    10. Re:The moral of the story: by storm916 · · Score: 0

      I have just two words: Screw Intuit. I have never used their software, and now I never will. I won't even take up the IRS' offer to "upload" the money into my checking account. Things go wrong, maybe wrong account. As for Intuit, well sharing my personal information with a third party does not sit well. Not at all.

    11. Re:The moral of the story: by ikkonoishi · · Score: 1

      And our stupidity only by our blind luck

    12. Re:The moral of the story: by jcr · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Surely you realize that when you try to ascribe any characteristic to a couple hundred million people, you're going way out on a limb?

      I could just as well say that Europeans have nasty tendency to lump people together into groups.

      -jcr

      --
      The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    13. Re:The moral of the story: by barryman_5000 · · Score: 2, Funny

      No wait I got a better response . . . yeah and our blind luck . . . uh . . . is only passed by our uh . . . Ok, our stupidity exceeds all.

    14. Re:The moral of the story: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Aw come on, not everyone gets to file a 1040 EZ - just you McDonald's workers who live in their parent's basements.

    15. Re:The moral of the story: by CastrTroy · · Score: 1

      Maybe we should just remove the addition (+) button from software based calculators since doing such a trivial thing as addition should not be done with software. Maybe we should do away with word processors, since writing something is so simple, it shouldn't be done using software.

      --

      Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
    16. Re:The moral of the story: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


      I hadn't thought of the latter point, being American, but it makes sense. There is a book called The Nine Nations of North America. Perhaps shallowness has helped preserve the union since we seldom begin to conceive how different we are from region to region.

      On the other hand, the fact that Americans either can't or won't read and are a cultureless society run by a warrior class governing with a cooperative media that actively keeps people dumbed down isn't pretty.

      And, on topic, the God-given right to collect consumer information at every possible opportunity in a subject consumer's life doesn't seem like a sacred principle in every world culture.

    17. Re:The moral of the story: by hyfe · · Score: 1
      That's just because you're misattrubuting. I'm not putting you into a group which define who you are, what you eat and who your friends are. I am merely making the observation that a larger percentage of americans seem to be deeply concerned with wealth than what I've noticed in Europe. Others have done this observation too, so it isn't exactly ground-breaking news.

      Just because the data-set is large doesn't mean there isn't tendencies. In this case, I believe the tendencies to be fairly clear, just ask just about any European who've worked in the US.

      I would also like to point out that I used 'greedy' more as in 'concerned with wealth' than 'not generous/giving'.

      --
      "" How about taking the safety labels off everything, and let the stupidity-problem solve itself? """
    18. Re:The moral of the story: by hyfe · · Score: 2, Insightful
      If you honestly think that Americans are more 'shallow' than Europeons then you are a fool.

      I do, I honestly do.

      As for you not believing there are any differences, well.. you live in an extremely large fairly homogenous country, which is built upon the foundation of pretending you're all alike.

      Just here in Scandinivia there is a distinct difference between Danish and Norwegians. I attribute this mostly to the fact that Denmark has better weather and get to spend more time outside, aswell as Denmark carving out an existance as a small country right next to so many big ones. In norway, we spend most our time inside quite simply because of the fact that it's freezing outside.

      --
      "" How about taking the safety labels off everything, and let the stupidity-problem solve itself? """
    19. Re:The moral of the story: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Quit responding to this TROLL. (dang. i did too, I suppose)

    20. Re:The moral of the story: by TGK · · Score: 1

      Americans aren't more shallow, but we're part of a culture that places less value on the small buisness. As a consequence, mass produced goods and massive marketplaces stressing materialistic objectives prevail over small buisnesses stressing community and quality.

      A large part of this culture comes from the rediculous abundance of land upon which to build Super Duper Mega Walmarts. Europe's longer history and smaller land mass contributes to smaller lot sizes and denser cities, which in turn creates a demand for small buisnesses serving an area of a few blocks rather than the city serviging big box stores more common in the US.

      Similar pressures allow Americans to engage in an orgy of real estate, buying up huge amounts of land and putting yet huger houses on it. Europe had a period in which this was common as well, though most of those homes have become tourist attractions.

      --
      Killfile(TGK)
      No trees were killed in the creation of this post. However, many electrons were inconvenienced.
    21. Re:The moral of the story: by Clay+Pigeon+-TPF-VS- · · Score: 1

      Reducto ad absurdum...

      --
      Viral software licensing is not freedom, it is in fact GNU/Socialism.
    22. Re:The moral of the story: by hyfe · · Score: 1
      Well..

      The American workforce is more mobile, and Americans move around alot more than Europeans.
      The American generally has a larger set of people he considers friends

      These two stetements are facts. Along with a little opinionated prejudice, I translates this to 'shallow'. However, as I said in first post, shallow is just open and friendly with a different connotation.

      --
      "" How about taking the safety labels off everything, and let the stupidity-problem solve itself? """
    23. Re:The moral of the story: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Good point :)

      I saw one in Granada, Spain. Its a marvelous palace build when Arabs were the lords of Spain...

    24. Re:The moral of the story: by CastrTroy · · Score: 2, Insightful

      But the grandparent said that doing you taxes with software was stupid because doing taxes is so simple. I can think of many things that are more simple than filing a tax return, and many of them are done using software. There are very few people who do their own taxes, hence the large tax filing business sector. Being it real people, or software doing the taxes for you. I think the real problem is that people are too afraid to screw up the calculations and what will happen to them if they do.

      --

      Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
    25. Re:The moral of the story: by QMO · · Score: 2

      You're a little contradictory there.

      "fairly homogeneous country" implies we're all somewhat similar.
      "pretending you're all alike" implies that we're not, in fact, very similar.

      That statement alone, even without your other wildly unreasoned opinions, convinces me to disbelieve you.

      If you think that the culture in Wyoming is the same as the culture in rural Virginia is the same as the culture in New York City is the same as the culture in Phoenix, AZ, you're clueless.

      --
      Exam 4/C again. Maybe I'll do better this time.
    26. Re:The moral of the story: by kpwoodr · · Score: 1

      > I could just as well say that Europeans have nasty tendency to lump people together into groups.


      But you wouldn't say that because you know that people who make broad generalizations are idiots

      --
      This sig has been removed pending an investigation.
    27. Re:The moral of the story: by hyfe · · Score: 1
      Well.. in some respects I most certainly am clueless about the cultural differences inside the US.

      I do not however think I am contradictory. Fairly homegeneous as in 'quite alot more homogenous than Africa, Europe or Asia'. 'Pretending you're all alike' as in 'an emphasis on considering the common factors, rather than focusing on the differences'.

      --
      "" How about taking the safety labels off everything, and let the stupidity-problem solve itself? """
    28. Re:The moral of the story: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ....Just like Americans generally are more shallow (or rather, on the positive side; more friendly/open..which means pretty much the same just with different connotations) than Europeans, partly due to moving around more (more mobile work-force, lack of good social security making people have to move to where they get jobs) and thus less likely to keep the same friends for extended periods of time

      Our president may be contacting you about a job soon. Can you (seriously) believe that "the war on terror has made our nation [the USA] safer"? If so you could stand to make loads of money running part of one of the bigger crime syndicates in history!

      Beleive it or not; I'm one of those crazy US Americans that dosn't use money. I've got about $20 in one's and change I keep for travel emergencies, and I have the equivalent of about $200 invested in a local currency that my co-op uses.

      My main "currency" is the food I grow. If you equate Americans success with currency, well then, I am very successful.

    29. Re:The moral of the story: by Short+Circuit · · Score: 1

      That statement alone, even without your other wildly unreasoned opinions, convinces me to disbelieve you.

      Try not to disbelieve something that really exists. It'll still hurt when he punches you.

      *ducks*

    30. Re:The moral of the story: by Equinox11 · · Score: 1

      Lesson learned years ago: Stay away from Intuit. I was a loyal turbotax customer for YEARS.. Never considered purchasing anything else, then they came out with their fancy DRM crap and I've never purcahsed from them since... A company that does that clearly does not care about their customers.. And this is just more proof.

    31. Re:The moral of the story: by tobiasly · · Score: 1
      shorten it to greed and you got it right. Americans are no worse than other humans.

      Good point. We Americans might be better at it than most, but that doesn't mean the motivation isn't there in everyone!

    32. Re:The moral of the story: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      These two stetements are facts. Along with a little opinionated prejudice, I translates this to 'shallow'. However, as I said in first post, shallow is just open and friendly with a different connotation.

      So may we also conclude that Europeans are more dick-like? After all, dick-like is just not open and not friendly with a different connotation. Also explains why Europe is weak on political issues, because only pussies like dicks.

    33. Re:The moral of the story: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is genetic preposition and cultural background.
      USA culture has tainted the culture of most of this world.

    34. Re:The moral of the story: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      On the other hand, the fact that Americans either can't or won't read and are a cultureless society run by a warrior class governing with a cooperative media that actively keeps people dumbed down isn't pretty.

      +1, Slashdot liberal/socialist anti-corporate troll

    35. Re:The moral of the story: by jsight · · Score: 1

      The American workforce is more mobile, and Americans move around alot more than Europeans.


      Is that true at all? I certainly haven't seen that most Americans around here move much at all.
    36. Re:The moral of the story: by baerm · · Score: 1
      No.. the true moral of the story is.. American corporate greed knows no bounds...

      shorten it to greed and you got it right. Americans are no worse than other humans.


      I think you want to keep the term 'corporate' though. Corporations are greedier than humans.
      (IMO and all that ;)
    37. Re:The moral of the story: by naoursla · · Score: 1

      length it to corporate greed and you got it right. The only goal a public corporation is allowed to pursue is that of obtaining money. Humans don't have that contraint.

    38. Re:The moral of the story: by monkeydo · · Score: 1

      Now you are going to have to explain WTF greed has anything to do with the story.

      Intuit says they use web bugs to improve the users experience. Those greedy bastards! Wanting to monitor progress on their website so they can identify breakdowns and trouble spots!

      Secondly, Intuit says that none of the monitoring bugs collect private information. Maybe you believe them, maybe you don't. But the people who have decided to use their website to prepare their taxes have already made the decision to trust Intuit with this information. They say they aren't abusing that trust. Do you have evidence that they are?

      --
      Si vis pacem, para bellum
      The only thing more annoying than a Libertarian is an (un|mis)informed Libertarian
    39. Re:The moral of the story: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      shorten it to greed and you got it right. Americans are no worse than other humans

      Quite true, but corporate greed, if exhibited in an actual human being, would pretty much classify the person as a psychotic. This, of course, applies to any corporation, regardless of nationality.

      There's a difference between taking the last corn on the cob at the dinner table, and destroying livelihoods, retirement plans, and the environment in pursuit of more favorable 3rd quarter numbers. It's akin to starving everyone else at the table so you can say you maximised your corn on the cob usage efficiency...

      TFOAE

    40. Re:The moral of the story: by hyfe · · Score: 1
      Yes it is.

      Atleast in the 1980's Americans lived on average ~8 years in the same area (I don't know how this was defined), while Europeans lived ~16 years. As far as I remember, the study tried to only include the active work-force.

      --
      "" How about taking the safety labels off everything, and let the stupidity-problem solve itself? """
    41. Re:The moral of the story: by mutterc · · Score: 1
      The effects of greed are more widely felt / seen in America, because of our economic system. We have (more or less) laissez-faire capitalism, and a stock market that's priced on profit growth rate (and is the source of most executive compensation).

      This leads to businesses having a need to continually increase their profit growth rate, no matter how well they're doing currently. Eventually they run out of ways to do this by selling better products or providing better service, so they turn to "business models."

      Because we like our laissez-faire system, regulation is not going to kick in until the problems get pretty severe. Also, we have this belief (perpetuated by big business, maybe?) that private industry can do anything better than the government. (The reality, of course, being that private industry can do anything cheaper than the government).

      Either that belief (or lobbying by tax software companies) led to the project we're now complaining about: rather than the IRS developing an e-file website, let private companies do it.

    42. Re:The moral of the story: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      They say they aren't abusing that trust. Do you have evidence that they are?

      They just said they are! Selling your tax return info to third parties.

    43. Re:The moral of the story: by Psyborgue · · Score: 1

      I am American but spent a good time growing up in Europe. I would actually have to aggree with your position. There is the "bling bling" and a much higher level of commercial obsession in the US than in europe.

      I would say it is a cultural difference more than anything else. We are told from birth that we are the greatest country in the world. That kind of indoctrination breeds self-rightious nationalism. Not patriotism. There is a difference between elevating the self, and elevating the self over others. We too easily forget that we are all in this together.

      I'm proud to be an American, for what our country stands for (or at least, stood for). And I would be doing my country a disservice if I did not point out flaws when i percieve them.

    44. Re:The moral of the story: by Psyborgue · · Score: 1

      "Also, we have this belief (perpetuated by big business, maybe?) that private industry can do anything better than the government."

      Is there really a difference anymore?

    45. Re:The moral of the story: by gwait · · Score: 1

      Well, there's two kinds of people,
      those who divide the world into two kinds of people,
      and those who don't....

      --
      Bavarian Purity Law of Rice Krispie Squares: Rice Krispies, Marshmallows, Butter, Vanilla.
    46. Re:The moral of the story: by gymell · · Score: 1

      How about changing it to governmental greed, and then you'll really be right. The only goal of government is to gain more power, doing so through its exclusive right to use force. Corporate greed wouldn't be possible without the greed of government. So for every act of corporate greed, remember that there had to be some greedy, power-hungry politician there first to enable it.

    47. Re:The moral of the story: by naoursla · · Score: 1

      Greed was not the driving force in the creation of laws that allow corporations to exist. I don't think the original lawmakers expected corporations to act in quite the manner as they do today.

    48. Re:The moral of the story: by japhmi · · Score: 1

      Are people in the US more greedy, or are we just more honest about being greedy?

      --
      "Giving money and power to government is like giving whiskey and car keys to teenage boys" P. J. O'Rourke
    49. Re:The moral of the story: by jcr · · Score: 1

      I am merely making the observation that a larger percentage of americans seem to be deeply concerned with wealth than what I've noticed in Europe. ...and you base this assertion on a sample of what size, hmm?

      -jcr

      --
      The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    50. Re:The moral of the story: by percy69 · · Score: 1

      Maybe the emphasis should be on "no better."

  2. eFoiling by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Redundant

    This is why I wear a tinfoil hat while I do my e-File return.

    1. Re:eFoiling by William+Robinson · · Score: 0

      Oh .. it was you ... I kept getting Destination Unreachable.

  3. Legitimate by Yeldarb-7 · · Score: 1

    Are there [i]any[/i] honest companies left who actually care about the end user? The little guy?

    1. Re:Legitimate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      That depends...how much money do you got to spend?

    2. Re:Legitimate by Yeldarb-7 · · Score: 1

      Sorry, that was supposed to be "any" - I'm growing too accustomed to BBS's that don't allow HTML but rather use their own markup code.

    3. Re:Legitimate by Bad+D.N.A. · · Score: 1

      NO

      --
      "Truth is much too complicated to allow anything but approximations"
    4. Re:Legitimate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are there enough little guys who actually care?

    5. Re:Legitimate by firephreek · · Score: 1

      Can you say Free File? Look into it. Over 10 million people every year, their taxes are prepaired and filed for free. Real real greedy that whole, use-our-site-and-servers-and-we'll-give-you-the-so ftware-you-need-to-help-you-do-your-taxes-instead- of-dealing-with-numerous-complex-forms-and-we'll-e ven-do-it-all-for-free thing is isn't it?

    6. Re:Legitimate by Lshmael · · Score: 1

      It's not for free if they sell your personal data to Omniture.

    7. Re:Legitimate by DuctTape · · Score: 1
      Are there any honest companies left who actually care about the end user? The little guy?

      Okay, here ya go:

      1. What are you smoking? I want some.

      2. What country do you think you're talking about?
      A: The United States of Corporate Slaves and Their Masters

      3. No, seriously, what are you smoking?

      4. Get back to work, you!

      DT

      --
      Is this thing on? Hello?
    8. Re:Legitimate by maxpublic · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Companies, being fictional entities, don't have the capacity to give a shit. The people that run those companies do but choose not to, since they don't really give a damn whether you or live or die so long as they get a cut of your paycheck while you're still drawing breath.

      Too many people blame faceless 'companies', 'corporations', or 'governments'. But let's remember: we're getting bent over and reamed by our neighbors. They're the ones fucking us over and fucking us up. Everyone who actively supports the organization that's screwing you is part of the problem whether they revel in it or willfully choose to ignore their complicity.

      The ethics of the company, corporation or government is a reflection of its constituent members. If the organization acts maliciously it's because it's composed of malicious human beings - or at least a combination of the malicious and apathetic, and I'm not sure which of these two is morally more debased.

      Max

      --
      My god carries a hammer. Your god died nailed to a tree. Any questions?
    9. Re:Legitimate by mutterc · · Score: 1
      Are there any honest companies left who actually care about the end user? The little guy?
      Yes. Some small businesses do care about selling a good product and/or providing quality service, at a fair price.

      Once a company ends up with more than a certain number of investors, a majority of investors / controlling interest will be in it just for short-term profits. At this point, the company must act in a way I would term "antisocial", to preserve continuous profit increases.

      This antisocial behavior includes lock-in, FUD, driving down product quality while not reducing price, moving to anti-consumer business models such as subscriptions, etc. (In fact, I would characterize anything that someone would describe as a "business model" as antisocial. Nobody ever describes selling a quality product with good service at a fair price as a "business model").

      Note that I am not saying that all small businesses act ethically. I am saying that only small businesses (in terms of number of investors) can act ethically. Think of the degenerate case of a sole proprietorship (one investor) - that company will act with the ethics of its owner, a human, so it could conceivably cover the entire range of human ethics.

    10. Re:Legitimate by firephreek · · Score: 1

      Did you read the article? Omniture is a company hired to compile data and statistics on TurboTax Web site usage. They don't sell any data and they don't give Omniture the right to use or distribute any identifiable information. Intuit isn't 'selling' any data on its users. Try again.

    11. Re:Legitimate by Lshmael · · Score: 1
      I think give is the operative word there. Intuit could easily decide to give Omniture the right to use your personal information, as the article notes:
      "We could capture your name, your Social Security number or any other information that you willingly pass to a Web site," acknowledged Matt Belkin, who serves as vice president of best practices for Utah marketing giant Omniture, which tracks the online activities of people using Intuit's TurboTax. But he said Omniture doesn't do this. The reason, he said, is that client companies don't authorize Omniture to do it.
      What would happen if Intuit decided to change this policy? Would FreeFile help you? No. That is the point of the article.
    12. Re:Legitimate by NichardRixon · · Score: 1
      Max writes, "Companies, being fictional entities, don't have the capacity to give a shit. The people that run those companies do but choose not to, since they don't really give a damn whether you or live or die so long as they get a cut of your paycheck while you're still drawing breath."

      Max, I'd like to amplify your observations.

      It has become the mindset of publically held corporations (which is to say the people who control them) that their only allegience is to the shareholder. Business operations no longer concern themselves with issues of morality, rather the question is what actions best please the shareholders. The welfare of employees and customers is considered only to the extent that analysts believe the business interests--profit--will be thereby enhanced.

      This condition has come about because no one feels personally responsible. The corporation, since it only exists as a legal entity, is amoral. As prime directive corporate executives and most managers feel obliged to carry out the wishes of the corporation, which wishes only for more and greater profit. If rules are broken and people are hurt, it's the corporation's fault, not theirs.

      Even law carries little weight on it's own within the corporation. If a desired action requires that the laws be broken, the only question is whether the consequences, if there are any, will outweigh the benefits. Everything boils down to the same cost/benefit analysis.

      No one talks about these things, but that's the way it is. In the U.S., in Europe. Anywhere you care to look. Sure, there are still a few private companies that haven't lost their sense of right and wrong. Some even remain very successful, but there aren't many left.

      What corporations have forgotten is that they ultimately pay for misdeeds comitted in their names, and for that you can blame the western tendency to go for the quick payoff. Short term mentality forgets that what goes around comes around.

  4. Try to hack this... by kwoo · · Score: 1, Insightful

    A HP48GX and a #2 pencil. Straight into the envelope.

    It's slower than an e-file, but far more anonymous, providing you don't put a return address on the envelope.

    1. Re:Try to hack this... by John+Seminal · · Score: 2, Funny
      It's slower than an e-file, but far more anonymous, providing you don't put a return address on the envelope.

      And for complete anonymity, take your thumb, lick it, and rub over your social security numbers til you can't read it any more. Hey, that is what general Shwarzkaupf did with his map of vietnam. Cambodia? Cambodia is miles from here. :p

      --

      Rosco: "If brains were gunpowder, Enos couldn't blow his nose."

    2. Re:Try to hack this... by kwoo · · Score: 4, Funny
      And for complete anonymity, take your thumb, lick it, and rub over your social security numbers til you can't read it any more.

      I would love to, but there's this little problem that brings up later in the process... :P

    3. Re:Try to hack this... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's slower than an e-file, but far more anonymous, providing you don't put a return address on the envelope.

      Anonymous? No return address? How are you filing a tax return anonymously? And what are you putting as your address? If you put a PO Box and you have a real address, you're actually breaking the law. And besides, when you signed up for that PO Box you were supposed to give them your address. It's just security through obscurity Mr. kjwcode@gmail.com.

    4. Re:Try to hack this... by kwoo · · Score: 1
      Anonymous? No return address? How are you filing a tax return anonymously?

      Okay -- first things, first, breathe. There you go. Oxygen to your brain will help you understand what I'm about to say.

      And what are you putting as your address?

      My correct address -- inside the envelope.

      If you put a PO Box and you have a real address, you're actually breaking the law. And besides, when you signed up for that PO Box you were supposed to give them your address.

      Not here in Canada it isn't. Also, do you think the people at Mailboxes, Etc. are going to spend a whole lot of time verifying addresses for ten dollar per month mailboxes? Not that it matters -- I don't have one.

      It's just security through obscurity Mr. kjwcode@gmail.com.

      Maybe you should learn what a term means before you use it. By the way, I'm thrilled you can read through Slashdot's email-obscuring-tactic-of-the-week. Has it occurred to you that people are supposed to be able to figure that out?

    5. Re:Try to hack this... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What do you mean you don't have an address? Do you live under a bridge?

    6. Re:Try to hack this... by kwoo · · Score: 1
      What do you mean you don't have an address? Do you live under a bridge?

      Of course I have an address -- "Under the Mackenzie Highway overpass near kilometre 312, west side". :P

    7. Re:Try to hack this... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A HP48GX and a #2 pencil. Straight into the envelope.

      The HP printer subtly encodes its serial number into every page it prints. Seriously. Hope you bought yours with cash!

      HP requires its sales channels to report the end-user's name & address whenever possible. Oh, but that is for commission tracking... of course...

    8. Re:Try to hack this... by jchart · · Score: 0

      If you don't have an HP48GX, print (or transcribe) Turbo Tax output to IRS forms and then mail them - leaving off the return address of course. Snail mail is the paranoid's best friend.

    9. Re:Try to hack this... by MrBlue+VT · · Score: 1

      Just FYI, the HP48GX is a calculator, not a printer.

    10. Re:Try to hack this... by MrBlue+VT · · Score: 1

      I don't get this. Why leave off the return address on the envelope? The IRS knows anyway. You have to put it on the form, and anyone who cared enough to copy your return address from the envelope could simply open up the envelope and get it that way. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that something addressed the IRS will most likely have your name, SSN and address on the inside!

  5. END OF THE WORLD IS NEAR! by OverlordQ · · Score: 5, Informative

    "We could capture your name, your Social Security number or any other information that you willingly pass to a Web site," acknowledged Matt Belkin, who serves as vice president of best practices for Utah marketing giant Omniture, which tracks the online activities of people using Intuit's TurboTax.

    But he said Omniture doesn't do this. The reason, he said, is that client companies don't authorize Omniture to do it.


    Yes they *can*, but do they? *no*

    --
    Your hair look like poop, Bob! - Wanker.
    1. Re:END OF THE WORLD IS NEAR! by Aeiri · · Score: 1

      But he said Omniture doesn't do this. The reason, he said, is that client companies don't authorize Omniture to do it.

      Yes they *can*, but do they? *no*


      So if they steal some of those SS#s, it's okay, because they weren't authorized to do it. Since they weren't authorized, that data can't be used for identify theft or anything.

      They have access to all of the information, and with the company being called "Utah marketing giant Omniture", that's not very encouraging. ONE rogue employee is all it takes for SS#s to get compromised.

      Let's all put our trust into a big corporation. Since that place is run by regular people, just look at the people in your office, school, neighborhood, whatever. Would you want any of them to have access to your SS#?

    2. Re:END OF THE WORLD IS NEAR! by mzwaterski · · Score: 2, Insightful

      By filing with Intuit you have already put your trust into a big corporation. Many Intuit employees have access to your personal information. ONE rogue employee from Intuit could compromise your SSN. Why would you be so trusting of Intuit but not Omniture?

    3. Re:END OF THE WORLD IS NEAR! by _Sharp'r_ · · Score: 1

      Yeah, really. The next story will be:

      *** NEWSFLASH ***
      "Web Logs" on most websites could be used by the site owner to track your every page request!

      --
      The party of stupid and the party of evil get together and do something both stupid and evil, then call it bipartisan.
    4. Re:END OF THE WORLD IS NEAR! by aztektum · · Score: 1
      We don't choose who our information goes to anymore.

      I was conversing with a friend who's working with a company that processes claims for class action lawsuits. Right now they're working on a huge one against an insurance company; doctors seeking reimbursement for services that the insurer didn't pay out.

      The claims are sent in with patients names, SS#'s, and medical information pertaining to the claim. Since the suit was so large and there's a ton to process, the company brought in ~100 temps who sit there reading through people's health information while they work.

      Your information has passed before more eyes and through more hands than you can count on the fingers and toes of you and ten people you know.

      The best you can do is keep an eye on your bank/cc statements, your credit report and cross your fingers and hope they pick the next guy in the stack to try and screw.

      --
      :: aztek ::
      No sig for you!!
    5. Re:END OF THE WORLD IS NEAR! by That's+Unpossible! · · Score: 1

      By filing with Intuit you have already put your trust into a big corporation.

      At least I have some recourse when that big corporation screws up.

      The government already has my social security number... what do I do when one of the millions of employees of the government goes rogue and steals my SSN?

      --
      Ironically, the word ironically is often used incorrectly.
    6. Re:END OF THE WORLD IS NEAR! by Rakishi · · Score: 1

      Hell, even in a hospital your medical files go through tons of people (or at least they have access to them, I think someone did a count for a routine operation and it reached over 70). And thats not counting all the unofficial ways your info gets around (ie: "hey, Bob you wouldn't belive this patient I got..." etc.).

    7. Re:END OF THE WORLD IS NEAR! by prockcore · · Score: 1

      Why would you be so trusting of Intuit but not Omniture?

      Yeah.. plus, as an Omniture customer, I'm not completely sure they're the genius overlords people make them out to be.

      here is a sample of what an actual omniture tracking bug looks like. It's a bit of javascript, an img tag and some categorization variables. (Ours is slightly different than the sample code macromedia has.. because each customer's tracking bug is customized by omniture)

      We don't give omniture our server logs (hell, we don't even have them turned on).

      Now looking at today's reports, omniture claims that 124 people have hit our index page using Lynx. How can they know that? Lynx doesn't run javascript, and doesn't load imgs... so a Lynx browser should be totally hidden from them.

      What's even more suprising is that Omniture claims that 4 people have hit our index page using "wget (unknown version)".

      While omniture does provide some amazing statistics... the magical tracking of Lynx and wget make me suspicious.

    8. Re:END OF THE WORLD IS NEAR! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Take your facts elsewhere fool. This site is only for FUD.

      OMG BILL GATES EATS PUPPIES!!!!!!!

  6. National sales tax now by panxerox · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Its time to crush this 30 year old unholy alliance between the IRS and the 3 party tax prep companys. The tax system has become like the legal system - a systematic exploitation of the American people to keep an elite in business, in this case IRS agents and retired IRS agents.

    --
    "It's so convenient to have a system where everyone is a criminal" - A. Hitler
    1. Re:National sales tax now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm starting to understand the group alignment classifications for the IRS group in the Illuminati cardgame.
      "Government, Criminal"

    2. Re:National sales tax now by ScentCone · · Score: 4, Insightful

      tax system has become like the legal system - a systematic exploitation of the American people to keep an elite in business, in this case IRS agents and retired IRS agents.

      Except, all they do is function to collect what the tax code says they should. Don't like it? You have to change the law. Fix it in congress, thus treating the problem, not the symptom.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    3. Re:National sales tax now by Quarters · · Score: 4, Insightful
      A national sales tax is the most regressive form of taxation imaginable. The tax system now is (mostly) fair. Everyone pays a % of their earnings.

      The problem with a national sales tax is that middle to low income earners spend a larger percentage of their earnings. Upper class earners spend a much smaller percentage of their wages. A national sales tax would hurt low wage earners the most as they would be using the majority of their wages on food & basic necessities. The little $ they might have left after their purchases and their tax burden won't be enough for an adequate savings.

    4. Re:National sales tax now by John+Seminal · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Its time to crush this 30 year old unholy alliance between the IRS and the 3 party tax prep companys. The tax system has become like the legal system - a systematic exploitation of the American people to keep an elite in business, in this case IRS agents and retired IRS agents.

      The national sales tax has nothing to do with third party tax preperation services.

      If you want to fix the tax system, how about closing the loopholes the rich use? Wouldn't that be a better place to start. To remove their tax shelters.

      To be fair, democrats are doing it too. Look at John Edwards. Before he was elected to the Senate, he worked as a liability lawyer. He won a big case, and had $600,000 in taxes due. Instead, he formed a corporation and using tax laws, did not pay one penny. He kept all the money for himself. Republicans do it far more often then democrats, but that is only because most democrats are dirt poor.

      --

      Rosco: "If brains were gunpowder, Enos couldn't blow his nose."

    5. Re:National sales tax now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The problem with a national sales tax is that middle to low income earners spend a larger percentage of their earnings. Upper class earners spend a much smaller percentage of their wages. A national sales tax would hurt low wage earners the most as they would be using the majority of their wages on food & basic necessities. The little $ they might have left after their purchases and their tax burden won't be enough for an adequate savings.

      A tax that would hurt the poor, not make much difference to the rich, and bring more money to spend on bombs? Sounds like this would have no problem getting approved!

    6. Re:National sales tax now by fimbulvetr · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You have to change the law. Fix it in congress, thus treating the problem, not the symptom.

      Congress? You mean that other entity that systematically exploits American people to keep elites in business?

    7. Re:National sales tax now by Jacked · · Score: 1
      The national sales tax has nothing to do with third party tax preperation services.

      Actually, it does. As put forth in HR 25, the national sales tax would replace the income tax.

      Republicans do it far more often then democrats, but that is only because most democrats are dirt poor.

      What makes you say that? Last I heard there are more millionaire democrats than republicans in Congress. It seems to me that the more wealth someone has, the more likely they are to be a democrat (entertainers, lawyers, CEOs, etc.). But, you are right about both sides doing anything they can to avoid paying taxes.

    8. Re:National sales tax now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If pro is the opposite of con , what is the opposite of progress?

    9. Re:National sales tax now by Jacked · · Score: 4, Interesting
      The tax system now is (mostly) fair. Everyone pays a % of their earnings.

      Hardly. Not everyone pays a percentage. Almost half the workers in the U.S. pay no income tax at all. And, in fact, they get quite a sweetheart deal -- many of those people get a "refund" which is far larger than the amount that was witheld in the first place (refundable credits).

      The problem with a national sales tax is that middle to low income earners spend a larger percentage of their earnings. Upper class earners spend a much smaller percentage of their wages. A national sales tax would hurt low wage earners the most as they would be using the majority of their wages on food & basic necessities. The little $ they might have left after their purchases and their tax burden won't be enough for an adequate savings.

      It's been my experience that most upper class earners spend virtually everything they earn. They might spend a slightly smaller amount as a percentage of their income, but, 85% of $200,000 is a lot more real dollars than 95% of $25,000. Admittedly, I pulled those numbers out of my ass, they're just for illustration purposes ;)

      As structured in H.R. 25, everyone gets a monthly check to prevent exactly what you describe. It's actually a pretty well thought-out plan. You can read more about it at http://fairtax.org/.

    10. Re:National sales tax now by Shajenko42 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Not to mention the fact that the rich can avoid a large portion of that sales tax by shopping in another country. For instance, instead of buying their new wardrobe in New York, they could do it in Paris instead. Similarly for cars, they could buy it in Canada and hire somebody to drive it to the US.

    11. Re:National sales tax now by techno-vampire · · Score: 1

      Everybody gets a monthly check? Where does the money come from for those checks? Higher taxes? If so, what good are the checks? If not, where?

      --
      Good, inexpensive web hosting
    12. Re:National sales tax now by BitterOak · · Score: 1
      The tax system now is (mostly) fair. Everyone pays a % of their earnings.

      Please explain how the first sentence follows from the second. Taxes are to pay for government function and services. Are the services and benefits we receive from the government proportional to our income?

      The problem with a national sales tax is that middle to low income earners spend a larger percentage of their earnings.

      But that's true of just about anything. If you decrease the denominator of a fraction by a factor x the fraction will increase by a factor of x. If you earn twice as much as I do and we both buy the same car, the car will cost me twice as much (as a fraction of my income) as it will cost you. Is the car dealer being unfair?

      To make matters worse, income tax isn't even a fixed percentage of income. The percentage rate goes up as income goes up. How is that fair? And I won't even get started on the alternative minimum tax...

      --
      If I can be modded down for being a troll, can I be modded up for being an orc, or a balrog?
    13. Re:National sales tax now by orionware · · Score: 0

      Ah yea! I forgot that no other country in the world has that stupid sales tax we have here in the states. They'll save thousands!

      --


      Karma means nothing to me, so suck it...
    14. Re:National sales tax now by RadagastTheMagician · · Score: 3, Interesting

      while I agree with you on a sales tax being regressive, the current tax system is still unfair. Those with a lot of money already, perhaps from inheritance (Paris Hilton, anyone?) only pay taxes on their interest, and can mostly get out of that tax too.

      The current talk about repealing the inheritance tax is ludicrous. It's the only tax the Paris Hiltons of the world pay at all. Look at it like this: while Daddy worked his ass off, paid his taxes on his earnings, and received the benefits of those taxes (the military protected his investements at home and abroad), if they repeal the estate tax, once he's dead, poor little rich girl never has to work again. Now she gets all the benefits of that military and police protection, the roads, the schools, etc, but doesn't have to pay for any of it! Do we really want to create a landed gentry whose offspring never have to work again?

    15. Re:National sales tax now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      The tax system now is (mostly) fair. Everyone pays a % of their earnings

      That's hardly fair. A taxpayer should pay for what he/she receives from the governmemt, and nothing more.

    16. Re:National sales tax now by StupidKatz · · Score: 1

      Do we really want to create a landed gentry whose offspring never have to work again?

      Yes.
      If you see a business opportunity and run with it, ala Mr. Hilton, you, too, can provide a wonderful and easy life for your offspring.

      That's part of the American Dream.

    17. Re:National sales tax now by ocie · · Score: 1

      And as foreigners are not required to pay the tax, there would be a lot more of them coming over to buy things in the U.S. (or just importing them).

      --
      JET Program: see Japan, meet intere
    18. Re:National sales tax now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is it fair that you grew up in a rich family and don't have to work at all because daddy pays all your bills, while your pool boy has to "hope" for tips so he can afford to eat?

      I guess its only fair if it works for you, F every one else

    19. Re:National sales tax now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Preview and *read* your post next time. Thanks.

    20. Re:National sales tax now by Guppy06 · · Score: 1

      "Upper class earners spend a much smaller percentage of their wages."

      So? If you don't spend the money, you see no benefit from having it.

      At any rate, my personal favorite solution is apportionment. The feds stop collecting income tax and such directly and instead hand the bill over to the states. Then the individual states decide for themselves whether they want to pay their share through income tax, sales tax, some combination of the two, or something completely different.

      This would also have the added benefit of increasing the tax burden on those states that are over-represented in the House of Representatives.

    21. Re:National sales tax now by timeOday · · Score: 1
      You know what kind of tax I actually like? Estate (i.e. inheritance) taxes. Too bad for me, the House voted to permanantly end the estate tax today.

      Since tax money has to come from somewhere, why not take it from the dead? You can't take it with you, anyways.

      Their descendants will miss the money, but so what? Inheritance is the most unfair, un-earned income imaginable. Removing the estate tax just means people who actually earn their own money must cough up that much more.

      Somebody who inherits $10M and dies leaving $9M is a much bigger drain on society than somebody who interhits nothing and dies with $40K of unpaid credit card debt - to the tune of $960K.

    22. Re:National sales tax now by Guppy06 · · Score: 1

      Sorry to burst your sarcasm bubble, but most countries, in an effort to encourage tourism, will rebate you the sales taxes you pay in their country. Shopping in another country is different from shopping in another state.

    23. Re:National sales tax now by anthony_dipierro · · Score: 1

      If you want to fix the tax system, how about closing the loopholes the rich use?

      One person's loophole is another person's fair system. If we were going to fix the tax system by closing the loopholes, first we'd have to agree on what is a fair tax system.

      Look at John Edwards. Before he was elected to the Senate, he worked as a liability lawyer. He won a big case, and had $600,000 in taxes due. Instead, he formed a corporation and using tax laws, did not pay one penny.

      First of all, I heard about this case, and it was not at all like you make it out to be. Yes, Edwards paid less in taxes than he would have had he not formed the corporation. But he still paid a lot in taxes, and depending what you consider fair, it's quite reasonable to say that he paid his fair share. Medicare taxes are only supposed to paid on earned income. There is a valid argument that some portion of the money that he received from that company was unearned income. Maybe it was earned income. And maybe Edwards knew this. But even if so, then Edwards was evading taxes (and could be fined by the IRS if he were audited), not utilizing a loophole.

      Now, this of course brings up the question of whether or not we should be treating earned income and unearned income differently in the first place. But that just brings me back to my point - you can't elminate "loopholes" until you get agreement on how things are supposed to be taxed in the first place.

    24. Re:National sales tax now by NanoGator · · Score: 3, Insightful

      "Now she gets all the benefits of that military and police protection, the roads, the schools, etc, but doesn't have to pay for any of it!"

      Uh... if they recieved an inheritance, and that money had already had its taxes paid on, then they already have paid for it. It's money changing hands, not money suddenly appearing out of nowhere.

      --
      "Derp de derp."
    25. Re:National sales tax now by pete6677 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Considering rich people tend to buy more stuff and generally stick to more expensive items, they will pay a lot more in sales taxes than a middle class or poor person buying mostly essentials. Most states, cities or countries with a sales tax exempt food and other essentials from sales taxes or give a yearly credit for money spent on essentials. Other than putting a lot of tax professionals out of work, I don't see what is wrong with this plan. Getting the government out of peoples' financial lives is hardly a bad thing.

    26. Re:National sales tax now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is nothing wrong with being rich.

      They are the ones who create wealth which then can be taxed.

      You see it is simple, unless these "rich bastards" create some wealth there is nothing to share and tax and thus we end up with another cuba/su/whatever.

      Rich are not your enemy - you should pray there are more rich people around cause you will benefit as well.

    27. Re:National sales tax now by kidgenius · · Score: 1

      It would be nice if we could get people to see it that way. I wholeheartedly agree with what you are saying.

    28. Re:National sales tax now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      " Now she gets all the benefits of that military and police protection, the roads, the schools, etc, but doesn't have to pay for any of it!"

      As you said, her dad paid for it and she will pay for it anytime she buys something.

      Anyway, stop your bullshit social engineering - it is not your fucking business what she does with her money.

      Understand?

    29. Re:National sales tax now by kidgenius · · Score: 1

      Don't forget that your drug dealers, criminals, and people that make choose not to report income actually have to buy stuff, therefore they will be taxed.

    30. Re:National sales tax now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      " Inheritance is the most unfair, un-earned income imaginable."

      Stealing from people only because they are dead is not cool.
      That money has already been taxed and it is not your business with happens with it.

      Can you understand that simple concept ?

    31. Re:National sales tax now by kubalaa · · Score: 1

      "If you don't spend the money, you see no benefit from having it." -- That's ridiculous. The benefit in having money isn't spending it, it's making more money so you can spend that instead, and basically live off the interest. I don't know how much it's worth to never have to work the rest of your life, but it's certainly worth more than nothing.

      --

      "If you look 'round the table and can't tell who the sucker is, it's you." -- Quiz Show

    32. Re:National sales tax now by kubalaa · · Score: 1

      So you don't believe in property taxes, or what? The police are *still* protecting the money, every year, so it makes sense that they should get paid every year to do so.

      --

      "If you look 'round the table and can't tell who the sucker is, it's you." -- Quiz Show

    33. Re:National sales tax now by heli0 · · Score: 1

      "A national sales tax would hurt low wage earners the most as they would be using the majority of their wages on food & basic necessities."

      http://www.fairtax.org/

      How does the FairTax protect low-income families and individuals and retirees on fixed incomes?

      Under the FairTax plan, poor people pay no net FairTax at all up to the poverty level! Every household receives a rebate that is equal to the FairTax paid on essential goods and services, and wage earners are no longer subject to the most regressive and burdensome tax of all, the payroll tax.

      --
      Whenever the offence inspires less horror than the punishment, the rigour of penal law is obliged to give way...
    34. Re:National sales tax now by Guppy06 · · Score: 1

      Granted, but how would income tax change the situation? Tax would only be paid on the principle when it was first earned, afterwards only the income from the interest is taxed, much like someone who had to work for a living.

    35. Re:National sales tax now by SunFan · · Score: 1

      The tax system now is (mostly) fair. Everyone pays a % of their earnings.

      A very high percentage of their earnings. People can have some control over sales tax (don't spend as much), but what do we do with the income tax (don't earn as much?)?

      --
      -- Microsoft is the most expensive commodity operating system and office suite vendor in the marketplace.
    36. Re:National sales tax now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Although it is nice to think of a bunch of isolated individuals each doing their own thing, back in the real world the actions of one person do have an effect on the people around them.

      Maybe this concept is not so simple but then reality is complex stuff and you are going to have to deal with it sooner or later.

    37. Re:National sales tax now by anthony_dipierro · · Score: 1

      It's been my experience that most upper class earners spend virtually everything they earn.

      This hasn't been my experience at all, but also consider that much of what they spend wouldn't be taxed anyway. First of all, someone who makes $200,000 almost certainly has a large mortgage, and no sales tax I've ever heard of taxes interest payments. People who make more almost certainly save/invest more, and savings/investments aren't taxed. Then there's services. Many sales taxes do tax some services, but you couldn't possibly tax all services, because then you'd have an income tax. For instance, if a rich person has employees who work for them, and they spend money on that, that wouldn't be subject to sales tax, would it?

      But don't just take my word for it. The government has set up a chart of the estimated sales taxes paid by people based on their income. In Florida, someone making $25,000 is estimated to pay $509 in sales taxes. Someone making $200,000 is estimated to pay $1474. Those aren't numbers out of my ass, they're actual IRS estimates.

      As structured in H.R. 25, everyone gets a monthly check to prevent exactly what you describe.

      That doesn't make the tax non-regressive. Remember, regressive means that those who make more money pay less as a percentage of income. The only way to avoid that is to have an income tax, you can't do it by having a sales tax and then giving everyone a monthly check.

    38. Re:National sales tax now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Saying a sales tax will hurt the poor is stupid. Just don't tax the things poor people spend the most money on (food, housing, heating fuel).

    39. Re:National sales tax now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


      Rich people also take better care of their yard and are less likely to have a riced-out civic on blocks in their driveway.

    40. Re:National sales tax now by anthony_dipierro · · Score: 1

      "First of all, someone who makes $200,000 almost certainly has a large mortgage, and no sales tax I've ever heard of taxes interest payments."

      Speaking of which, what if someone bought a new home, for, say, $200,000 (and the sales tax rate was 30%)? Would they owe $60,000 in sales taxes?

      That seems crazy, and I figure it must have some serious negative consequences to the economy, though I can't really figure out what they'd be (it'd probably discourage new home building for all but the super-rich who could finance the enormous down payments, but then again maybe not).

    41. Re:National sales tax now by loraksus · · Score: 1

      You know, that is a nice idea, but all you're going to get done is to have a federal sales tax put on everything. Income taxes? Yeah, you'll still pay them. /bitter, I know, but I don't think that is too unrealistic.

      --
      1q2w3e4r5t6y7u8i9o0pqawsedrftgthyjukilo;p'azsxdcfv gbhnjmk,l.;/
    42. Re:National sales tax now by loraksus · · Score: 1

      The national sales tax has nothing to do with third party tax preperation services.

      Actually, it does. As put forth in HR 25, the national sales tax would replace the income tax.

      Right. And the income tax will go away after we finish paying for that war...

      --
      1q2w3e4r5t6y7u8i9o0pqawsedrftgthyjukilo;p'azsxdcfv gbhnjmk,l.;/
    43. Re:National sales tax now by lxw56 · · Score: 1

      Customs fees would easily eliminate that loophole.

    44. Re:National sales tax now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Moron, the tax system is NOT "mostly" fair. Get a fucking clue. Fuck percentages, that's bullshit. Everybody should pay a set amount. Equal tax amounts for everybody.

      You also have your head up your ass about the sales tax - the more money people have (even the "rich"), the more they spend.

      There's never any end of know-it-all ignorant kiddies on slashdork.

    45. Re:National sales tax now by EzInKy · · Score: 1

      Please explain how the first sentence follows from the second. Taxes are to pay for government function and services. Are the services and benefits we receive from the government proportional to our income?

      Of course they are proportional as the more you make the more you have to lose, and the more you have to lose the more you need protection.

      To make matters worse, income tax isn't even a fixed percentage of income. The percentage rate goes up as income goes up. How is that fair?

      In a democracy it will always be possible for the majority to elect to give themselves the property of the minority. What progressive taxation buys you is a system that keeps that from happening.

      --
      Time is what keeps everything from happening all at once.
    46. Re:National sales tax now by That's+Unpossible! · · Score: 1

      A national sales tax is the most regressive form of taxation imaginable.

      The FairTax national sales tax plan solves this using a prebate to cover taxes spent on the necessities. It is not regressive. It is fair.

      The tax system now is (mostly) fair. Everyone pays a % of their earnings.

      Everyone? No. Only everyone that reports their income. And then only the fraction that reports it correctly. And then only the fraction that makes more than $X. And then only the fraction that doesn't get bullshit "credits."

      A national sales tax taxes everyone in the country, including people earning money off the books, people earning money illegally, people visiting America from elsewhere, etc.

      Upper class earners spend a much smaller percentage of their wages.

      Yeah, and poor people never have any money to set aside for savings. What is your point? That's how it is now, and that's how it will be with the FairTax in place.

      The fact is, upper class earners spend much more than poor people, and therefore will pay more in taxes than poor people. Poor people will bring home their entire paycheck, even those that don't pay taxes now, yet still have SS deducted through payroll taxes via their employer. (One of many hidden taxes.)

      --
      Ironically, the word ironically is often used incorrectly.
    47. Re:National sales tax now by lxw56 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      And what do you do with the entrepreneur who builds a small business worth $2 million but has few other assets? He wants to pass the business to his children, but they can't afford the tax. The main reason Wal-Mart is so successful is because of government and sociological disadvantages to the small businesses, not economic or efficiency disadvantages.

    48. Re:National sales tax now by maxpublic · · Score: 1

      I agree with you. I have a hell of a time seeing why someone earning $400,000/year should pay ten times as much in taxes as somebody earning $40,000/year. They certain don't consume ten times as much in public services, so why are they paying ten times the amount in taxes?

      However, a national sales tax is just about the stupidest fucking tax scheme I've heard of yet. I'll jump on the bandwagon to roll back taxes and reduce the size of government (libertarian, wouldn't you know) but I won't buy in to some horseshit about a sales tax being 'more fair'. It sure as hell isn't, by any stretch.

      Max

      --
      My god carries a hammer. Your god died nailed to a tree. Any questions?
    49. Re:National sales tax now by EzInKy · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Uh... if they recieved an inheritance, and that money had already had its taxes paid on, then they already have paid for it. It's money changing hands, not money suddenly appearing out of nowhere.

      That money is not going towards paying for ongoing maintenance. Without inhertance and property taxes the burden falls solely on the backs of current wage earners.

      --
      Time is what keeps everything from happening all at once.
    50. Re:National sales tax now by maxpublic · · Score: 1

      So you don't believe in property taxes, or what?

      You're absolutely right: I don't believe in property taxes. A property tax is just another way of saying you don't own your land, you rent it from the government. I have a big, big problem with that.

      Max

      --
      My god carries a hammer. Your god died nailed to a tree. Any questions?
    51. Re:National sales tax now by Brandybuck · · Score: 1

      All this talk about progressive and regressive taxes misses the point. The purpose of taxation isn't to redistribute wealth, it's to fund the government. The regressiveness of a tax is certainly one factor to consider when choosing a tax system, but it's only one factor out of dozens. The fairest tax (if there's such a thing as "fair") would be a flat head tax.

      p.s. My pet theory is to tax only public corporations, since they're artificial government created entities anyway. This would be their way to "pay" for their special privileges that private businesses don't get.

      --
      Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
    52. Re:National sales tax now by Oracle+of+Bandwidth · · Score: 1

      In a democracy it will always be possible for the majority to elect to give themselves the property of the minority. What progressive taxation buys you is a system that keeps that from happening.

      Well as long as we are choosing which theif we give our money to, how about we let the mob get in on it? They are at least upfront about what they are doing.

    53. Re:National sales tax now by Oracle+of+Bandwidth · · Score: 1

      Now she gets all the benefits of that military and police protection, the roads, the schools, etc, but doesn't have to pay for any of it! Do we really want to create a landed gentry whose offspring never have to work again?

      So Mr Hilton hasn't paid a fair share for him and his family? Why should my child not be able to enjoy the fruit of my labor?

    54. Re:National sales tax now by maxpublic · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Their descendants will miss the money, but so what? Inheritance is the most unfair, un-earned income imaginable.

      I earned the money - not you. I paid taxes on the money - not you. I decide what the hell I'm going to do with my money - not you. And if that means that I want to give it all to my kids so that they don't have to work a day in their lives, that's my business - not yours.

      What's unfair here is that some of my neighbors think they have the right to divvy up and distribute *my* property against my wishes. Now *that* is bullshit.

      Max

      --
      My god carries a hammer. Your god died nailed to a tree. Any questions?
    55. Re:National sales tax now by That's+Unpossible! · · Score: 1

      The FairTax plan (HR25/S25) is revenue neutral, so why wouldn't the income tax go away?

      --
      Ironically, the word ironically is often used incorrectly.
    56. Re:National sales tax now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Please explain how the first sentence follows from the second. Taxes are to pay for government function and services. Are the services and benefits we receive from the government proportional to our income?

      Actually, the benefits you receive are in much closer proportion to your wealth. For example, Warren Buffet noted once that his income (in the Income Tax sense) is not very different from that of his secretary yet without question money spent on the Interstate system puts considerably more money in his pocket than hers.

      In the car dealer example, he is not being unfair. For whatever reason (education, tools, experience) my time is deemed to be worth twice as much as yours. This may mean that I make things that are twice as good or that I make them twice as fast.

      Once investment comes into the picture then the model breaks badly: when we start assuming that one person's time is worth 10000 times as much as someone else's simply because their great-great-grandfather won a bet then we've obviously got a serious inequity. When that person does not contribute but instead, continues to reap the benefit of everyone else's productivity (as outlined above) then the tax system is arguably corrupt and civil war becomes inevitable.

    57. Re:National sales tax now by EzInKy · · Score: 1

      Well as long as we are choosing which theif we give our money to, how about we let the mob get in on it? They are at least upfront about what they are doing.

      What's there to up front about, it's pretty obvious that capitalism and democracy can't coexist without a touch of socialism.

      --
      Time is what keeps everything from happening all at once.
    58. Re:National sales tax now by Jedi+Alec · · Score: 1

      Congress? You mean that other entity that systematically exploits American people to keep elites in business?

      Damn, and here I was thinking the whole idea of the democratic process was that people got to choose who represents them. You get what you vote for...and from the looks of it the most important criteria are the blueness of the suit, the whiteness of the teeth and shirt and the redness of the tie. Is the problem the politicians or is it those that elect them?

      --

      People replying to my sig annoy me. That's why I change it all the time.
    59. Re:National sales tax now by jcr · · Score: 1

      Well, your heart's in the right place, but you've got the wrong culprits.

      The unholy alliance is between the congress and the special interests. The congress likes having the tax code to manipulate as a means of doling out favors to their supporters, and the tax recipients like getting money for nothing.

      Nothing's going to stop this merry-go-round short of a constitutional convention. There's no way on earth that congress would ever voluntarily diminish its own power.

      -jcr

      --
      The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    60. Re:National sales tax now by jcr · · Score: 1

      The tax system now is (mostly) fair.

      It is precisely that misconception that keeps the current system in place.

      Anybody making a million bucks a year who is paying even 10% of that in taxes has an incompetent accountant.

      -jcr

      --
      The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    61. Re:National sales tax now by will_die · · Score: 1

      So because you are jealous of paris hilton, family farmers who just want to pass the family farm from generation to generation have to pay a huge amount each time someone has the misfortune of dieing?

      Because of are envious of someone else is no reason to create a bunch of laws that hurt other people.

    62. Re:National sales tax now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Uh ya. Antisocial "rich bastards" who spend a ton of money everywhere else buying expensive crap from wherever and trying to cut their taxes because goddamnet the government doesn't have a right to impoverish them by taking away so much of their HARD EARNED INCOME are really great neighbors. Oh ya they dump millions of dollars into the fast food establishments, local boy scouts, and someplace local to STIMULATE THE LOCAL ECONOMY. Hey guy, can I have some crack too? It's been a long time and I've been a good boy and I believe every word you say :)

    63. Re:National sales tax now by Randseed · · Score: 1

      [quote] So you don't believe in property taxes, or what? The police are *still* protecting the money, every year, so it makes sense that they should get paid every year to do so. [/quote] Funny. I live in one of the most affluent areas of my city. We have ONE cop to cover about 20 square miles or more. I called a cop for some disturbance about a hundred yards for my house in a construction area, and it took him almost an hour to get around to it. Compare that to the inner city, where very little is paid in the way of either income taxes or property taxes, where they have something like 20 cops for that same area.

    64. Re:National sales tax now by OhHellWithIt · · Score: 1

      30 year old? You've got it partly wrong. The 3rd party tax prep companies may stand to gain a lot from the tax industry, but they were latecomers. Politicians have been selling political favors in the form of tax breaks since before the ink was dry on the original legislation authorizing the income tax. It's a lucrative business, as can easily be seen from a stroll down the street in front of my office at lunchtime. I've never seen so many suits.

      --
      "Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past." -- George Orwell
    65. Re:National sales tax now by anthony_dipierro · · Score: 1

      All this talk about progressive and regressive taxes misses the point.

      Perhaps.

      The purpose of taxation isn't to redistribute wealth, it's to fund the government.

      That's the primary purpose, but there are certainly secondary purposes in the minds of some people.

      The regressiveness of a tax is certainly one factor to consider when choosing a tax system, but it's only one factor out of dozens. The fairest tax (if there's such a thing as "fair") would be a flat head tax.

      I have to disagree. The fairest tax would be to base the tax on the services received by the government. And since the main and most expensive service of the government is to protect people's wealth, people should be taxed at a flat rate based on wealth.

      Of course, those in poverty couldn't afford to pay such taxes, so you should probably make an exception for them, in the interests of encouraging people to break out of poverty, but that's just a small factor in the first place.

      My pet theory is to tax only public corporations, since they're artificial government created entities anyway.

      What about LLCs, or partnerships? What about private corporations?

    66. Re:National sales tax now by stinerman · · Score: 1

      This would also have the added benefit of increasing the tax burden on those states that are over-represented in the House of Representatives.

      Thats over-represented in the Senate, good sir. You can't be over-represented in the House because its apportioned by population. Many small states have a lone House member.

    67. Re:National sales tax now by Politburo · · Score: 1

      If you see a business opportunity and run with it, ala Mr. Hilton, you, too, can provide a wonderful and easy life for your offspring.

      I do believe Ms. Hilton will do just fine if a small portion of her inheritance is lopped off. While there may be examples where the inheritance tax is restrictive and goes too far, this is certainly not one of them.

    68. Re:National sales tax now by Politburo · · Score: 1

      A taxpayer should pay for what he/she receives from the governmemt, and nothing more.

      Sure. Now could you please give us your proposal for a metric that will measure what a taxpayer receives from the government? Don't forget.. it has to be fair.

      Yes, direct receipts from social benefit programs can be easily measured (and of course your idea would by design eliminate these programs).. but what if they run a business that benefits from subsidy or special tax breaks? How do you measure that benefit? What if they hold patents, or copyrights, that are protected by U.S. law? What about companies that provide services to the government and military? How do you measure the use of public facilities like sidewalks and parks? What about police/fire/garbage services? Do victims of crimes pay more taxes? People who create more trash? Etc, etc, etc.

      IMO, it's not possible to fairly quantify what one recieves from the government.

    69. Re:National sales tax now by Politburo · · Score: 1

      That money has already been taxed

      This argument doesn't make sense in the context of the current system. If it did, then why not eliminate gas tax, sales tax, property tax, FCC taxes, etc., etc. I pay for all of that with income that has already been taxed. The inheritance tax is no different.

    70. Re:National sales tax now by richardtallent · · Score: 1

      I'm also a FairTax supporter and generally agreed with your post, but I have to point out that even after EIC and other refundable credits, the very poor still pay taxes, in the form of Social Ponzi tax and Medicare, and in the form of reduced wages passed on by their employer (who pays the other half of those taxes).

      Under the FairTax, however, they are refunded the *entire* tax on necessities, including the 15.3% currently withheld under FICA.

    71. Re:National sales tax now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Congress? You mean that other entity that systematically exploits American people to keep elites in business? "

      Sad Fact: Keeping the elites in business is good for the economy. Having a good economy is good for you.

      What - should I be working to keep the retards in business?

    72. Re:National sales tax now by RealSalmon · · Score: 1

      The problem with a national sales tax is that middle to low income earners spend a larger percentage of their earnings. Upper class earners spend a much smaller percentage of their wages. A national sales tax would hurt low wage earners the most as they would be using the majority of their wages on food & basic necessities.

      So it's really more about punishing the wealthy for their success then, isn't it? Do the wealthy use more tax payer funded resources than the middle and lower class? No. Then why is it fair that they pay more? It's a government of law, not men . . . remember?

      Anyway, if you properly implemented a national sales tax then a wealthy individual would still end up shouldering more of the burden than a middle class one. If I make $200,000 dollars a year, and spend half of it, and am taxed at the same rate as somebody who spends *all* of his $75,000 salary, then I have still paid more taxes.

      --

      -B

    73. Re:National sales tax now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >My pet theory is to tax only public corporations, since they're
      >artificial government created entities anyway.

      What about LLCs, or partnerships? What about private corporations?


      Limited Liability Corporations and private Corporations both get special protection status from the government. On the other hand, a partnership is treated the same as a sole proprietorship, and both of those receive no special protection...owners are directly and fully liable for the actions of the business.

    74. Re:National sales tax now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And if that means that I want to give it all to my kids so that they don't have to work a day in their lives, that's my business - not yours.

      Okay, we we'll let your kids have it and never take any of it back. Prove that we didn't.

      Yes, the dead should totally be able to have their way. Especially now that we've mostly stopped ritual sacrifices to please them.

    75. Re:National sales tax now by timeOday · · Score: 1
      Your argument is irrelevant, because what you say applies equally to all taxes. All taxes amount to taking away money from somebody.

      Given that the govt. is spending money, it has to come from somebody, so the question is which tax is the least worst... property tax? Estate tax? Income tax? You have to choose one. I say, estate tax, because the injustice of taking from the dead is less than taking from the living.

      Even if you argue to reduce spending so there are less taxes overall, there will still be some tax, so the question of whose money to take is still there.

    76. Re:National sales tax now by booch · · Score: 1

      But you're dead! So it's NOT your decision! That's the point. Dead people do not HAVE property. You have no use for the money or property when you're dead. If you want your kids to have some of your money, give it to them while you're still alive.

      You earned the money by contributing to society. If your kids inherit all your money (assuming you're mega-rich), then they don't have to contribute to society. That's exactly the kind of thing we left England for -- people who had power because of who they were, no matter what they did.

      Another reason for taxing the extremely wealthy is that they benefit the most from government. The government protects other people from stealing their wealth, and protects their method of generating wealth.

      Besides, your argument would apply to any tax, and you don't seem to be particularly against any other form of taxation.

      --
      Software sucks. Open Source sucks less.
    77. Re:National sales tax now by mutterc · · Score: 1
      The purpose of taxation isn't to redistribute wealth, it's to fund the government.
      Maybe, but some (many?) people feel that wealth needs to be redistributed somehow.

      Under lassiez-faire capitalism, a heck of a lot more wealth flows "upward" than "downward". Over time, this could lead to a heavy concentration of wealth in the uppoer crust. There is another theory which says that this has already happened.

    78. Re:National sales tax now by booch · · Score: 1

      A lot of what a person receives from the government is protection of his property, wealth, and "standard of living". That is, if the society were to break down into anarchy, the person would be likely to lose his or her property and wealth. And if the country were to be attacked and go to war, or if the country were to go into a serious depression, the "standard of living" would suffer. Of course, these things are hard to measure, but you could say that they're roughly proportional to the amount of wealth and/or income. Hence, those with more wealth/income should pay more than those with less.

      --
      Software sucks. Open Source sucks less.
    79. Re:National sales tax now by mutterc · · Score: 1
      How are we expected to accomplish this once wealth concentrates to the point of having only super-rich and dirt-poor?

      Put another way: Suppose I am working part-time minimum wage (the only jobs left after middle-class jobs are all offshored). I have a great business idea, and the will to take the risk and put in the work necessary to make it succeed.

      Where am I supposed to get the capital?

      Hint: If I line up a bunch of investors, then they own the company, not I, and so they reap the (lion's share of the) rewards. Will there be enough left for me to jump the gap to rich?

    80. Re:National sales tax now by mutterc · · Score: 1
      This makes the assumption that a black market of untaxed goods will not arise.

      Perhaps that is easier to enforce than enforcing the reporting of illegal income; perhaps it isn't.

    81. Re:National sales tax now by MrBlue+VT · · Score: 1
      I love how the first paragraph on http://fairtax.org/ is a logically fallacy:
      Everyone agrees the current Federal income tax system is broken. Patching up the existing code is pointless. It's time for a fresh approach, a fair approach.

      Oh everyone agrees! Of course they all do! Sheesh, just reading that put me off from perusing the rest of their propaganda because I assume that logical fallacies abound.
    82. Re:National sales tax now by Jacked · · Score: 1
      Speaking of which, what if someone bought a new home, for, say, $200,000 (and the sales tax rate was 30%)? Would they owe $60,000 in sales taxes?

      That's correct. I think the rate they're talking about is 23%, maybe a little less. But, yes, there would be sales tax on the new home. From what I understand, though, the price of the home would drop quite a bit, because there wouldn't be any income taxes (or tax compliance costs) embedded in the cost of building the home. The companies involved, including contractors, in the building of the home would lower their prices since they don't have to pay income taxes. Why wouldn't they just pocket the money? Because their competitors will eat them alive by reducing their own prices. And don't forget that your net income will be signicantly higher with the removal of the federal income tax, Social Security, and Medicare.

      Also, there is no tax on used goods. If you buy a used home, there is no sales tax collected. And, when you sell a home there is no capital gains tax. The FairTax also replaces personal, estate, gift, alternative minimum, Social Security, Medicare, self-employment, and corporate taxes as well.

      Here's a pdf that describes it much better than I can: http://www.fairtaxvolunteer.org/pdf/homebuilder.pd f

      Keep in mind that I am not an economist or an expert on the FairTax plan and, for all I know, it could be a terrible idea. The current tax system MUST be overhauled, though, and I don't have a better plan.

    83. Re:National sales tax now by Jacked · · Score: 1
      I agree with you, since the words "everyone", "always", "never", etc. have very specific meanings and are commonly misused.

      I would guess it would not be difficult to find someone that doesn't think our current tax system is broken. Everyone (yes, literally, as defined) I know would agree that it's broken, but that's hardly everyone. The FairTax people are just speaking in casual generalities, even if it may be a poor choice of words. While I might not like everything about the FairTax, at least they are trying to fix the problem.

      Personally, I've always favored a flat tax, say, maybe 15%, with an exemption up to a certain income level. It just seems simpler and I'm a simple kinda guy.

    84. Re:National sales tax now by Jacked · · Score: 1
      Right. And the income tax will go away after we finish paying for that war...

      Yeah, the government really screwed us with that one. The good news is that passing H.R. 25 also involves repealing the 16th Amendment (the one that legalized the federal income tax) to ensure that we don't end up with both a consumption tax and an income tax.

    85. Re:National sales tax now by Guppy06 · · Score: 1

      "You can't be over-represented in the House because its apportioned by population. "

      You forget about the one-seat minimum granted every state.

      According to the 2000 Census, there were 281,421,906 living in the US. Divided by 435 seats in the house, and each seat should represent 646,947 people. Thanks to the one-seat minimum, though, Wyoming's member of the House represents only 493,782.

      Wyoming's population puts its represetnation in the House 31% higher than the mean. With apportionment, they would be forced to pay for that overrepresentation through taxes federal taxes that are 31% higher than the national mean (paying 1/435 of the national budget instead of 493,782/281,421,906).

      It shouldn't be surprising to learn that the last time the House increased its size was a little before the ratification of the Sixteenth Amendment, around 100 years, 4 states and 200,000,000 people ago. The small states like the current scheme since it gives them more weight than they're due in both the House of Representatives and the Electoral College. Because federal taxes are no longer apportioned, they have no incentive to try to change that.

      Do you think it's coincidence, with the House's control over spending, that the more populous states tend to pay more taxes and the less populous ones tend to receive more federal money?

    86. Re:National sales tax now by anthony_dipierro · · Score: 1

      Limited Liability Corporations and private Corporations both get special protection status from the government.

      But neither are "public corporations".

    87. Re:National sales tax now by anthony_dipierro · · Score: 1

      I think the rate they're talking about is 23%, maybe a little less.

      Well, they've done some mathemagic on that number to try to make it look better. See the FAQ. 23% of $260,000 is about $60,000.

      From what I understand, though, the price of the home would drop quite a bit, because there wouldn't be any income taxes (or tax compliance costs) embedded in the cost of building the home.

      I seriously doubt that the income tax savings on a $260,000 home would be anywhere near $60,000. Most labor in a new home construction is performed by low-income workers who pay little or nothing in income taxes.

      And I thought the "FairTax" proposal imposed a tax on services, as well as goods. So wouldn't the contractors have to pay a tax on the services being provided by the construction workers? Or is that just a big loophole?

      And then, what about the building materials? If I buy a brick, do I have to pay taxes on it? Or is there an exemption for building materials, or something? The whole thing seems like a bunch of hand-waving to me.

      Oh yeah, what if I am my own general contractor? What if I buy the building materials and hire the workers and build the house myself. Then there is no sale, so am I exempt from sales tax? Would I have to then pay sales tax at the point that I resell the house?

      Also, there is no tax on used goods. If you buy a used home, there is no sales tax collected.

      What about repairs? Do you have to pay sales tax on repairs? If you hire someone to make the repairs? If you do the repairs yourself? Would you actually save on taxes by building the house then selling it, then repairing it, rather than building it, repairing it, then selling it? It just doesn't make sense. Why should someone who only buys used goods get through his whole life without paying any taxes?

      And, when you sell a home there is no capital gains tax.

      Capital gains taxes on the sale of a property you live in were already pretty much eliminated years ago anyway (a married couple gets a $500,000 gain tax free every 5 years).

      Keep in mind that I am not an economist or an expert on the FairTax plan and, for all I know, it could be a terrible idea.

      From what I've seen, it seems like it is.

      The current tax system MUST be overhauled, though, and I don't have a better plan.

      I agree with you that the current tax system sucks. I'm especially opposed to the regressive FICA tax. But I think the best plan is to cut spending. I think we could probably cut it all the way down to zero eventually. This would of course put a larger burden on the states, but states could raise property taxes a bit to compensate.

    88. Re:National sales tax now by Jacked · · Score: 1
      And I thought the "FairTax" proposal imposed a tax on services, as well as goods. So wouldn't the contractors have to pay a tax on the services being provided by the construction workers? Or is that just a big loophole?

      Yes, services would be taxed, but "Business-to-business purchases for the production of goods and services are not taxed."

      And then, what about the building materials? If I buy a brick, do I have to pay taxes on it? Or is there an exemption for building materials, or something? The whole thing seems like a bunch of hand-waving to me.

      If you bought the brick for yourself, yes, you pay sales tax. If you bought the brick to build something you are going to sell, no sales tax (you would collect the tax from the consumer).

      Oh yeah, what if I am my own general contractor? What if I buy the building materials and hire the workers and build the house myself. Then there is no sale, so am I exempt from sales tax? Would I have to then pay sales tax at the point that I resell the house?

      Since you would be the consumer, you would have to pay sales tax for the materials, but I'm not sure how the workers would be handled. In theory I'm guessing they would be providing you with a service and therefore should collect the sales tax from you. But, obviously, if you paid them their daily wage plus the sales tax, they would pocket the sales tax and never report it. There would be no tax on the resale of the home.

      Capital gains taxes on the sale of a property you live in were already pretty much eliminated years ago anyway (a married couple gets a $500,000 gain tax free every 5 years).

      Oops, oh yeah, I forgot about that :)

      The biggest problem I have with the FairTax is that it there are too many "what if"s and it seems like it would be too easy to bypass. And I despise the idea of sending everyone a monthly check to cover the taxes that would be collected on the necessities. Way to clumsy and problem prone. I would much prefer a flat tax on income that exempts the first x number of dollars and applies to both individuals and corporations equally.

      You're right, cutting spending should be top priority. We need to find some way to force that....

    89. Re:National sales tax now by Brandybuck · · Score: 1

      Since we haven't had anything even remotely resembling laissez-faire in well over a hundred years, and we STILL have fat cat Democrat Senators with several thousand times the net worth of their voters, somehow I don't think that getting rid of laissez faire did all that much to get rid of rich people.

      --
      Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
    90. Re:National sales tax now by Brandybuck · · Score: 1

      And since the main and most expensive service of the government is to protect people's wealth...

      The purpose of government is to protect the lives, liberties and properties of the citizens who created it. In my opinion, it should be in that order. Protecting the life and liberty of a poor person is every bit as expensive as protecting the life and liberty of the rich person. As for protecting the property, let's just tax the property, ala Henry George.

      What about LLCs, or partnerships? What about private corporations?

      If you get special privileges from government that gives you an economic advantage over private unincorporated businesses, then you should be included.

      --
      Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
    91. Re:National sales tax now by anthony_dipierro · · Score: 1

      Yes, services would be taxed, but "Business-to-business purchases for the production of goods and services are not taxed."

      Well, this wouldn't be business-to-business, since a construction worker isn't a business, but I suppose I'm reading too deeply into things.

      If you bought the brick for yourself, yes, you pay sales tax. If you bought the brick to build something you are going to sell, no sales tax (you would collect the tax from the consumer).

      So...what if you bought the brick to build a house to live in for a few years and then sell? I guess the only reasonable answer is that sales tax would be due on the initial purchase, and not the resale...

      Since you would be the consumer, you would have to pay sales tax for the materials, but I'm not sure how the workers would be handled. In theory I'm guessing they would be providing you with a service and therefore should collect the sales tax from you.

      It can get even more complicated, too, if you take a used item and improve it, then resell it. To avoid loopholes, you'd probably have to tax the difference in the taxed value and the new value, essentially, a Value Added Tax (VAT). But if you added in the value accrued over time, it'd be similar to a capital gains tax. I dunno, this stuff gets confusing quick.

      I would much prefer a flat tax on income that exempts the first x number of dollars and applies to both individuals and corporations equally.

      Raise X high enough, say to 20-25,000, and I wouldn't mind that, for individuals. For corporations I'm not sure that'd work. You couldn't give corporations an exemption, because someone could just create thousands of corporations each with their own exemption. And then there's the problem of double taxation, which I think is problematic. If you don't tax dividends or capital gains, then the rich will basically pay nothing in taxes. One proposal to avoid this double taxation is to allow corporations to treat dividends as an expense. I guess that'd be fair.

      But I'm not a big fan of income tax in the first place. It's just too artificial - if I do something for you and you do something for me in return, why should we have to pay the government for that? I dunno, I've got a headache now just thinking about it :).

      You're right, cutting spending should be top priority. We need to find some way to force that....

      Yeah, and Reagan's idea, to cut taxes and thereby force ourselves to cut spending, didn't work. I think the only way to force the government to cut spending is to elect people to congress who will...cut spending. I think privatization is usually a good plan too, though. I look at the US Post Office as a good example of what we should be doing with as many government services as possible.

    92. Re:National sales tax now by anthony_dipierro · · Score: 1

      If you get special privileges from government that gives you an economic advantage over private unincorporated businesses, then you should be included.

      I think these "special privileges" you're talking about are relatively overrated. What we're really talking about here is common law, not government privileges. In fact, pretty much all the advantages of incorporation could be handled through contracts - corporate law just simplifies things so we're not signing a contract every time we engage in a transaction with a corporation.

    93. Re:National sales tax now by Oracle+of+Bandwidth · · Score: 1

      What's there to up front about, it's pretty obvious that capitalism and democracy can't coexist without a touch of socialism.

      Well, it seems you have outright theft of the majority voting themselfs other's property (But it is always for some good social cause), you have extortion (give us more, or we will vote ourselfs your property (But it's always for some good social cause), and then we have the mob "Yes this is extortion, give us money or else things burn." That's what to be upfront about.

      Invoulentary Socalism violates the very core of liberty. Tax everyone baised on their cost, nothing more. Everyone benefits from military, everyone pays for military, Not everyone uses the public school, not everyone pays for public school, seems simple enough. Then we will have real justice . (I'm a rather poor collage student, before I get accused of being a rich white male)

    94. Re:National sales tax now by Brandybuck · · Score: 1

      The main privilege I'm concerned with is the waiver of personal liability. This has nothing to do with signing a contract. It has everything to do with the government absolving shareholders of any responsibility for their ownership in the company.

      --
      Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
    95. Re:National sales tax now by EzInKy · · Score: 1

      Invoulentary Socalism violates the very core of liberty.

      So does involuntary facism, yet still a bit of policing is necessary to protect the minority from
      the majority.
      Tax everyone baised on their cost, nothing more. Everyone benefits from military, everyone pays for military, Not everyone uses the public school, not everyone pays for public school, seems simple enough.

      If people are not taught the rules of a society then they will not know to obey them, so public education does benefit everyone.

      --
      Time is what keeps everything from happening all at once.
    96. Re:National sales tax now by Oracle+of+Bandwidth · · Score: 1

      I would disagree on both poitns, everyone pays for police, but everyone benefits from their protection, and taxes baised on income make a lot of since here (Rich people have more to loose in theory). Also Ignorance is no excuse for breaking the law, All laws are publicly avaible. On a side note, thanks for having a civil discussion with me, well thought out and polight people are sometimes in short supply in political debates.

    97. Re:National sales tax now by EzInKy · · Score: 1

      I would disagree on both poitns, everyone pays for police, but everyone benefits from their protection, and taxes baised on income make a lot of since here (Rich people have more to loose in theory).

      So you are not totally against progressive taxation then?
      Also Ignorance is no excuse for breaking the law, All laws are publicly avaible.
      What good does it do to have publicly available laws if people are ignorant and can't read them?

      On a side note, thanks for having a civil discussion with me, well thought out and polight people are sometimes in short supply in political debates.

      You're welcome.

      --
      Time is what keeps everything from happening all at once.
    98. Re:National sales tax now by anthony_dipierro · · Score: 1

      When the corporation enters into a debt with you, you agree to waive personal liability. Seems perfectly possible to handle this through contract law if you really want to.

    99. Re:National sales tax now by Brandybuck · · Score: 1

      That's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about people working for Union Carbide poisoning entire neighborhoods in India and not being held responsible for it. I'm talking about a drunk skipper spilling tons of crude along Alaska's coast and merely getting fired.

      When the corporation enters into a debt with you, you agree to waive personal liability.

      This is bullshit. I've been in this situation and I can personally tell you that the contract *I* wrote didn't waive any responsibility for the corporation who signed it. The problem was that I didn't know that the individual signing the sales contract had incorporated themselves. So when I went to collect on the $5000 debt I was told that John Smith the individual didn't actually sign, but that I would have to collect from John Smith Inc. Trying to collect from John Smith Inc. was futile they claimed John Smith the individual signed. I got a court judgement against John Smith the individual, but he proceeded to file bankruptcy listing John Smith Inc. as the major creditor. I then got a court judgement against John Smith Inc. but in the meantime it had "reorganized" into a different corporation. Yada yada yada. This was ONE man! Imagine what a big corporation can do.

      If a private business sends an employee to my home and they cause damages, the owners of the private business are liable. But if it's a corporation whose employee caused the damages, the corporation owners aren't liable. As a stockholder in Union Carbide, why should I care if the company I own one share in dumps toxic chemicals on a neighborhood in India? I'm not liable for it! To me it's just an investment.

      --
      Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
    100. Re:National sales tax now by anthony_dipierro · · Score: 1

      I'm talking about people working for Union Carbide poisoning entire neighborhoods in India and not being held responsible for it.

      Poisoning neighborhoods? Being incorporated doesn't shield you from criminal laws.

      I'm talking about a drunk skipper spilling tons of crude along Alaska's coast and merely getting fired.

      The doctrine of respondeat emptor applies regardless of whether or not the business is incorporated.

      I've been in this situation and I can personally tell you that the contract *I* wrote didn't waive any responsibility for the corporation who signed it.

      It didn't have to. That's implicit in the fact that you entered into a contract with a corporation. Sure, you could drop it as the default, and force every business to spell it out in detail, but that's just a waste of time.

      The problem was that I didn't know that the individual signing the sales contract had incorporated themselves.

      Well, a corporation is supposed to use certain corporate identifiers in their name. If they weren't then you could have used that fact to pierce the corporate veil.

      So when I went to collect on the $5000 debt I was told that John Smith the individual didn't actually sign, but that I would have to collect from John Smith Inc. Trying to collect from John Smith Inc. was futile they claimed John Smith the individual signed.

      You can't claim two contradictory things in different court cases. I have to believe you either are presenting a poorly thought out hypothetical, or your lawyer was a moron.

      If a private business sends an employee to my home and they cause damages, the owners of the private business are liable. But if it's a corporation whose employee caused the damages, the corporation owners aren't liable.

      The owners are liable up to their investement, but beyond that, you're right. If you don't like it, don't hire a corporation to do work in your home.

      As a stockholder in Union Carbide, why should I care if the company I own one share in dumps toxic chemicals on a neighborhood in India?

      If you want your stock to be worth something, you certainly should care. Not to mention that it's immoral and illegal to dump toxic chemicals on a neighborhood in India.

    101. Re:National sales tax now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm sure you'll do just fine (i.e., won't die) if we axe another 10% of your paycheck...

    102. Re:National sales tax now by kubalaa · · Score: 1

      "You don't own your land, you rent it from the government." Do you believe that you are somehow more entitled to its exclusive use than any other of your 6+ billion fellow humans? A capitalist like yourself should see the virtue of a system where you earn what you get -- you keep the land by virtue of adding value to it beyond what it's worth to the rest of humanity by itself (the rent).

      --

      "If you look 'round the table and can't tell who the sucker is, it's you." -- Quiz Show

  7. I am that you are, or was, for I am now by Leontes · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Identity theft is really becoming more of institution these days. So much information is out there, so quickly can someone hijack someone's life and such a pain in the ass it is to reclaim it. How much of a problem will this have to become before the laws change and identity is more easily secured? Can this be done without some sort of national privacy-killing registry?

    1. Re:I am that you are, or was, for I am now by terraformer · · Score: 1

      Yes! It is simple. The credit reporting agencies can continue doing what they are with regards to credit checks, however one more step needs to be added into the process. Everyone needs to choose a prefered CRA. The reason for this is simple. You build a relationship with that company and when someone wants to open up a line of credit, report a COA (change of address), they must ask the CRA for permission. The CRA then contacts you to verify that change/credit request and if the lender does not, you the borrower, is not liable for the tab. This should also be free to the consumer and paid for by the fees charged for opening lines of credit by the lenders. The consumer should not have to pay for corporate america's total lack of a sense of responsibility for their actions.

      --
      Who are you? The new #2 Who is #1? You are #617565. I am not a number, I am a free man! Muhahaha.
    2. Re:I am that you are, or was, for I am now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We could all give up our identity and use cool handles like on the internet. Invest under one name, riskily under another, something for your job...

  8. Re:I need a way... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    append an md5 sig to the bottom of all your AC posts.
    You will be the only one who can decode it and confirm its your comment :)

  9. Re:I'm guessing... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'd love to know how this was flamebait.

  10. Slashdot vs. Major Media Outlet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    So, on Slashdot, everyone will complain about the obvious privacy issues of having your personal information given away for marketing purposes. And, that's it. Now, if a Major Media Outlet were to carry this story, say, Reuters, then you would hear about it on NPR, you'd see it on ABC, and you'd read it in the New York Times. And it would be illegal in two months for these assholes to share your personal information while you trust them to do something as simple as file your taxes electronically. Of course, the Reuters author would have to write it up with a pro-consumer spin. It would have to cry privacy violation in every sentence.

    1. Re:Slashdot vs. Major Media Outlet by John+Seminal · · Score: 1
      So, on Slashdot, everyone will complain about the obvious privacy issues of having your personal information given away for marketing purposes. And, that's it. Now, if a Major Media Outlet were to carry this story, say, Reuters, then you would hear about it on NPR, you'd see it on ABC, and you'd read it in the New York Times. And it would be illegal in two months for these assholes to share your personal information while you trust them to do something as simple as file your taxes electronically. Of course, the Reuters author would have to write it up with a pro-consumer spin. It would have to cry privacy violation in every sentence.

      The facts speak for themselves. They are selling your information without telling you.

      It is like what MIT is doing. They didn't tell you they stopped being a university 20 years ago, and turned into a community college. Wouldn't you feel cheated if you sent your kid there, when he could have gone to Cal-Tech? But hey, I hear MIT has one hell of a disco on campus.

      --

      Rosco: "If brains were gunpowder, Enos couldn't blow his nose."

    2. Re:Slashdot vs. Major Media Outlet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Cal-Tech. *Cough* Sure. If you really want to give them a good chance at life, send them to Penn State.

    3. Re:Slashdot vs. Major Media Outlet by anthony_dipierro · · Score: 1

      Now, if a Major Media Outlet were to carry this story, say, Reuters, then you would hear about it on NPR, you'd see it on ABC, and you'd read it in the New York Times.

      Of course, that would require there to be a story. Intuit isn't giving away your personal information, for marketing purposes or any other reason. They're tracking how people use their website, where they're coming from, what part of the site they're at when they leave, things like this.

  11. trust us! by chocochip · · Score: 3, Insightful

    "You've just got to trust us," Miller replied, adding that "if we didn't uphold our privacy commitment, we wouldn't be here."

    Yeahhh, I'm gonna say no!

  12. Trusting Intuit is insane. by Ph33r+th3+g(O)at · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Quicken used to be an excellent product around 1997 or so. But then they started adding in-program spam and call home features. And that's when I stopped upgrading.

    --
    I too have felt the cold finger of injustice.
    1. Re:Trusting Intuit is insane. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't worry, they stopped upgrading about that time too. Unless you call spam and phoning home "features".

  13. Privacy Policy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What is the privacy policy on Turbo Tax. If they don't disclose they are collecting the information, are users expecting a reasonable degree of privacy when submitting.

    *Shrug* Whatever. If you don't want to to deal with it, don't use the product. Don't pay taxes (this is a joke, if you do this your stupid). They probably won't notice you. You could break your network so it doesn't forward out that traffic but silently fails so you can claim you didn't know.

    1. Re:Privacy Policy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Our privacy policy, which may change from time to time and thus you should check, is available at Intuit privacy policy.

    2. Re:Privacy Policy by jericho4.0 · · Score: 1

      Too much legalese for me.

      --
      "A language that doesn't affect the way you think about programming, is not worth knowing" - Alan Perlis
  14. One less reason to use Turbo Tax? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And I thought they learn their lesson with that DRM fiasco (remember that?) Evidently I thought wrong. Of course, Tax Cut as a piece of software seem to suck more with each passing year...

  15. Read the fine print for your savings and checking by John+Seminal · · Score: 4, Interesting
    They already share your information, and it is done by your bank. Banks make good money selling your financial information to "related buisnesses". And there is no way to opt-out. Don't want to have us sell your social security number and financial data? Then we won't open a savings account for you. What can you do? Stuff your mattress with money?

    People have no rights anymore because buisnesses stopped thinking about serving you. They now look at aggregates. You have become an after-thought on someones spreadsheet. We have 10,000 customers. We lose 50 this month because they don't like us sharing their information. But we get 500 new accounts from our marketing blitz. The bank is going to say it isn't worth their time to deal with 50 unhappy customers when an advertisment can bring in more customers.

    BTW, this is unrelated to this story, but I need help and I have to ask (since all the smart people hang out at slashdot, and I don't know the ipa to any forus to ask). My damn internet connection is not working right. I can't get to yahoo.com, but if i type in the ip address, i get there. What the hell is wrong?

    --

    Rosco: "If brains were gunpowder, Enos couldn't blow his nose."

  16. Re:I'm guessing... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Racist. He's making fun of non-native american Indians and he probably isn't even a minority!

  17. Bad reasoning for not capturing SSNs...... by xiaomonkey · · Score: 3, Insightful

    From the article: But he said Omniture doesn't do this. The reason, he said, is that client companies don't authorize Omniture to do it.

    So, is he saying that given the opportunity to capture this information, his company would? Semi-distrubing. What about not caputuring this information since it would be wrong to do so? Particulary with recent problems with identity theft.

    -

    1. Re:Bad reasoning for not capturing SSNs...... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      One thing that isn't apparent from the article is that it isn't Omniture that decides what data to transmit. *Intuit* decides what data to track, the web analytics companies just store it and report on it. These web analytics firms don't rewrite their clients pages to maliciously track data -- their clients say they want to report on X, Y, and Z information about their users, and their own developers are usually the ones that put it in place.

      The real issue is that companies should never be enticed to capture that type of information in the first place.

    2. Re:Bad reasoning for not capturing SSNs...... by NanoGator · · Score: 1

      "So, is he saying that given the opportunity to capture this information, his company would? "

      Geez, talk about the 'glass half-empty'.

      I have to ask, what would you rather hear: "I don't do it because I don't want to right now." --or-- "I don't do it because I can't, here's why." ...?

      --
      "Derp de derp."
  18. Turbo Tax "web" version or by the_skywise · · Score: 3, Insightful

    the boxed version? The article doesn't appear to say and I'm not quite sure why "web bugs" would be used to collect data on the boxed version. (y'know, like... when you could just capture the keystrokes?)

    1. Re:Turbo Tax "web" version or by jault · · Score: 1

      The article says that this relates to the IRS Free File program, which means it's TurboTax for the Web, not the boxed version.

  19. Where your tax information is going by $upernick · · Score: 2, Funny

    The real question lately is, where isn't your tax information going?

    1. Re:Where your tax information is going by techguy911 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The answer is obvious, companies like LexisNexis

  20. oh come on by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    if you RTFA, it says they CAN do it, but they DON'T. How is this news?

  21. Re:Read the fine print for your savings and checki by Leontes · · Score: 2, Informative

    That would be your DNS. Make sure you've got the right servers registered, in your network settings. There are some public DNS servers out there too, I think. Damn, I'm really replying to this when I don't know what I'm talking about. Of course, that's the danger in asking such an offopic question is such a public forum.

  22. National sales tax? by Pi_0's+don't+shower · · Score: 1
    Its time to crush this 30 year old unholy alliance between the IRS and the 3 party tax prep companys.
    What does a national sales tax vs. a national income tax have to do with 3rd party tax prep companies? Seriously! If you don't want a 3rd party company doing your taxes, just do them yourself. It's not hard, just a little time consuming. As an aside on a national sales tax, a recent issue of The Onion said it best,
    As an incredibly wealthy man who spends almost nothing, I wholeheartedly endorse the consumption tax!
    1. Re:National sales tax? by panxerox · · Score: 1

      Dude you did a paper on "Cosmological Consequences of a Charge Asymmetry" of course taxes arent hard for You.

      --
      "It's so convenient to have a system where everyone is a criminal" - A. Hitler
    2. Re:National sales tax? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They make it easy enough for the stupid people to complete them and send their money. The only difficult part is finding loopholes to exploit. That doesn't take a genius... just a jackass.

  23. Re:I'm guessing... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I thought it was a joke about his own sexual depravity. Since that is slashdot that should have been modded redundant or perhaps overrated....

  24. RTFA by firephreek · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The /. article is totally misleading. Makes it sound like Intuit is actively tracking the actual returns and trying to compile info on the users, not just tracking and compiling the user process. Until there's something shown that the tracking is done beyond the site, I'm gonna reserve judgement.

    If you're gonna get the tin hats out for this, then don't forget that Intuit also makes and sells the number one financial tool for not just businesses, but also personal finances. Quicken and Quickbooks. They don't need your tax return information. All your bank accounts are belong to Intuit. If they wanted to track your buying habits, the checking history of hundreds of thousands of individuals is at their fingertips.

    1. Re:RTFA by cerberusss · · Score: 1
      Intuit also makes and sells the number one financial tool for not just businesses, but also personal finances. Quicken and Quickbooks.

      Slightly off-topic, but interesting for a lot of people nevertheless: these two software packages run excellent on the commercial Wine version of CodeWeavers, named CrossOver Office.

      Since the 4.0 version they lowered the price to $40. Well spent, since they have most of the Wine hackers on staff. Note that I'm just a satisfied customer.

      --
      8 of 13 people found this answer helpful. Did you?
  25. I got rid of Turbotax by Stonent1 · · Score: 1

    I switched to TaxCut when Intuit tried that crap a few years ago writing things in places on the HD that could screw up a Linux install. I had the option again this year and thought, nope, I'm still not happy with them.

    1. Re:I got rid of Turbotax by Eudaemonic+Pie · · Score: 1

      yeah, ditto. Same reasoning, same result... intuit's management hasn't changed, why would their attitude change?

    2. Re:I got rid of Turbotax by rapidweather · · Score: 1
      Used TurboTax on XP HDD yesterday.

      Running livecd linux today, just fine. No linux installed on the drive, only personal settings on a removable pen drive.

      I have plenty of other boxes with linux installs, but cannot run Turbotax on any of them, only this Microsoft XP box.

    3. Re:I got rid of Turbotax by Ill_Omen · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure about Intuit's management, but their attitude apparently has. After the backlash from the registration debacle a few years ago, they changed their mind. They basically authorize you to install the software on as many computers as you want (as long as they are yours) and prepare and print as many returns as you want (as long as you're not doing it professionally).

      I switched back to TurboTax from TaxCut after TaxCut screwed me over on rebates.

    4. Re:I got rid of Turbotax by TheRealFreakish · · Score: 1

      About a year ago I interviewed at Intuit and while I was there I got to speak with a lot of employees. At the end of the day I asked an employee about the whole C-Dilla thing and she told me that heads rolled for that - the person managing that project was fired and Intuit apologized to their customers.

      So the grandparent's post is a bit off.

      Still, that doesn't mean Intuit won't try to figure out new ways to divvy up products so that you buy more from them (ItsDeductible!), but they at least care when a lot of people get upset.

  26. Ugh...... by Alcimedes · · Score: 2, Insightful

    So what's in place to keep a dishonest employee from gathering more information than they should and turning around and selling it to ID thieves?

    If identity theft is supposed to be as big of a business as we're told, you'd think that getting a few moles inside these companies would be a top priority.

    You'd know the person's income, what they purchased, address etc. That data would be worth a fortune to theives, and there's zero legitimate marketing purpose to them having my SS#.

    1. Re:Ugh...... by loraksus · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Nothing. I "worked" at TaxCut last year (to not use quotes would imply that after 10am everyone in my cube wasn't so shitfaced that they had trouble walking to the cafeteria for food, let alone actually go through any work). Interesting times.

      Every $8/hour agent has access to every return e-filed by HR Block (not just taxcut) - since 1999 at the click of the mouse. No oversight whatsoever and turnover was very high because the job quite frankly sucked for the PC phone people. They constantly had at least 3 classes of 40 people training because "shockingly" 75%+ would leave by the end of the first week on the phones.

      I've heard that they have since changed to where every agent doesn't have access to the entire return, but "just" the social, address, home / work / cell phones, amount of refund (from which you can pretty much guess the income), their first 5 w2s, the date submitted, estimated date that the refund would arrive, spouses ssn, etc.

      The only reason that a ton of tax data didn't get used is because most of the people working there were stoned off their asses virtually 24-7 and really couldn't care less about ordering up a couple credit cards in such and such person's name, or letting burglars know that someone at such and such address who works at such and such place just got a $15,000 refund and that they probably have a ton of new shit that could be looted.
      If organized crime - or even a couple theives spread around the country - got in on it, they could of have made a ton of money. It would be weeks before the cops caught on - if ever. If someone wanted to, they could even start work there using a fake identity, there was no background check to speak of afaik.

      I know this extends a little bit beyond the scope of your original question, but I'm sure that the situation is identical for the other tax programs.

      --
      1q2w3e4r5t6y7u8i9o0pqawsedrftgthyjukilo;p'azsxdcfv gbhnjmk,l.;/
    2. Re:Ugh...... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I can't imagine identity theft is as big of a business as we're told. It just not that hard to get someone's name, address, and social security number. Tens of thousands, maybe even hundreds of thousands of people have access to this kind of information. And I'm not talking about highly paid executives, I'm talking about people making minimum wage, maybe $10 an hour. To say a person's income, what they purchased, address, etc. would be worth a fortune to thieves is ridiculous. To sign up for a bank loan under someone else's name and social security number would be extremely risky. A thief would get a much higher rate of return stealing pocketbooks from old ladies than trying to scam a bank with a fraudulent loan.

  27. Misleading Article, worse summary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Intuit, and H&R Block both use 3rd party tools to track web site behavior. Big deal.

    I work at a Web site development agency, and we use these same tools (Omniture, DoubleClick, WebTrends, etc) to track behavior on our clients' sites. There's no sharing of data, no sinister plots. It's just a tool to understand how (anonymous!) users of the sites behave, what pages are most popular, and where the site has problems (what pages are most frequently abandoned).

    The tools are useful, but if a company does abide by its privacy policy (legally binding, I believe), there's no risk of personal information ending up being gathered.

    It's another example of a columnist writing an uninformed article, and Slashdot piling on rather than debunking. Gawd.

    1. Re:Misleading Article, worse summary by Secret+Agent+X23 · · Score: 1
      I work at a Web site development agency, and we use these same tools (Omniture, DoubleClick, WebTrends, etc) to track behavior on our clients' sites. There's no sharing of data, no sinister plots.

      But, see, here's the problem. We have an article with this in it:

      "We could capture your name, your Social Security number or any other information that you willingly pass to a Web site," acknowledged Matt Belkin, who serves as vice president of best practices for Utah marketing giant Omniture, which tracks the online activities of people using Intuit's TurboTax.

      That's a big attention-getter, and it's not easy to pass it off with an easy denial.

      The dude goes on to say they don't do it. I'll give them the benefit of the doubt. For now. But when a new executive gets hired, or the company reports losses for a quarter, that policy could easily change. Or if they hire someone who's unscrupulous and greedy... or even someone who's honest but for one reason or another has too much debt and is easily tempted... identity thieves could make an offer. Who knows?

      There are too many variables.

  28. National sales tax now-National Shake Fist Day. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    *OUTRAGE!*
    *OUTRAGE!*
    *OUTRAGE!*
    *TALK!*
    *TALK !*
    *TALK!*
    *FORGET*
    *FORGET*
    *FORGET*
    *INACTI ON*
    *INACTION*
    *INACTION*
    *LATHER*RINSE*REPEAT! *
    *LATHER*RINSE*REPEAT!*
    *LATHER*RINSE*REPEAT!*

    Important Stuff lameness filter.

    # Please try to keep posts on topic.
    # Try to reply to other people's comments instead of starting new threads.
    # Read other people's messages before posting your own to avoid simply duplicating what has already been said.
    # Use a clear subject that describes what your message is about.
    # Offtopic, Inflammatory, Inappropriate, Illegal, or Offensive comments might be moderated. (You can read everything, even moderated posts, by adjusting your threshold on the User Preferences Page)
    # If you want replies to your comments sent to you, consider logging in or creating an account.

  29. Ah... after RTFA... by the_skywise · · Score: 1

    "Julie Miller, an Intuit spokeswoman, said hundreds of thousands of returns are typically submitted daily during the last few days before each year's deadline (which is Friday, for those of you in deep denial).

    The company is offering its Free File program at taxfreedom.com. Nowhere on the welcoming screen or at any point in the filing process is it disclosed that Web bugs are being used. "

    The implication being this is their "web" client. Not the boxed one.

    (Not that my data is anymore safe.. Quicken likes to try to "force" me to upload my savings and checking account information to their website for "my" convenience.)

  30. Re:I'm guessing... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Maybe if he had mentioned wanting to watch or imagine it.

    But it seemed to only be insulting Indians. Which is why its flaimbait. The only way Indians get some is if the rape the goat, err girl, themselves.

  31. The morality of the story: by IPFreely · · Score: 5, Insightful
    If the IRS would actually come out with a method of E-Filing that does not require third party involvement, they would go a long way towards elimenating this type of problem. Look at the E-Filing instructions and it's all about how to find the right third party to do it for you (for a Fee!). Bleh.

    At least some states have figured out how to file taxes electronicly and directly (and free!) without involving someone with a profit motive in the mix.

    --
    There is nothing so silly as other peoples traditions, and nothing so sacred as our own.
    1. Re:The morality of the story: by dmaxwell · · Score: 2, Informative

      They were going to. Intuit and some others threw a lobbying shitfit about their multimillion dollar industry.

    2. Re:The morality of the story: by jgs · · Score: 1

      If the IRS would actually come out with a method of E-Filing that does not require third party involvement, they would go a long way towards elimenating this type of problem.

      Or, for that matter, you could file on paper, for cheaper. In an ideal world, you'll be sufficiently under-withheld that you don't have to worry about getting a refund anyway, removing the only rational reason to e-file.

      Filing on paper is still legal (as long as you prepare your own return, anyway).

    3. Re:The morality of the story: by anthony_dipierro · · Score: 3, Interesting

      If the IRS would actually come out with a method of E-Filing that does not require third party involvement, they would go a long way towards elimenating this type of problem.

      It would also be a large taxpayer expense. As it stands now you could get access to send your tax return directly to the government. But you'd have to write the software, and pass the tests, and undergo a criminal background check. This ensures that the government needs to do the least work once it's received a return. It also makes it very hard for criminals to screw up the system by for instance filing false returns for people other than themselves.

      Look at the E-Filing instructions and it's all about how to find the right third party to do it for you (for a Fee!).

      Actually, at least one third party (the makers of TaxAct), offers e-file for free to everyone. They make it hard to find the link, but if you go to the IRS free-file page, scroll down to "TaxACT.com", click the link, click "Leave IRS Site", and then click on "Start Free Return" then you can e-file your federal return absolutely free.

    4. Re:The morality of the story: by Professor_UNIX · · Score: 1
      Or, for that matter, you could file on paper, for cheaper. In an ideal world, you'll be sufficiently under-withheld that you don't have to worry about getting a refund anyway, removing the only rational reason to e-file.

      I hate writing checks to the government to pay taxes. I'd much rather they withhold too much and I just get a refund in the spring so I don't have to worry about it. Besides, I'd just blow the extra money anyway if I had it... it's a forced savings plan. This way I don't even think twice about the money they're taking out.. it's like getting a month's salary as a bonus check around tax season. I guess I should probably try to adjust it so they aren't withholding an extra 1/12th of my yearly salary though.

    5. Re:The morality of the story: by homer_ca · · Score: 1

      That's for sure. My federal and state returns cost me 60 cents postage each. I'm wasting another 28 cents because I threw on two 37 cent stamps instead of waiting in line for exact postage. Left it to the last minute too because I'm not getting a refund (no interest free loan to Uncle Sam from me).

    6. Re:The morality of the story: by lowrydr310 · · Score: 1
      it's a forced savings plan

      Yeah, and Uncle Sam gets to collect the interest on your money!

      Seriously, the feeling of getting something back instead of having to pay is a lot better. I'm having just the right amount withheld for myself and my wife, but last year my sister-in-law and nephew lived with me so I got to claim them, resulting in a little refund for me

      --- currently typing this on an old version of Konqueror because windows is bitching about DHCP

    7. Re:The morality of the story: by timeOday · · Score: 3, Insightful
      It would also be a large taxpayer expense.
      Bull. It costs much more for the IRS to print and process a paper return than an online one, and if there were an official, taxpayer-supported IRS filing site, many more people would e-file.

      I don't know what you're saying about everybody writing their own tax preparation software, but an official IRS site could certainly prevent fraud at least as well as paper forms or TurboTax etc.

      This is a case of purposeful government waste in order to create a market for some companies. Like if I started printing my own paper tax forms, charging $10 for them, then lobbied Congress to stop the IRS from printing tax forms because it was "competing with private industry."

    8. Re:The morality of the story: by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      If there is an actualy test the software manufactueres have to pass, i'm assuming somethign on it owuld be surrounding privacy. i wonder If intuite actualy shiped the same software that passed the terst and if not, would it be an attempt to defraud the general public?

      i don't care about the position the irs takes on it.Thier should be guidline in place that dictate standards about ensuring privacy and so on. This could actualy be bigger then getting some third part marketing material. It could be a bait and switch, a Quick payoff to the IRS for the ability to do this, of a biolation of trust to the general public that intuite enacted. Were can i find out more about the croteria on writing fileing software?

    9. Re:The morality of the story: by anthony_dipierro · · Score: 3, Informative

      Or, for that matter, you could file on paper, for cheaper.

      Cheaper than free? I don't think so.

      In an ideal world, you'll be sufficiently under-withheld that you don't have to worry about getting a refund anyway, removing the only rational reason to e-file.

      I've got another rational reason to e-file. You save the cost of the stamp (actually to be safe you should probably use two stamps as one is probably not enough), as well as the hassle of printing out the form and mailing it in. In my case, I save the hassle of driving to the post office and buying stamps, since I generally don't have any stamps around anyway.

      Of course, I wound up working less last year than expected, so I wound up with a refund, and I'll probably get one again in 2005 since changing my exemptions to 7 probably won't be enough (should have gone for 9, I guess). But yeah, the target is to owe $999 at the end, unless of course you can manage to get your income taxes down to $0, which is actually not too hard for 2005 (a married couple can earn $41,000 if they both contribute $4000 to an IRA and have $3000 of capital losses; if they have kids or one is a teacher or have student interest or have rental property or paid tuition costs they can earn even more; just having a few rental properties can theoretically raise that number to $66,000).

      Filing on paper is still legal (as long as you prepare your own return, anyway).

      For the federal return it's still legal. California (and possibly other states), has made it illegal for a paid preparer who files more than 50 (or something like that) California returns from not e-filing an eligible state return unless the customer specifically requests not to e-file, but the federal government has done no such thing - yet.

    10. Re:The morality of the story: by anthony_dipierro · · Score: 1

      It costs much more for the IRS to print and process a paper return than an online one

      I wasn't comparing printing and processing a paper return to e-filing them. I was comparing the government writing its own e-file software with them outsourcing that job to third parties.

    11. Re:The morality of the story: by anthony_dipierro · · Score: 1

      If there is an actualy test the software manufactueres have to pass, i'm assuming somethign on it owuld be surrounding privacy.

      No, the test is to ensure that the software is properly formatting the data it sends to the federal government.

      Were can i find out more about the croteria on writing fileing software?

      e-file for Software Developers/Transmitters. You might want to learn how to write English first, though.

    12. Re:The morality of the story: by Saeger · · Score: 4, Insightful
      I'd much rather they withhold too much and I just get a refund in the spring so I don't have to worry about it.

      Frankly, that's a retarded attitude, but a lot of lazy people share it. To have your employer automatically subtract (sorry, "withhold") taxes just so you can feel like you're winning the lottery when you get your "refund" is... retarded. Not only do you lose out on the interest, but the government has you by the balls because you don't even really feel the pain of PAYING taxes.

      Since I'm self-employed, nobody withholds from me, so I get to feel it when I write my two checks to Fed and State treasuries.

      By the way, Tax Freedom Day for 2005 falls on April 17th, so you're still working to payoff taxes until then... but at least you won't feel it. :)

      --
      Power to the Peaceful
    13. Re:The morality of the story: by nacturation · · Score: 1, Funny

      My federal and state returns cost me 60 cents postage each. I'm wasting another 28 cents because I threw on two 37 cent stamps instead of waiting in line for exact postage.

      I hope you calculated the math for your return better than you did for your postage.

      --
      Want to improve your Karma? Instead of "Post Anonymously", try the "Post Humously" option.
    14. Re:The morality of the story: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      however the IRS did spend a bundle creating the e-file API, documentation, certification, support and regulation programs.

      if they had decided to make their own front end from day one, opening up the e-file API to third parties would not have been necessary, and the money saved by not doing that could have been used to make a free public front-end.

      personally I use the e-file-capabable software but at the end print it out and file on paper in protest of their idiotic and corrupt management. the IRS has done nothing to make my life easier, so there is no reason why I should make theirs easier.

    15. Re:The morality of the story: by pete6677 · · Score: 2

      This is why I don't e-file. Despite being a card carrying geek, electronic is not always better. I won't be e-filing unless it provides me with an advantage over paper filing. Since I don't get a refund, the earlier refund wouldn't count for me. Since an electronic return would definitely be cheaper for the IRS to process (no need for a data entry drone), they should give a discount to those who e-file. Then I might actually consider doing it.

    16. Re:The morality of the story: by anthony_dipierro · · Score: 1

      however the IRS did spend a bundle creating the e-file API, documentation, certification, support and regulation programs.

      A lot of which already existed. Businesses have had access to e-file for a long time now. If you count submission on magnetic tape, even longer. It's only the consumer e-file which is relatively new.

      if they had decided to make their own front end from day one, opening up the e-file API to third parties would not have been necessary, and the money saved by not doing that could have been used to make a free public front-end.

      I highly doubt it. Creating an API and some docs, when you've already got an internal file format, is not very much work. The support and regulation costs are much less when you only have to support and regulate a couple thousand instead of a couple hundred thousand. You'd still need an API and docs to run e-file yourself. So I don't see how it could possibly cost the same thing.

      personally I use the e-file-capabable software but at the end print it out and file on paper in protest of their idiotic and corrupt management. the IRS has done nothing to make my life easier, so there is no reason why I should make theirs easier.

      I didn't e-file to make the IRS's life easier, I did it to make my life easier. I'm not going to cut off my nose to spite my face, even if I did want to spite my face in the first place.

    17. Re:The morality of the story: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Since I'm self-employed, nobody withholds from me, so I get to feel it when I write my two checks to Fed and State treasuries.

      Don't you mean "eight checks"? How long have you been self-employed?? This statement surprises me (self-employed since 1997).

      The US tax system is a "pay as you go" system. You have to pay your taxes close to when you earn the income. Otherwise you pay penalties. Unless your taxes are under $1000 or you just started out you will have to pay penalties (8%? something like that).

      Does the phrase "estimated tax payments" ring any bells?

      The only time I haven't paid quarterly tax payments is during the boom, when I could easily beat the penalty elsewhere.

      So if you're self-employed, you *do* feel the sting of paying throughout the year (and yes you can overpay and get a refund, but that's retarded as you point out.. the government will loan YOU money at 8%, but when you loan THEM money throughout the year by overpaying, they give you nothing :-).

    18. Re:The morality of the story: by NanoGator · · Score: 1

      "Frankly, that's a retarded attitude, but a lot of lazy people share it."

      Some of it is 'laziness', some of it is having a life-style that doesn't support having a sudden bill for $500.

      Yes, people can take better care of their money. Yes, people can save, etc. Blah blah blah. The point is, it's not up to you to judge whether anybody is 'retarded' simply because they chose convenience.

      (Note: I'm not saying you're wrong about the idea that it's not the wisest choice for the frugal, mainly I'm responding to the 'retarded attitude' but.)

      --
      "Derp de derp."
    19. Re:The morality of the story: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Eh?

      $0.37*4 = $1.48
      $0.60*2 = $1.20
      $1.48 - $1.20 = $0.28

    20. Re:The morality of the story: by gumbi+west · · Score: 1
      Hate to burst your bubble, but (1) they probably already have all the software. (2) government programers are going to be about 10 times more efficient thatn contractor programers (contract overhead on fed site, contract overhead on contractor side, bid process on fed side, bid process on contractor side x number of contractors, contract poorly written, large conference calls about terms of contract, lawsuit about terms of contract, new contracting process with slighly better terms, go to begining).

      Which is to say, if you think the feds suck at working, imagine them writing a contract that is worth a damn after the lawyers of some beltway bandit work it out.

    21. Re:The morality of the story: by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      writing englesh isn't important.

      Anyways.. i have found that site after i posted and read thru the testin as well as some of the other stuff. i guess the irs isn't realy concerned about making sure your electronic information is private.

    22. Re:The morality of the story: by britneys+9th+husband · · Score: 1

      Not feeling the pain of paying taxes... true. This is why the Republicans want to do away with all tax withholding and move tax day from April 15 to the first Monday in November.

      --
      Hear recorded Slashdot headlines on your phone! New service beta testing. Just call (248) 434-5508
    23. Re:The morality of the story: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What kind of bullshit statement is that? I'm a republican, and I believe that if I have to be taxed, I'd rather be taxed on items I electively purchase rather than being taxed for the privilege of earning a living for me and my family. You must be a socialist to be so ignorant.

    24. Re:The morality of the story: by anthony_dipierro · · Score: 1

      (1) they probably already have all the software

      They're just hiding it from us?

      (2) government programers are going to be about 10 times more efficient thatn contractor programers

      Contractor programmers? That's not at all how the e-file program works. The government hasn't entered into any contracts with anyone to create e-file software. They've just opened up their systems to those who can demonstrate that they've created e-filing software and let the free market do the rest.

    25. Re:The morality of the story: by anthony_dipierro · · Score: 1

      i guess the irs isn't realy concerned about making sure your electronic information is private.

      I'd hope not. Regulation of contracts is the job of the state legislature, not the federal executive (the IRS).

    26. Re:The morality of the story: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'll say they're wrong and retarded because it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out how much withholding is appropriate to get them as close to balancing at zero as possible come tax time. Why should the government make interest off of money that you earned, that you could be putting into a retirement plan, rather than giving it to research programs to study homosexual Native Americans?

    27. Re:The morality of the story: by Brandybuck · · Score: 1

      It's not retarded if they're just doing it for the convenience. But it is retarded if they think they're somehow getting money for nothing, or treat the IRS as a savings account.

      Yes, some people do actually believe. I always get pissed off when people say Americans are stupid, but then tax day rolls around and I realize that a heck of a lot of them are. I've got one friend who deliberately increases his withholding, just so he can get a bigger refund. One day out of the year he's ecstatic and throws a party with the refund money. The other 364 days he's bitching because he never has enough cash in his pocket. He's not alone in this attitude.

      --
      Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
    28. Re:The morality of the story: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Uh, if you're not making enough to have to pay estimated taxes FOUR times a year, then you're not feeling much pain. That's EIGHT checks total - four to federal, four to state. Plus you may even get to send a FIFTH check to both if you've underpaid. I really loathe a lot about the government and Democrats since I became self-employed. The typical wage-slave is woefully ignorant about taxes.

    29. Re:The morality of the story: by Saeger · · Score: 1

      No, I mean two. The penalty for not paying quarterly estimated taxes is tiny enough that it's worth avoiding three paperwork headaches.

      --
      Power to the Peaceful
    30. Re:The morality of the story: by lxw56 · · Score: 1

      Tax Freedom Day is friggin early this year. I remember when it was the middle of May. I love tax cuts. But it is still too much.

    31. Re:The morality of the story: by Martin+Blank · · Score: 1

      I work in government, and I can honestly say that there are few things lazier than government programmers. Contractor programmers may be willing to take advantage of government contracts, but they generally don't do so to the extremes that government-employed programmers will. Ten to twenty percent over budget and maybe a little more than that in time for contractors is average in my experience (with the odd group that keeps things on-time and under-budget) compared to years overdue and annual costs exceeding the original entire project estimate.

      --
      You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
    32. Re:The morality of the story: by Mattcelt · · Score: 0

      What I was told today is that you have to pay your taxes at least quarterly, otherwise the IRS charges you a huge penalty and the interest they would have collected if they had the money by then.

      They actually charge you interest on your own money. How screwed up is that??

    33. Re:The morality of the story: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      umm..no, you have to make quarterly estimates or face a fine if you end up having to write a large cheque on the 14th.

    34. Re:The morality of the story: by Angostura · · Score: 2, Informative

      The UK government has a truly excellent Web-based tax filing system http://www.inlandrevenue.gov.uk/. It is one of the best examples of a robust, intuitive, helopful Web-based system I know.

      It saves the government heaps in terms of manually checking paper-work and entering figures.

    35. Re:The morality of the story: by meiemiiz · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I guess size matters. I live in Estonia (pop. of approx 1.4 mio) and we have a very good e-tax office, they first introduced it like 3 years ago. Now it took a whole 15(!) minutes to complete my whole tax application and I got my refund in 2(!) days. The key is that our tax office owns and runs the software and all private enterprises are encouraged to e-file their tax info too + all government agencies use the same platform. For example, my tax-application was pre-filled with information about: - my incomes (info from my employer) - my loans (info from my bank, which I have agreed to enclose) - my stipends (infro from my school, which I have agreed to enclose) So I just parse through the information, accept it and submit my tax-form. And yes, it helps to have a simple legislation - no progressive taxations, no tax brackets, not too many write-offs. PS. The e-delarations reached more than 50% of the whole number this year.

    36. Re:The morality of the story: by Eivind · · Score: 1
      Okay, so it's not retarded and shared by a lot of lazy people, but instead absolutely astoundingly braindead ?

      Or perhaps it should be considered "wise" to handle ones finances so poorly that a unexpected (to people at this level, all bills are unexpected) bill of $500 is a problem.

      "Choose convenience" is a lame cop-out. Can you give an example of some behaviour that in your opinion *does* deserve the label "retarded" ?

      I fail to see how it's particularily "convenient" to have to go beg someone for money the next time a $500 cost shows up. Or to have to pass the next time something fun or interesting costing $500 appears.

    37. Re:The morality of the story: by vrai · · Score: 1
      Against all probability, and past performance of UK public sector IT projects, the IR web system is staggeringly good. It took me less than half and hour to do my taxes this year - including payment.

      Perhaps the US should outsource its tax collection to the UK. After all we already provide a chunk of their armed forces, this is the next logical step.

    38. Re:The morality of the story: by Stuart+Gibson · · Score: 1

      Unforunately the site was VERY overloaded on the last filing day. Of course, the Inland Revenue claimed that people had had months to file their returns, but it still suggests short-sightedness and a fundamental ignorance of human nature not to realise that 80% of people wait until the last minute - remember that episode of the Simpsons?

      Apart from that oversight, the UK tax office filing site is well regarded here.

      Stuart

      --
      It's all fun and games until a 200' robot dinosaur shows up and trashes Neo-Tokyo... Again
    39. Re:The morality of the story: by MrResistor · · Score: 1

      The problem is that they charge you a penalty for underpayment, so in the long run you actually do come out ahead if you overpay (unless, of course, you know exactly how much you'll be making this year and there's absolutely no possibility that you will make any more than that. I've never been in that situation.)

      --
      Under capitalism man exploits man. Under communism it's the other way around.
    40. Re:The morality of the story: by 10Ghz · · Score: 2, Interesting

      In Finland the employer automatically deducts the taxes from the salary. It goes like this: I tell the tax-authorities the amount of money I will be earning that year (well, I don't really have to do it, they try to guess the sum based on my past earnings). you can tell them any amount you wish. End result is that if you tell a low amount, your tax-% will be low. But if you earn more than you told them, you will be required to pay extra taxes at the end of the year. Likewise: if you tell a high amount, you will get high tax-%, but you will get money back, if you don't earn that much in reality.

      After I have told the authorities the relevant information, they mail me a document wich says "your tax-% is this", and I hand that document to my employer, who deducts the correct sum from my salary.

      I usually tell larger sum that what I think I will earn. Why? It's pretty simple:

      a) That way I can get a raise during the year, without going over the limit I told the authorities
      b) When I get my monthly salary and see the amount of money I receive, I plan my future expenses around that sum. When I get a tax-return in the end of the year, it feels like "extra" money, since I had already made my purchasing-decisions and the like based on an assumption that I pay certain amount of taxes and I get no tax-returns. The amount of money I lose on interests is neglible.

      Related to this: the tax-returns and the like work like this: They mail you some forms where they tell you "we calculated your taxes like this, and this is the number we will pay you back/you have to pay us. If the numbers are correct, don't do anything. If there are some things you would like to change, use the attached form to do so". Basically you just fill in all kinds of extra expenses that you can deduct (commuting-expenses, interests on mortage, purchases of equipment you need for your work (books, computers, broadband, tools etc. etc. depending on your work)). Attach some receipts to the form, and you are all set. The whole preocess takes about 30 minutes if you have the receipts you need.

      All in all, the whole process is very simple and easy. It seems like the tax-hell of Finland has alot simpler taxation than USA does :). We don't have any software to help us pay our taxes, since the whole process is so simple.

      --
      Lesbian Nazi Hookers Abducted by UFOs and Forced Into Weight Loss Programs - -all next week on Town Talk.
    41. Re:The morality of the story: by mrchaotica · · Score: 1
      But yeah, the target is to owe $999 at the end
      Huh? Why?
      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    42. Re:The morality of the story: by greenrd · · Score: 2, Informative
      Here in the UK, we don't view privacy as purely a contractual issue. Our Data Protection legislation (privacy legislation) applies to all data collection, whether governed by a contract or not.

    43. Re:The morality of the story: by greenrd · · Score: 1
      It would also be a large taxpayer expense.

      But wouldn't the expense of creating a secure cross-platform e-filing system, be more than offset by the efficiency savings resulting from more people e-filing?

    44. Re:The morality of the story: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful
      You must either have a very high income or are just plain stupid, then. Basic tax principles will tell you that a tax system based solely on sales favors the extremely wealthy, who save more than they spend, and places the majority of the tax burden on the middle class, who consume a majority of their income on an annual basis.

      But at least your statement is consistent with today's Republican rhetoric.

    45. Re:The morality of the story: by xpurple · · Score: 1

      Nothing like getting excited about getting your own money back. The fruits of your own labor.

      Taxation Equals Slavery.

      A story about a man I met who understood this.

      --
      http://www.xpurple.com
    46. Re:The morality of the story: by 4of12 · · Score: 3, Funny

      Perhaps the US should outsource its tax collection to the UK.

      Actually, we use to have an arrangment just like that.

      From what I understand, it didn't work out very well.

      Why would we want your sucky government when we have a perfectly fine sucky government right here at home?

      --
      "Provided by the management for your protection."
    47. Re:The morality of the story: by avdp · · Score: 1

      They only charge you a penalty if you are waaaaay underpaying. Owing a few hundred dollars on taxes never raises an eyebrow at the IRS.

    48. Re:The morality of the story: by fermion · · Score: 2, Insightful
      but someone has to pay the bills. By overpaying one is insuring that one does not have to pay money unexpectedly at the end of the year. Many firms go through great length to avoid all unexpected expenses, though things such as service contracts and planned replacement of equipment, even though it might be cheaper to do otherwise.

      What is retarded is believing in a free lunch, and is what is wrong with the current US administration. They live in a fantasy world in which they can give their friends all the pork they want, but, through magiks, not have anyone pay for it.

      I guess I love this country enough to pay for the privilege to live in it. Sure there is money to be saved, and cheaper places to live, but that is always true. Since we are civilized I know that there things I have to pay for that I wish I didn't, and there are things that others have to pay for that they wish the didn't, but overall it tends to work out.

      And the interest argument, for most people, is absurd. For many people, the marginal benifit of the interest will not offset the time it takes to plan. Sure, the money is nice and we can spend it, but so can the government. Again, things have to be paid for.

      I have been self employed, and the only thing I felt when I wrote check, aside from the twinge that I may have not fully accounted for the expense, which is my fault, is pride that I was contributing to this great country, and pride that I lived in a place where I was allowed to have the opportunity to suceed.

      --
      "She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
    49. Re:The morality of the story: by Fezmid · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Yes, but things come up that you don't expect that really could end up costing you in penalties. For example, last year my wife worked part-time at H&R Block doing tax returns (ironic, no?). They didn't take much out in taxes there, but we didn't mind since I have extra taken out of my check and we figured that would cover it. Then later in the year, the state hired her as an independent contractor and she made a few thousand more teaching classes. None of that money was taxed at the time. Then I taught a class late in the year as well, and none of that money was taxed. We ended up paying $86 to the Federal government, even though we had a refund of around $1,000 the previous year. If I hadn't taken extra out of my check, we would've been surprised to owe over $1,000, and I'm pretty sure penalties kick in around that threshold. If the system were more predictable (or there were no penalties for underpaying), I'd agree 100% in having less withheld from check to check. But since it's impossible to predict what you'll earn the entire year, it's nice to overpay a little every pay period and get some of it back at the end of the year.

    50. Re:The morality of the story: by TGK · · Score: 1

      Or they could use the money to do something that benefits you...

      Maintain the roads you drive on....
      Protect your investments...
      Defend your shores....
      Educate your children...

      or, in the case of the Bush administration,

      Drop high explosives on hapless civilians...
      Dig big holes in Alaska....
      Violate international agreements...

      --
      Killfile(TGK)
      No trees were killed in the creation of this post. However, many electrons were inconvenienced.
    51. Re:The morality of the story: by bloggins02 · · Score: 1

      Ok, maybe "retarded" is the wrong word, so how about this:

      It's "unfortunate" that the IRS gets billions in interest-free loans from the citizens of the US every year and people still have the attitude that somehow it's "extra" money coming to them.

    52. Re:The morality of the story: by jonatha · · Score: 4, Interesting

      >>But yeah, the target is to owe $999 at the end

      >Huh? Why?

      Owing (rather than getting a refund) means you can earn interest on the money for a year rather than letting Uncle Sam have it.

      $999 is the most you can owe without having to pay penalties and interest for underpayment.

      --
      The SCO lawsuit makes me wish my company were in Utah. We need a new building.
    53. Re:The morality of the story: by TGK · · Score: 1

      Tax prep software costs money. Typicaly somewhere around $50. I'm a lazy slacker and find this software makes my life easier. I also don't really want to pay that much for it.

      If you buy it after April 15th it's functionaly free.

      If you don't owe the government any money, no one seems to care if your return is late.

      So the question is, does the potential interest on your taxes for a year outweight the discount on the tax prep software?

      --
      Killfile(TGK)
      No trees were killed in the creation of this post. However, many electrons were inconvenienced.
    54. Re:The morality of the story: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Tax Incidence, Tax Burden, and Tax Shifting: Who Really Pays the Tax?
      http://www.heritage.org/Research/Taxes/cda04 -12.cf m

    55. Re:The morality of the story: by mzieg · · Score: 1
      (2) government programers are going to be about 10 times more efficient thatn contractor programers
      Wow...wow. I've been both a government programmer and a contract programmer for 12 years, and I can say that that is perhaps one of the most erroneous statements I've ever seen.
    56. Re:The morality of the story: by anthony_dipierro · · Score: 1

      It saves the government heaps in terms of manually checking paper-work and entering figures.

      If this were done in the US, it'd probably affect government revenues the most just from the fact that so many people would fill out their taxes incorrectly as a result of not going to a professional. But I don't know how complicated the UK tax system is. And I'm not sure if it would increase or decrease revenues here. But I do know that most people don't know how to properly fill out their tax returns.

    57. Re:The morality of the story: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      yep, paid 24000 in state and federal income taxes on 144000 gross income.

      add in property tax of $11000 and 8% sales tax.

      hell. when house was purchased the mortgage payments were under $10000/year!

      of course this does not include employers contribution.

      then there are all those damn excise taxes and marginal increase in utility costs to cover those who do not pay and the public utilities 'charity' work. Sheesh.... I'm about ready to join the ranks of the hobo's and pack it in. The reward is no lnger worth my remaining time on this earth...

    58. Re:The morality of the story: by anthony_dipierro · · Score: 1

      Here in the UK, we don't view privacy as purely a contractual issue.

      I know, it's one of the things I don't like about the UK.

      Our Data Protection legislation (privacy legislation) applies to all data collection, whether governed by a contract or not.

      Fortunately, here in the US, we have this thing called free speech.

    59. Re:The morality of the story: by anthony_dipierro · · Score: 1

      But wouldn't the expense of creating a secure cross-platform e-filing system, be more than offset by the efficiency savings resulting from more people e-filing?

      Well, the government is trying to get it both ways. They're trying to get more people e-filing without building the e-filing system themselves. It'll take longer, perhaps, but in the long run I think it's the smart thing to do. In ten years, e-filing will likely cost less than a stamp, and I'm talking about a full open source software package. You can already e-file for free if you can find the right place to go (hint, it's linked to from the government's list of Free File Alliance Companies. I e-filed for free, and my girlfriend e-filed for free. Everyone is eligible to e-file for free through TaxAct.com. The only problem is that "free file" isn't very highly publicised.

      Well, that and the fact that the US tax code is too complicated for most people to file on their own anyway. But even here, the federal government might go the same way as California, and start mandating that paid preparers who use software packages e-file all returns that are eligible.

    60. Re:The morality of the story: by brontus3927 · · Score: 1
      Frankly, that's a retarded attitude, but a lot of lazy people share it...when you get your "refund" is... retarded. Not only do you lose out on the interest

      It's a matter of convience. Does going to 7-11 and picking up a sandwhich for lunch instead of making your own make you lazy or retarded?

      My total return is usually under $1000. If I had that $1000 in the bank for a full year in a CD (which doesn't reflect the reality of the situation in the least), I'd earn $25 Hardly worth it for the aggravation of adjusting my withholding every time I switch jobs (my day job is a temp employee and got paid 5 different rates over the course of last year)

    61. Re:The morality of the story: by pla · · Score: 1

      but the government has you by the balls because you don't even really feel the pain of PAYING taxes.
      ... nobody withholds from me, so I get to feel it when I write my two checks to Fed and State treasuries.

      Okay, let me get this straight - I don't suffer through the year as I pay my taxes, and get to feel like I've hit a small lottery come the end of April; while you suffer miserably at having to write a very large check to the government, which hopefully you've consciously (and painfully) put enough aside to pay.

      And you call me retarded?

      We both have to pay more-or-less equally. I feel "good" when I get my refund, and you feel bad when you get to pay. Which of us comes out ahead?

    62. Re:The morality of the story: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm having a hard time understanding what you are trying to convey when you say:
      ... has you by the balls because you don't even really feel the pain ...
    63. Re:The morality of the story: by Short+Circuit · · Score: 1

      Taxation Equals Slavery.

      Maybe...but paying for municiple services a la carte would be worse. Lessee...$25 every time I wanted to file a police report.

    64. Re:The morality of the story: by AviLazar · · Score: 1

      I think it is a matter of opinion rather then being "retarded". I like them taking an extra few bucks (about 25) per week out of my paycheck. Why? Because I won't notice that 25. But at the end ot the year, 25x52 = 1300. Now I may not have gotten interest on it. But honestly, I wouldn't have gotten much interest on it if it were in a savings account.

      --

      I mod down so you can mod up. Your welcome.
    65. Re:The morality of the story: by bluGill · · Score: 2, Interesting

      More than that, if you know you owe the government money you want to wait until the last filing date. When my money is in a savings account I at least earn interest, once I pay the bill I quit earning interest on the money. Now granted today's interest rates are so tiny this isn't much money, but still an extra few pennies add up over time. (I pay most of my bills on the first of the month so that I can get an extra month's interest on my money, again it isn't much but it adds up over all my bills and time)

      Just before April 15 in the US (Taxes are due then here) there is a news bulletin of which post offices are open until midnight. Some people really do wait that long to turn things in. Personally I try to turn mine in a week or two before that just in case something bad happens to me.

      I don't know how UK taxes work, but in the US there are a large number of people who have an advantage of waiting until the last minute to pay their taxes. Then there are those who have the advantage of doing them early, but just lazily hold off. Combine together you are right, it is very short sighted to not have system that can handle the load of most people waiting to the last minute.

    66. Re:The morality of the story: by bluGill · · Score: 1

      I don't e-file because I'm cheap. A stamp costs $.37, and I drive by the Post office anyway to get the weight. e-file costs me more than that. If the IRS wants to save money by not having someone read my chicken scratching (Yes I do my taxes by hand, it is easy if you can follow directions) they can provide an easy, cheap electronic interface. Until then I will use the interface they want me to by charging less for it.

      Considering this story, I'm glad I don't use software to do my taxes.

    67. Re:The morality of the story: by clickster · · Score: 1

      Man, the whole "retarded" name-calling thing took me back to elementary school.

      "Since I'm self-employed, nobody withholds from me, so I get to feel it when I write my two checks to Fed and State treasuries."

      Ah, so you're just jealous. That explains a lot.

      --
      If you mod me down, I shall become less powerful than you could possibly imagine.
    68. Re:The morality of the story: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're ignoring the fact that while he may feel bad about paying, he justifies it by making smug "everyone who does it differently is retarded" comments.

    69. Re:The morality of the story: by ThePepe · · Score: 1

      "At least some states have figured out how to file taxes electronicly and directly (and free!) without involving someone with a profit motive in the mix."

      Thats why this tax season was one of the first times I was actually happy to be living in Indiana.

    70. Re:The morality of the story: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bitter much?

    71. Re:The morality of the story: by stanmann · · Score: 1

      Because at 1000. the penalties for underpayment start, just like ... somewhere around 5000 the penalties for overpayment start.

      --
      Food not Bombs is a nice platitude but it breaks down when you notice that the Bombees are usually well fed
    72. Re:The morality of the story: by letxa2000 · · Score: 1
      In Mexico, e-filing is required and is free directly through the equivalent of the Mexican IRS. No third parties. The Mexican tax system is far more screwed up and confusing than the American system, but it's amazing they're light-years ahead of the U.S. when it comes to e-filing.

    73. Re:The morality of the story: by Mad_Rain · · Score: 1

      This is a case of purposeful government waste in order to create a market for some companies. Like if I started printing my own paper tax forms, charging $10 for them, then lobbied Congress to stop the IRS from printing tax forms because it was "competing with private industry."

      Shhhh! Quiet fool, you'll give them ideas! ;)

      --
      "What do you think?" "I think 'What, do you think?!'"
    74. Re:The morality of the story: by EvilMagnus · · Score: 2, Informative

      $999 is the most you can owe without having to pay penalties and interest for underpayment.

      That is incorrect. The underpayment penalties are based on your prior year's return and a percent value - For example, you pay penalties if the tax you owe is greater than 10% of your total tax bill this year and if the tax you owe is greater than the tax you paid last year.

      For example, if last year I paid $10,000 in taxes, and this year my withholdings were $8,000, but I actually still owed $10,000, then I would face a penalty as my tax owed would be $2,000 - greater than 10% of my total tax bill this year.

      If I paid $12,000 last year and withheld $8,000 this year on a bill of $10,000, I would *not* owe penalties, as my *total* tax bill is less than the prior year's bill.

      So basically, if the total tax owed is less than the tax you paid last year, there's no underpayment penalty. If the total tax owed is greater than you withheld this year *and* greater than the total you paid last year, then you better pray you've already paid 90% of the tax due, otherwise you get a penalty.

      --
      -EvilMagnus
    75. Re:The morality of the story: by robertjw · · Score: 1

      Actually, at least one third party (the makers of TaxAct), offers e-file for free to everyone.

      Ummm... No. I used TaxAct this year (and last). It's free to create your return, but you have to print it and mail it in. To E-File you have to use their "Deluxe Edition" for $9.95 (E-file for your Federal tax return is INCLUDED!) plus another $5.00 for the State return.

      I did this because the last two years in a row I have had difficulty with my tax returns actually making it to the IRS/state revenue service. The $15 seemed more cost effective than printing the forms, adding postage, actually going to the post office and paying to have the letters sent certified so I can be sure they get there.

    76. Re:The morality of the story: by letxa2000 · · Score: 1
      They actually charge you interest on your own money. How screwed up is that??

      I'm not really defending the IRS here, but...

      They only charge you interest on "your" money if you don't file by the due date. You're supposed to pay quarterly and if you do that, they'd be earning money as soon as you send the money in by the end of the quarter. So they charge you the interest that they didn't earn because you waited until the end of the year instead of the end of the quarter.

      Personally, I'm self-employed overseas and should send in a quarterly estimated tax. I don't. I just wait until the end of the year, do my standard 1040 paperwork, find out how much I owe, and send it in. A few months later I get a bill for the interest (and a small penalty I think) for not having filed my quarterly taxes. As long as you file your annual 1040 on time, the actual interest/penalties for not having sent in quarterly estimated taxes is pretty small. At least it is for me since I'm not earning millions of dollars. Where you really get hit hard is if you don't file the 1040 on time.

      With the amount of money I make and my general aversion to paperwork consuming my time throughout the year, and the cost to Fedex quarterly tax payments, I just find it easier to pay the interest/fine each year than dick around with income tax every quarter. Screw that.

    77. Re:The morality of the story: by WarPresident · · Score: 1

      Couldn't you incorporate and just pay yourself once a year to avoid the penalties?

      --
      Here come da fudge!
    78. Re:The morality of the story: by letxa2000 · · Score: 1
      Exactly. I said the same thing elsewhere in this tread. I've never sent in estimated taxes. I just pay the penalty/interest, which is small, and thank God I only have to think about income taxes once per year.

      That said, it does suck sending in that huge tax payment once per year. Perhaps it would hurt less if I sent in the estimated tax quarterly.

    79. Re:The morality of the story: by nelsonal · · Score: 1

      While I dislike tax day, I would feel even worse about it if after paying the government taxes I found I was giving them an interest free loan all year long. My goal is $0 and while I have come very close to this after netting the effects of both federal and state taxes, each individually is not quite there, yet.

      --
      Degaussing scares the bad magnetism out of the monitor and fills it with good karma.
    80. Re:The morality of the story: by Orpheus+Liar · · Score: 1

      Yes, and the quote from the VP at Omniture shows you exactly what sorts of things happen these days when we "let the free market do the rest."

    81. Re:The morality of the story: by letxa2000 · · Score: 1
      If the system were more predictable (or there were no penalties for underpaying), I'd agree 100% in having less withheld from check to check. But since it's impossible to predict what you'll earn the entire year, it's nice to overpay a little every pay period and get some of it back at the end of the year.

      The system is very predictable. Your income might not be, but you know how much you make when you make it. You should just set aside some of that extra income in an account for your taxes.

      I'm self-employed overseas and while I should file quarterly, I don't. I hate paperwork. I do keep track of what I earn and set aside slightly more than I expect to pay and put that in a savings account. When tax time comes around, I do my 1040, figure in my deductions, and the amount I have to send in (plus the penalty/interest I later get charged by the IRS for not sending in estimated taxes throughout the year) is always less than what I set aside. Hence my "refund" is what's left over in my tax savings account after paying taxes and penalties.

      No, I'm sure it doesn't make financial sense. Obviously the penalty eats up the interest I earned on the money. But my time is worth something to me, and time I don't have to spend doing tax-related paperwork is worth even more. And I still get that warm fuzzy feeling about getting a "refund"...the only difference is that I just transfer it from my tax savings account to my checking account. Bam, that's my "refund"--and it's just as real as the "refund" people get from the IRS. I just never sent it to them in the first place.

    82. Re:The morality of the story: by bigpat · · Score: 1

      It isn't as if the IRS couldn't figure out how to do it online directly. It is about Congress trying to create meaningless jobs on the backs of the american taxpayer. The tax preparation industry is a big industry with a lot of jobs, and letting the IRS offer tax forms online would do a great deal to cut out the middleman. Of course this would be good for most americans, but bad for the tax industry. Problem is that people blame the IRS, when it is really Congress calling the shots on this.

      As an aside, I've looked at the specification for third parties to submit electronically to the IRS:

      http://www.irs.gov/efile/article/0,,id=118575,00 .h tml

      I figure I could create a basic IRS web front end, (no wizard, just forms), with a small team of developers.

      But the IRS already has the infrastructure to do this. Certainly a budget of no more than 2 million dollars could get this done and be built upon the existing infrastructure built for third parties. I realize the technical challenges of providing a scalable front end to serve all taxpayers, but the IRS has the resources to do this.

      They just lack Congress' will.

    83. Re:The morality of the story: by letxa2000 · · Score: 1
      I have been self employed, and the only thing I felt when I wrote check, aside from the twinge that I may have not fully accounted for the expense, which is my fault, is pride that I was contributing to this great country, and pride that I lived in a place where I was allowed to have the opportunity to suceed.

      No offense, but what are you? Some liberal poster child? You're the kind of robot drone that the government wants: Those that are eager to send them money.

      The real patriot would contribute more to this country by not paying to reduce the cashflow the federal government has available and force it to make the "tough" decisions so that federal spending--and debt--could be reduced. Unfortunately, most of us aren't willing to go to jail for not paying our taxes even though it arguably would do more good than harm to withhold that money from the federal government.

    84. Re:The morality of the story: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The corporation would have to pay estimated quarterly taxes and you would have to do your own taxes as well, which would increase the amount of tax paperwork.

    85. Re:The morality of the story: by nigelc · · Score: 1
      Not sure it would make any difference. America (specifically the currdent administration) seems to be spending more money than they take in from taxes anyway. And how are we planning to raise money to pay for it? Tax cuts.

      I don't understand it myself.

      --


      Cthulhu Barata Nikto
    86. Re:The morality of the story: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think that people that live outside of their means shouldn't complain about the "burden" of sales tax on luxury items.

      That being said, I don't believe food should be taxed.

      And yes, I do well, and paid through the nose for it.

    87. Re:The morality of the story: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Last I checked, this Great Country which you contribute your hard earned money to is simply throwing it away. This Great Country is slowly (at times quickly) going down the drains and into the sewers of socialism, quasi communism.

    88. Re:The morality of the story: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Owing (rather than getting a refund) means you can earn interest on the money for a year rather than letting Uncle Sam have it.

      Nice idea -- unless you're a poor hacker that can't even afford the minimum $$$ required to open a savings account.

    89. Re:The morality of the story: by letxa2000 · · Score: 1
      Not sure it would make any difference. America (specifically the currdent administration) seems to be spending more money than they take in from taxes anyway.

      True, but the only reason they can do that is because they have future tax revenue as a guarantee to pay for the money they borrow. If tax revenue was being withheld by the citizens, they wouldn't have that guaranteed source of income and no-one would loan the government money.

      And how are we planning to raise money to pay for it? Tax cuts.

      Taxes decrease efficiency of the market. As you lower taxes, the economy becomes more efficient which generates more economic activity which in the end can generate more taxes in absolute terms (even though the percentage may be less).

    90. Re:The morality of the story: by Sax+Maniac · · Score: 1
      You must be single.

      If I put that money into a savings account, I'll realize a wonderful -100% interest when the wife spends it all. Zero is much better than that.

      The point is not everyone is as financially disciplined as you or me, and anything that increases the savings rate is a good thing - when compared with the alternative saving nothing.

      Now look at the average US savings rate, and tell me if actually saving something is retarded and lazy.

      It may make more sense for a person get a refund of a few hundred dollars, than blow the cash on coffee and movies over the year, if they are not a good saver. Many people have a very difficult time keeping money liquid and not spending it.

      In this case the IRS acts as a zero-interest, one-withdrawal-per-year savings account for free, with automatic deposits. And, it's trivial to set up because you have to do it anyway.

      Automatic savings, via whatever means, is one the first step towards fiscal responsibility and lowering your expenses. It takes effort to keep your expenses to rising to meet your income. You may get this intuitively, but many don't, and it doesn't help to berate them because you're so suprerior.

      --
      I can explanate how to administrate your network. You must configurate and segmentate it, so it can computate.
    91. Re:The morality of the story: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Alot of the money is being thrown away. But we have roads, mostly clean water, education so we can have people to hire to do work, telphone, the internet, social security so that people have an alternative to mugging, child food programs so we do not have the situations like in other countries, not to mention civil defense, foreign defense, etc.

      As a great bussinessman once said, paraphrasing, I know that half my advertising money is wasted, I just don't know which half.

    92. Re:The morality of the story: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So rather than collecting the interest yourself, you'd rather let the government collect it?

    93. Re:The morality of the story: by mutterc · · Score: 1
      More than that, if you know you owe the government money you want to wait until the last filing date.
      FYI, if you want the government to direct-debit the money from your bank account, you can also specify (on the tax return) the day you want them to do so, up to and including April 15th.
    94. Re:The morality of the story: by mutterc · · Score: 1
      I had thought that it would be nice to create a generic tax-form-filling-out web app (with a tax-form-creation backend), designed for scalability and security, and open-source it.

      That would be most of the "work", then it would be hard for the government to deny that it's possible (they'll never admit that they just don't want to piss off tax-industry campaign contributors).

      It wouldn't be hard to design the Web equivalent of just filling out the paper forms (line X takes a user-input value, line Y is the difference between A and B, line Z is the table-lookup result of the line C value, ...)

    95. Re:The morality of the story: by lantenon · · Score: 1

      I think his point also has something to do with the sheer volume of taxes we pay. If you had the distinct displeasure of writing a check for approximately 30% of your gross annual income in a single day to the government every year, the point seems to be that you'd be pretty annoyed and more likely to do something about it, whereas right now they take that 30% out over the course of the year through each check. Is 30% of your check (say $600 in tax on $2000 pay) noticeable? Yeah. Is it a little more noticeable if it was all at once ($15,600 on $52,000) instead? I think so.

    96. Re:The morality of the story: by RuneB · · Score: 1

      Something like this might be a good start.

      --
      dtach - A tiny program that emulates the detach feat
    97. Re:The morality of the story: by qwijibo · · Score: 1

      The problem is that they're not dropping high explosives on the right hapless citizens. If they cluster bombed spammers, would anyone really care?

    98. Re:The morality of the story: by qwijibo · · Score: 1

      But the rich can afford to shoot down the arguments of people trying to change the status quo. Government is all about resistance to change. When someone wants change, it requires lobbying. It's not hard to spend a little money to sabotage that lobbying effort to keep things as they are. People who pay more in taxes than most people make can afford a little extra to grease the wheels.

    99. Re:The morality of the story: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I love it when someone who has been the beneficiary of all that government protection and doesn't even know it starts mouthing off about how bad it is. It makes me wonder about our education system. Could someone teach these brats what happens without that "unfair government intervention"?

    100. Re:The morality of the story: by pla · · Score: 1

      While I dislike tax day, I would feel even worse about it if after paying the government taxes I found I was giving them an interest free loan all year long.

      This year I get back somewhere around $1500. At 2.5% interest (a typical rate for a savings accoung - Not like I can put $28/week into a 5-year CD), that means the government has "made" a whopping $18.50 off me, compounded weekly at that same 2.5%.

      Now, YMMV, but I consider it WELL worth my trouble to indirectly lose an extra $18.50 in exchange for not having taxes hurt quite so much. And, since we had self-employment as the basis of comparison, I expect my time spent on sending in quarterly payements, at my hourly rate, would almost certainly exceed $18.50.

      In any case, we need to also consider what it means that I have potentially "lost" about $20 to the government - It means the government doesn't need to raise taxes to make up for that $20 that I don't even directly have to pay.


      As an aside, I get into a similar argument with my SO all the time... She insists on waiting until just before the due date to pay bills, because she doesn't want to give them an interest-free loan for two weeks. While I see her (and similarly, your) point, my time has value. If even once a year I need to take a long lunch from work to pay a bill in person that I'd forgotten about, that far outweighs the tiny interest I'd get from keeping another $70 in a savings account for an extra week.

    101. Re:The morality of the story: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      So... I have $999 that I can earn interest on over a year, you say?

      Perhaps more like, I accumulate $999 over the course of the year.

      I can't put that money in a CD, because for most banks, either it's not enough to open a CD (early in the year), or it is so low a period there's no point (late in the year).

      So I put that in a typical interest bearing account... which earns maybe 1%. Let's be generous, and call it $500 for a year at 1%.

      $5, or thereabouts, yes?

      Now look at the time I spend making sure that I owe exactly $999 to maximize my earnings. I generally value my time at $15/hour.

      I don't know about you, but I find it worth the investment of "lost interest income" to a) be assured I don't have a lump payment come due at tax time, and b) not have to spend the additional time gaming the system would require.

    102. Re:The morality of the story: by bigpat · · Score: 1

      I think that doing the math for people would open yourself up for liability. So, I was thinking of just having the forms without any calculations. Some of the calculations can get tricky, especially once you get into AMT and making decisions based on what works out better for you to take as a deduction. So, just make it look like the pdf version of the 1040 (maybe even just accept the filled in pdf as an input). But just keep it simple.

      Make it a j2ee web app and there shouldn't be questions about scalability.

    103. Re:The morality of the story: by anthony_dipierro · · Score: 1

      I don't e-file because I'm cheap.

      I e-file because I'm cheap.

      A stamp costs $.37, and I drive by the Post office anyway to get the weight. e-file costs me more than that.

      E-file is free. That's less than $.37.

    104. Re:The morality of the story: by anthony_dipierro · · Score: 1

      Ummm... No. I used TaxAct this year (and last). It's free to create your return, but you have to print it and mail it in.

      No, you got ripped off. I filed my return through TaxAct and my girlfriend filed her return through them, and both of them were free.

      You must have gone directly to the site. If you do that, you have to pay. But if you enter the site from the IRS's free file page, it's free. Free to print, and free to e-file. You gotta pay for the state, though, that is, if your state has an income tax (mine doesn't).

    105. Re:The morality of the story: by anthony_dipierro · · Score: 1

      Right, because the fact that it's technically possible to do something which they don't actually do is a bad thing. RTFA, and the actual quote in context, if you don't know what I'm talking about.

    106. Re:The morality of the story: by Orpheus+Liar · · Score: 1

      I did RTFA and I also know folks who work there - and if you're so naive as to think that it's ok that they can do it simply because they don't (for this particular customer, in this particular instance), then you deserve the world you're helping to create and I hope it comes to bite you personally on your smug ass.

    107. Re:The morality of the story: by avdp · · Score: 1

      If you're making money that hasn't had any tax widthheld, then you should be making a quarterly estimated payment on that money. There is nothing the least bit unpredictable about the system, even if your income is unpredictable.

      About the supposed $1000 limit, there is no such thing. It's a percentage of what you owe. As long as you're not off by more than x % (somewhere between 10 and 20 I think, you can look it up) you're OK. And even if you are off by more than that, there are still exemption to the penalties.

      I've owed several thousands one year, no penalty.

    108. Re:The morality of the story: by anthony_dipierro · · Score: 1

      if you're so naive as to think that it's ok that they can do it simply because they don't

      OK? It seems to me it's an empirical truth. You give information to a company, it's therefore possible for that company to sell the information to someone else. I don't see how that can be OK or not OK, it's just a fact.

    109. Re:The morality of the story: by Orpheus+Liar · · Score: 1

      The point of the whole article is that those who used Intuit's site to file their taxes might (should) be disturbed that Intuit is paying a third party (Omniture) to collect information that most people would consider to be of a sensitive nature and that many would (should) not be pleased to know that their sensitive information was a potential revenue source for both companies.

      As to "okayness" versus "empirical facts" - I can choose to give my credit card information to a company in order to purchase something from them. It is an empirical fact that it is therefore possible for that company to use my credit card information in ways I would not wish them to. Typically they don't, because we have laws against such types of theft. We have these laws because society considers the unauthorized use of someone else's money/credit to be immoral. Similarly, it is immoral for a company to make money off of information that you give to them (or, in this case, information you've given to an entirely different company) for a specific other purpose - we just don't have laws against it, yet. Hence, me implying that such data marketing practices are not "ok".

    110. Re:The morality of the story: by Rick+BigNail · · Score: 1

      Can't you use online bill payment? You could set up pre-payment.

    111. Re:The morality of the story: by anthony_dipierro · · Score: 1

      The point of the whole article is that those who used Intuit's site to file their taxes might (should) be disturbed that Intuit is paying a third party (Omniture) to collect information that most people would consider to be of a sensitive nature

      That might be the point. But it isn't true!

      Similarly, it is immoral for a company to make money off of information that you give to them (or, in this case, information you've given to an entirely different company) for a specific other purpose

      I have to disagree. Giving a merchant someone else's credit card number without their permission when you buy something is fraud. You're stealing that product from the merchant that you bought it from. Making money off information, when there is no contractual obligation not to make money off that information, is perfectly moral. No one owns information, after all.

    112. Re:The morality of the story: by gumbi+west · · Score: 1
      Right, but you were probably working for a city or state. the feds run a tight ship. Each federal office I have heard about or worked in was stunningly efficient, each was run like a small business, but could leverage huge capital when needed. Now the states and cities on the other hand...

      Just as a macro example, medicare runs with about 3 percent overhead. Compare to the private average of about 25 percent! Talk about waste, why use these innefficient orginizations? Imagine, we could se an increase in the total size of our economy of several percent, just from this one change. That is huge.

    113. Re:The morality of the story: by gumbi+west · · Score: 1

      I'll bet you worked for a state or city. The feds I've worked with have all been models of efficienty. As an example: Post Office--contractors. Social Security Administration: Feds. SSA runs about 3 percent overhead--much less than any other retirement/life insurance/disability insurance orginization in the world.

    114. Re:The morality of the story: by anthony_dipierro · · Score: 1

      The underpayment penalties are based on your prior year's return and a percent value - For example, you pay penalties if the tax you owe is greater than 10% of your total tax bill this year and if the tax you owe is greater than the tax you paid last year.

      And if you owe $1000 or more. Also, for those in a certain income bracket, they have to pay 110% of the tax they paid last year.

      But basically, for those of us who pay little in taxes (less than $10,000), and have a relatively stable income, it usually comes down to whether or not we owe $1000 or more.

    115. Re:The morality of the story: by anthony_dipierro · · Score: 1

      Well, it probably isn't worth the time to make sure you owe exactly $999. But if you aim for owing $500, and you can get it to within $499, then you haven't done so bad.

      As for your 1% estimate, I think most people can do a lot better than that. If you've got a mortgage, then you can "earn" 6, 7, 8% by prepaying that. If you've got credit card debt, same thing. Personally I'm invested in REITs, which average a return a lot better than 1%.

      But hey, even trying to break even at the end of the year is a lot better than what I've seen far too many people do: they contribute way too much intentionally so that they can get a big refund - then they pay some ridiculous interest rate for a refund anticipation loan so they can get it back faster.

    116. Re:The morality of the story: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      somewhere around 5000 the penalties for overpayment start

      I have to say, while I've heard references to this penalty for overpayment I've never actually seen it (though I have seen refunds exceeding $10,000). Do you have a reference for this overpayment penalty?

    117. Re:The morality of the story: by Orpheus+Liar · · Score: 1

      Omniture claims that it is not true in this instance, and even they concede that it is for ethical reasons that they aren't (though they do collect similar sorts of information for other clients). I think it naive to rely upon the ethical rigor of data-mining/marketing corporations to not attempt to make money at an individual's expense.

      Making money off of information, when there is no contractual obligation not to make money off that information, is perfectly legal. That does not mean that it is moral or ethical to do so.

    118. Re:The morality of the story: by anthony_dipierro · · Score: 1

      I think it naive to rely upon the ethical rigor of data-mining/marketing corporations to not attempt to make money at an individual's expense.

      I fail to see the expense incurred by the individual.

      Making money off of information, when there is no contractual obligation not to make money off that information, is perfectly legal. That does not mean that it is moral or ethical to do so.

      Nor does it mean that it is immoral or unethical.

    119. Re:The morality of the story: by Orpheus+Liar · · Score: 1

      The expense incurred is in the loss of one's privacy.

      My point is that it is immoral and unethical for corporations to collect and then sell personal information without the express consent of the individual. You obviously have no problem with such practices. Fair enough.

      Toe-may-toe

    120. Re:The morality of the story: by anthony_dipierro · · Score: 1

      The expense incurred is in the loss of one's privacy.

      One already lost his privacy when he gave the information to the tax preparer.

      My point is that it is immoral and unethical for corporations to collect and then sell personal information without the express consent of the individual.

      When you sign up for the TurboTax service they give you their privacy policy, and ask you whether or not you agree to it. An entire section of that policy is devoted to telling you all about the information that Intuit collects via cookies, how they use the information, and how it may be made available to third parties. How is this not obtaining your express consent?

  32. IRS position by NoseBag · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Actually, the IRS position is a smart one. Basically they are saying "Until it gets to us (e-mail or snail mail or whatever) we have no knowledge of it, or its journey, or what happened to it between you and us."

    That's fair, damn it.

    The issue is with the go-betweens. I say - take 'em to court and smoke 'em.

    --
    Cloned foods give the statement "We had that last week!" a whole new meaning.
    1. Re:IRS position by techno-vampire · · Score: 1
      The issue is with the go-betweens. I say - take 'em to court and smoke 'em.

      For what? For having the ability to capture information going through their system? If that's enough to take them to court, then your ISP had better be in the dock right next to them because they have that ability too. There's nothing in the article that you obviously didn't read to say that anybody's actually doing this. FUD and nothing else and you, like most slashdotters, fell for it hook, line and sinker.

      --
      Good, inexpensive web hosting
    2. Re:IRS position by NoseBag · · Score: 1

      Implicit in the discussions is the issue of the ability to capture personal and *by definition* confidential information (tax return info). I don't want Turbotax doing it (not that they are) and I don't want the in-betweens doing it (not that they are). But I can't hold the IRS accountable for this personal info until it gets there. And if someone in that chain (IRS e-filing) is doing it, I suspect I have just cause for a lawsuit.

      My main point is the considered position that the IRS took - a position that is in the article that I did read. Your false assumptions and ad hominem attacks do not do you credit. Time for nappies?

      --
      Cloned foods give the statement "We had that last week!" a whole new meaning.
    3. Re:IRS position by techno-vampire · · Score: 1

      You seem to be assuming that if they can collect this information, they will. Do you have the slightest evidence they are? Go back and check TFR; it's quite plain that they aren't, and that they have no plans to do so.

      --
      Good, inexpensive web hosting
    4. Re:IRS position by NoseBag · · Score: 1

      "You seem to be assuming that if they can collect this information, they will."

      I assume no such thing. I simply assert a solution (litigation)exists if such an action occurs.

      "...it's quite plain that they aren't, and that they have no plans to do so."

      Plans (and ethics) can change. Just wave some money (and plausible deniability) in front of their management - or one unscrupulous employee in a key position.

      --
      Cloned foods give the statement "We had that last week!" a whole new meaning.
    5. Re:IRS position by techno-vampire · · Score: 1

      I'm not too worried about their ethics changing, but I'll agree that a bad apple in the wrong position is a possibility. Of course, the bad apple will have to know how to make the software harvest the info, so we're probably safe from the average market droid.

      --
      Good, inexpensive web hosting
    6. Re:IRS position by NoseBag · · Score: 1

      I'm glad you agree that it only takes one - in the right position and (implicitly) with the right skills.

      --
      Cloned foods give the statement "We had that last week!" a whole new meaning.
  33. National sales tax?-Rubber Band Man. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    He's also the guy who invented Flubber.

  34. Errr... by KublaiKhan · · Score: 1

    Is this only for the people who used the tax preparation software itself, or do those of us who used in good faith their web service to file our taxes, based on a recommendation from the IRS's website, also have a risk of having our identities stolen?

    --
    In Xanadu did Kubla Khan
    A stately pleasure dome decree
  35. Open Wide Mr. Consumer by pan_e_vino · · Score: 1

    "The whole purpose of this technology is to hide tracking from consumers. You can't see the Web bugs. You don't know they're there. That's exactly how the direct-marketing industry prefers it -- tracking methods that can't be detected or disabled." God Bless the USS..er I mean USA.

  36. I had a problem like this by LAXATTACK · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Once I bought a VISA gift card at AAA(that travel place), and they got my social security number and a month or so later I got a freaking cell phone bill in the mail for a phone I didn't even have. Turns out one of the employees there took the number and somehow used it to get a damn cell phone for his friend....I guess you really can't trust anybody.

    1. Re:I had a problem like this by techno-vampire · · Score: 1

      I'll bet that employee was arrested real quickly when AAA found out about it. When I worked for an ISP, one of our sales droids was caught using customer's credit cards to sign them up for services they'd never ordered. He was escourted to the exit by Security, right into the hands of the local police. Our data protection policy got tightened up quite a bit after that; once is enough!

      --
      Good, inexpensive web hosting
    2. Re:I had a problem like this by Guppy06 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      "I bought a VISA gift card at AAA(that travel place), and they got my social security number"

      Those gift cards are are something you have to pay up front for, correct? If so, why did you give out your SSN for a cash transaction?

  37. No you fucking idiot!!! by Mr.+Underbridge · · Score: 5, Funny
    And for complete anonymity, take your thumb, lick it, and rub over your social security numbers til you can't read it any more.

    Good God, you idiot! Now they'll have your DNA!!!

    1. Re:No you fucking idiot!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not to mention his thumbprint!

  38. 3rd Paries, huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I don't think I care about Third Paries very much. As long as they aren't sharing with third parties I think we are all OK.

  39. Re:Read the fine print for your savings and checki by John+Seminal · · Score: 1
    That would be your DNS. Make sure you've got the right servers registered, in your network settings. There are some public DNS servers out there too, I think. Damn, I'm really replying to this when I don't know what I'm talking about. Of course, that's the danger in asking such an offopic question is such a public forum

    I figured it is DNS. I was able to get google, and since I can't connect to any website, I was using their cache. It appears Comcast has some hackers attacking them, they are calling it "pharming". They posion the DNS server. So I guess I am at the mercy of Comcast to fix their DNS server.

    I really wish I had a list of IP addresses to the most common domains. So far, using google, I am searching "www.yahoo.com ip address" and then if I see something in the cache with an ip address, i copy and paste it.

    --

    Rosco: "If brains were gunpowder, Enos couldn't blow his nose."

  40. Raise holy hell and watch them squirm by Windcatcher · · Score: 2, Insightful

    They can only get away with this because they haven't been called out on the carpet for it. Single a bank out and make sure all the bloggers get the word. Eventually the news will filter to the MSM that "Bank XYZ" is selling customers' info. Even if they all are doing it, the other banks will get the message that they're next. If the pressure is strong enough, you can get them to change...all it takes is one bank to give in and the rest will follow suit to compete.

  41. Re:Read the fine print for your savings and checki by dsettanni · · Score: 1

    You could also take a look at your hosts file - If your run windows it is %systemroot%\system32\drivers\etc\hosts or on a *nix based OS it is /etc/hosts. The hosts file bypasses normal DNS queries and is sometimes used by spyware/adware to hijack your connections. Try using a product like adaware or another spyware removal tool if you are running windows.

  42. Paper Filing Is Still Legal by John+Hasler · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    > Makes you wonder where your tax information is
    > going...

    To the IRS. Via USPS. Only an idiot would file his tax return via the Web.

    --
    Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
    1. Re:Paper Filing Is Still Legal by xxxJonBoyxxx · · Score: 1

      Mod parent up. I got my refund from paper-filing two weeks ago.

      I've always been paranoid about what an electronic program would think about all my moving expenses from category A to category B. I also like having an exact copy of what I sent the IRS.

    2. Re:Paper Filing Is Still Legal by anthony_dipierro · · Score: 1

      Only an idiot would file his tax return via the Web.

      Why? Because Wal-Mart might find out how much I made last year? Because Brown & Company might find out that I trade a lot of options? I'll take my chances and save the 37 cents (or whatever the price of postage is, I don't even know). Plus I got my refund check in like 2 weeks.

    3. Re:Paper Filing Is Still Legal by Tenebrious1 · · Score: 1

      To the IRS. Via USPS. Only an idiot would file his tax return via the Web.

      Ha ha, good one! I trust the USPS about as much as I trust Intuit.

      --
      -- If god wanted me to have a sig, he'd have given me a sense of humor.
    4. Re:Paper Filing Is Still Legal by StupidKatz · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Then you're stupid.

      Physical evidence is harder to 1. tamper with 2. copy, and 3. process, at least where #2 involves a handwritten, sealed letter.

    5. Re:Paper Filing Is Still Legal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Mod parent up. I got my refund from paper-filing
      > two weeks ago.

      I put it off until today because I have to *pay* more than $3000.00 this year. I used Intuit's online system to file, with firefox. And I really don't give a flying shit where my information goes.

    6. Re:Paper Filing Is Still Legal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Haha it must suck to be you. Here in Australia we have a state produced binary (win32 only i believe) that steps through the entire process and then submits via the net. Sure there's still potential problems with keyloggers and insecure comms but it's about as safe as trusting australia post workers.

    7. Re:Paper Filing Is Still Legal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Why? Because Wal-Mart might find out how much I made last year? Because Brown & Company might find out that I trade a lot of options?

      No. Because someone that works at Wal-Mart or Brown & Co. might find out your SSN, bank account # (if you sign up for direct deposit), date of birth, etc. and open up multiple credit card and/or checking accounts in your name.

      I'll take my chances and save the 37 cents (or whatever the price of postage is, I don't even know). Plus I got my refund check in like 2 weeks.

      He who would give up Essential Liberty to save 37 cents, is one cheap-ass bastard! -- Ben Franklin (sort of ;-) )

    8. Re:Paper Filing Is Still Legal by anthony_dipierro · · Score: 1

      No. Because someone that works at Wal-Mart or Brown & Co. might find out your SSN, bank account # (if you sign up for direct deposit), date of birth, etc. and open up multiple credit card and/or checking accounts in your name.

      And I care about this because?

      (That is, if the tax company would actually sell SSNs and bank account numbers, which I seriously doubt.

      He who would give up Essential Liberty to save 37 cents, is one cheap-ass bastard! -- Ben Franklin (sort of ;-) )

      Telling someone who I'm doing business with my SSN and bank account info isn't giving up Essential Liberty.

    9. Re:Paper Filing Is Still Legal by iminplaya · · Score: 1

      ...And I really don't give a flying shit where my information goes.

      I agree completely. The rest of you are a bunch of paranoid ninnies. Your information is gone. Forget about it. The only reason your personal info has any value at all is because you try to cling so tightly to it. That you allow anyone who presents this info to make transactions or do anything physical is your own problem. You shouldn't give info such power. You want (almost)secure communication? You just have to do it face to face.

      --
      What?
  43. Re:Read the fine print for your savings and checki by b3h · · Score: 1

    Yup, call your isp and ask em for their list of dns servers, they'll probably have a few. Then stick the ip's in your Network Properties dialog or resolv.conf as the case may be. beh Slashdot Tech Support

  44. what's wrong... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    with third paries?!?!

  45. Re:I'm guessing... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    But he is a minority - he is white.

  46. Yes. They are totally trustworthy. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    All hail the MegaCorps! Protectors of the little guy's privacy!

  47. Attention, obvious by taylortbb · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I think any web surfer with basic internet knowledge knows that servers can tell what pages you visit, of course, they are afterall giving you the information. If most users find this surprising they should know what else goes on.

    Can you trust the person sorting your mail not to open it? about as much as you can trust Intuit, however as soon as its online everyone gets freaked out.

    As soon as you let someone else transmit your personal information this can happen. When you submit a form containing your SSN (social security number) the person on the recieving end or anyone in transit can read it, be the form HTML or paper.

    Anyone sorting real world mail could open a letter and read it. Any company sending your data over the web could read the data you are sending them, well, of course, you're sending it to them for a reason.

    Could a marketing company get people to infiltrate the post office and steal random letters to examine content? of course. Could a marketing company forcefully aquire data (via hacking, etc.) online? of course. But now its much harder, the data is encrypted.

    Unfourtunatly most average consumers don't read /., but for anyone that reads this, *your computer is more secure, just because its in the real world doesn't mean it can't happen, and in the computer world there is cryptographically secure prevention*. People steals cars, break into houses, and commit fraud without computers all the time, don't be afraid of your computer, or stuff online.

    (For those who are going to attack me because the article isn't about hacking, the only way for the marketing companies to get data is hacking, Intuit is *not* going to share that info. Either a or b is true: a) its against privacy laws, paper or internet. b) they could do it with your paper forms too, making it a moot point.)

    1. Re:Attention, obvious by What+me+a+Coward · · Score: 1

      Intuit Let us spread you private tax info for you so hackers don't have to. #(

      --
      Coward? Coward! Thems fighten words!!
    2. Re:Attention, obvious by taylortbb · · Score: 1

      Personally, I hardly consider a graphic showing website loads to be "sharing personal info". tracking where people get stuck is a valid thing to be tracked, I'm certain every good web server out there does this. Slashdot is almost certanily logging which pages you load, your IP, etc. This info isn't hard to come by and has many legitimate uses. I've used it on my web servers for tracking down people messing with pages they shouldn't be.

  48. Heh, if this is a biblical reference... by NotQuiteReal · · Score: 1
    remember - the US is only a small percentage of the world. So no where close to universal mark-of-the-beast coverage, if you are only counting US citizens.

    It cracks me up, everytime my fellow Americans ramble on about this mark of the beast stuff. Even if ALL Americans did X, there are still BILLIONS of others NOT doing X.

    --
    This issue is a bit more complicated than you think.
    1. Re:Heh, if this is a biblical reference... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It looks like no-one cares *what* you think?

    2. Re:Heh, if this is a biblical reference... by superpulpsicle · · Score: 0

      Well all of us americans have to suffer thru this overly complicated tax process every year. It doesn't make any sense.

      If the US government is smart enough to deduct from our paycheck, why don't they deduct everywhere they see fit. All this hassle is a bullshit. Is not like we ever get away with not paying tax.

  49. Re:Read the fine print for your savings and checki by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You have comcast and they have their third outage within two weeks. just use 4.2.2.1 as a secondary dns and you are good to go.

  50. What about their stand-alone software? by WidescreenFreak · · Score: 1

    The article doesn't come right out and say it, but this is regarding their web-based filing. When I first read the title, I thought that it was for their CD-based package.

    The problem is that at least web information can be caught since most of that information is captured and retrieved through cookies. Unfortunately, this article makes me even more suspect about their CD-based software. You know, the one with CD-illa (2003 tax year) that didn't uninstall properly? We can track and delete cookies. We're not so fortunate with their CD version, except to not install the product at all.

    Maybe it's time to let TurboTax figure out the math while disconnected from the network, hand-write the results and send them in, then immediately wipe the hard drive and reinstall the operating system. Okay, I'm being facetious with that, but if they're willing to do this sort of thing on the web where we can catch them, what's to stop them from doing it with their binary distributions where catching them in the act might not be so easy?

    --
    The Overrated mod is for reversing inappropriate, positive mods, not for voicing disagreement with a post.
  51. oops by flynt · · Score: 4, Funny

    Wow it's April 15th on Friday, lucky I read Slashdot!

    1. Re:oops by Killjoy_NL · · Score: 1

      I'm luckier, it's my bday on the 15th of april :D

      --
      This is the sig that says NI (again)
  52. Re:Read the fine print for your savings and checki by wx327 · · Score: 1
    BTW, this is unrelated to this story, but I need help and I have to ask (since all the smart people hang out at slashdot, and I don't know the ipa to any forus to ask). My damn internet connection is not working right. I can't get to yahoo.com, but if i type in the ip address, i get there. What the hell is wrong?

    If you are on Comcast, they have been having all sorts of problems with their DNS servers. I helped a friend last night to get a temporary workaround. Luckily, they could still IM, so I could give them instructions typed instead of over the phone. For your network connection (assuming windows, control panel/network connections), select either wired or wireless connection properties (whichever one you are using). Select Internet Protocol TCP/IP in the list box and go to its properties. Change the bottom option to "Use the following DNS server addresses, and enter 4.2.2.1 for preferred and 4.2.2.2 for alternate. These are DNS servers open to public use, run by Verizon, I believe. Click OK to get out of all the boxes and you should be set. You can go through the same steps to select "Obtain DNS server address automatically" when Comcast has fixed their problems.

  53. Sales tax NOT regressive by XanC · · Score: 5, Informative
    The current plan for a national retail sales tax calls for everyone, everyone, to receive a "pre-bate" for necessities. It's tied to the poverty line.

    So nobody pays tax on necessities. From there, the more you buy, the more you pay. It's progressive without having to treat people differently under the law.

    1. Re:Sales tax NOT regressive by GoofyBoy · · Score: 2, Insightful

      In many countries there is a national sales tax and they do have exceptions for necessities and alot of little strange little rules around this. If you want to simplify taxes, this is not the way to go. If you want to reduce taxes, this is not the way to go.

      For example, here in Canada we have the GST. The exceptions are;
      http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/tax/business/gstgui des/rc 4045/rc4045-e.html
      So notice that full sized pies are not taxed but single servings are. And I'm sure that other countries have rules like that too.

      --
      The surprise isn't how often we make bad choices; the surprise is how seldom they defeat us.
    2. Re:Sales tax NOT regressive by XanC · · Score: 1
      But this plan isn't based on exceptions. It's not that necessities aren't taxed, per se. It's just that nobody pays tax on the first (pick a number) $20,000 they spend in a year.

      Technically they don't even have to spend it. Everybody just gets a check for (pick another number) 30% of $20,000.

      No exceptions; the same rules apply to everybody and to all new products.

    3. Re:Sales tax NOT regressive by anthony_dipierro · · Score: 1

      All the plans I've seen promise that no one would pay more in taxes, most people would pay less in taxes, and yet government revenue would go up.

      And how does giving everyone the same amount of money in a "pre-bate" change whether or not the tax is regressive? The rich will still pay less as a percentage of their income (or wealth), because the rich almost universally save more and therefore spend less as a percentage of their income (or wealth). I really don't see how you can define progressive or regressive in order to avoid that conflict. But definitions don't matter all that much anyway. My problem with this is that in order to implement it in a way that you could eliminate income taxes and not lower revenues you'd have to greatly increase the tax burden on the poor, especially on poor families who currently pay absolutely nothing in income taxes (many of whom pay negative taxes when you factor in the earned income credit and/or the additional child tax credit). You'd also most likely wind up severely cutting taxes on those with a large amount of earned income, and probably cut taxes on a lot of the super-rich, at least those that haven't figured out how to avoid income taxes completely.

      I'm all for cutting income taxes, but not if that means increasing sales taxes. I think a good first step would be to eliminate FICA taxes. Now there's a regressive tax by any definition.

    4. Re:Sales tax NOT regressive by anthony_dipierro · · Score: 1

      OK, so one person earns $20,000 and spends $20,000. She pays 0% in taxes. Another person earns $40,000 and spends $35,000. She pays $4500 in taxes (13% of income). Another person earns $100,000 and spends $50,000. She pays $9000 (9% of income). Another person earns $1,000,000 and spends $125,000. She pays $31,500 (3.15% of income).

      Except for those at the very lowest end of the spectrum, it's still regressive. And this ignores the fact that the ultra-rich could easily avoid paying any tax at all (just buy a farm, an auto factory, a movie theatre, anything else you want to consume, and hire someone to create the things for you instead of buying them).

      Of course, you can argue that what makes a tax "regressive" is based on how much you spend. But the common definition of a "regressive tax" is when those who earn more pay less as a percentage of their income. The only sure-fire way to make a tax non-regressive by that definition is to have a progressive or flat income tax.

      (Also, one might argue that there's nothing wrong with those who earn more paying less as a percentage of their income, and I'd be apt to consider that point, but that wasn't the argument you were making.) Personally, I don't think income is a good judge on how much one should pay anyway. My own personal idea of what a fair tax is is a flat tax based on wealth, with an exemption set at the wealth of those at the poverty line. But again, you were arguing that a sales tax isn't necessarily a regressive tax. It necessarily is, at least for some part of the curve beyond a certain point (and any tax which is actually going to work is going to set that point relatively low on the income scale, to do otherwise would never work in practical terms; at least not without severely cutting revenues).

    5. Re:Sales tax NOT regressive by daigu · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Progressive tax, by definition, is a tax the has different rates based on total income. Thus, a sales tax is not progressive. It's a regressive tax.

      A regressive tax, in contrast, is a tax that takes a larger percentage of the income of low-income people than of high-income people.

      Example: If I make $1,000,000 a year, and you make $75,000. If we both spend $75,000 on however we define sales, we both have to pay the same in taxes. You are being taxed on 100% of your income. I am being taxed on only .075% of mine.

      While a regressive tax such as this one that is focused on consumption has benefits, it does not help address income inequities or have any built in system that recognizes the responsibility of people in fortunate circumstnaces have to the larger society and for people not as well off as they are - such as those that make below the poverty line.

    6. Re:Sales tax NOT regressive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      " it does not help address income inequities or have any built in system"

      Built into system ?

      How about built into fucking human nature.

      The tax code is not there to address or redress anything but to support existence of organized society.

      Can you understand that ?

      If you feel a need to support your fellow citizens there is a special section on your tax form where you can contribute as much as you want.

      In other words, keep your filthy little colectivist hands out of my pocket.

    7. Re:Sales tax NOT regressive by Dachannien · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Mathematically regressive, perhaps, when you look at income earned versus expenditures.

      But when you look at *utility gained* versus expenditures, a sales tax isn't regressive anymore. It's equitable, and some might even say it's progressive if you consider the necessities of life (shelter, food, etc.) to have a higher per dollar utility value than luxury goods.

      Sure, that person earns $1M and spends $125k, and gets taxed $31.5k or 3.15% of their income. But what's that other $875k doing? Are they papering their house with it? Stuffing their pillows? Wiping their ass? No, they're socking it away in savings, mostly in investments, thus allowing other people to benefit from it for a time.

      Money by itself, in the absence of something to buy with it, serves no purpose and has no value. Why should a person get taxed on the money they don't spend and don't get any real benefit from? That's already a concept implemented in traditional IRAs, where money saved in the IRA is not taxed, but when the money is withdrawn (presumably, when you are about to spend it) you pay taxes then.

    8. Re:Sales tax NOT regressive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "And this ignores the fact that the ultra-rich could easily avoid paying any tax at all (just buy a farm, an auto factory, a movie theatre, anything else you want to consume, and hire someone to create the things for you instead of buying them)."

      So creating jobs to avoid taxes is a bad thing?!?

    9. Re:Sales tax NOT regressive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the rich almost universally save more

      This has always been true, is true, and always will be true, no matter the tax system. I really don't get this whole notion of "regression." People invent all sorts of arguments against changing the tax code, and they all suck (so some accountants need to find a new job, big deal).

    10. Re:Sales tax NOT regressive by maxpublic · · Score: 2, Informative

      I can't imagine how Oregonians would react to a national sales tax. We've rejected a state sales tax (pushed by most out-of-state non-citizen political groups) EIGHT TIMES now; and the last time it came to a vote it was so clearly the brainchild of non-Oregonian special interests that our legislators received quite a few threats should they think about putting the tax to a vote a ninth time. Needless to say the sales tax hasn't been referred to the polls since then.

      I wonder how the citizens of the state would react if told that a sales tax was going to be imposed on them by the feds and there wasn't a damn thing they could do about it. Twenty years ago I could've predicted a fairly violent response with relative certainty, but so many spineless pussies have transplanted themselves here I'm no longer so certain....

      Max

      --
      My god carries a hammer. Your god died nailed to a tree. Any questions?
    11. Re:Sales tax NOT regressive by anthony_dipierro · · Score: 1

      Mathematically regressive, perhaps, when you look at income earned versus expenditures.

      I believe that's what people mean when they say something is "regressive".

      But when you look at *utility gained* versus expenditures, a sales tax isn't regressive anymore.

      Sure, you can redefine "regressive" to mean something that doesn't apply.

      It's equitable, and some might even say it's progressive if you consider the necessities of life (shelter, food, etc.) to have a higher per dollar utility value than luxury goods.

      One can certainly argue that a regressive tax is more equitable, but let's not pretend that that's not what you're saying.

      On the other hand, I would say if you're going to look at the utility gained vs. expenditures, then you have to look at the utility of the expenditures. After all, a $100,000 tax means a lot less to a millionaire than it means to an average Joe.

      Personally I'd say the two cancel out and that the most fair tax is a flat one, but that there are other considerations such as the fact that those in poverty simply can't afford to pay taxes and still live (that's pretty much the definition of the poverty line).

      Money by itself, in the absence of something to buy with it, serves no purpose and has no value.

      Well, yes and no. Money serves a value more than just things you can buy for personal consumption. In fact, I'd say that the more important value of money, once you've paid for the necessities, is not using it for personal consumption, but using it for control.

      Bill Gates may have a big house, but most of his money isn't in his house, it's in his stock ownership. And that's the real power that Bill Gates has. He could decide today that Windows will be licensed under the GPL, and that wouldn't be money "spent", certainly not in the traditional sense. He wouldn't owe a sales tax on the subsequent drop in Microsoft's stock. Perhaps a bit extreme of an example, and maybe not 100% realistic, but I think it illustrates my point. Money is power, and that's much more important for the rich than it being simply a tool to buy stuff for personal consumption.

      Why should a person get taxed on the money they don't spend and don't get any real benefit from?

      To encourage them to put it to good use. Use it or lose it, don't pass it on from generation to generation without giving anything back to the society which set up the laws which gave it to you in the first place.

      That's already a concept implemented in traditional IRAs, where money saved in the IRA is not taxed, but when the money is withdrawn (presumably, when you are about to spend it) you pay taxes then.

      At least one flaw in that argument is that once you turn 59 1/2 you must start withdrawing the money. Also, traditional IRAs cannot be passed on from generation to generation tax free.

    12. Re:Sales tax NOT regressive by That's+Unpossible! · · Score: 1

      OK, so one person earns $20,000 and spends $20,000. She pays 0% in taxes. Another person earns $40,000 and spends $35,000. She pays $4500 in taxes (13% of income). Another person earns $100,000 and spends $50,000. She pays $9000 (9% of income). Another person earns $1,000,000 and spends $125,000. She pays $31,500 (3.15% of income).

      Except for those at the very lowest end of the spectrum, it's still regressive.


      Haha. This is truly HILARIOUS.

      You just pointed out that each person earning more and more money is paying more in more in taxes. Starting with the poorest person spending nothing in taxes, to the highest earner spending $31,500 in taxes.

      That is a PROGRESSIVE tax.

      Yet you deem it regressive because you are basing the tax paid on the percentage of income earned. However, this is not an income tax, this is a national sales tax. You are thinking the old, liberal way. Trying to force the tax thinking in terms of income.

      You can't escape the reality, however, that under the national sales tax, the people with more money are paying more in taxes than those who make less. Why are you trying to couch it in terms of how much they make? What does it matter how much they make, as long as those with more money are paying more than those who make less? The tax is fair because they pay more, because it is a fixed tax rate, and because no one pays taxes on the basic necessities of life.

      FairTax.

      --
      Ironically, the word ironically is often used incorrectly.
    13. Re:Sales tax NOT regressive by That's+Unpossible! · · Score: 1

      All the plans I've seen promise that no one would pay more in taxes, most people would pay less in taxes, and yet government revenue would go up.

      That's right. And why is that? Is it, as you contend, that the poor would carry a higher burden? Although I wouldn't care if it were true, it is not true. The poor actually would carry less burden. You eliminate the hidden tax on them, by removing payroll taxes and thereby increasing their salaries.

      The reason the revenue is able to be neutral or even higher than now, is for many reasons. Some are:

      - Now taxing everyone spending money in America, including people earning money in the black markets, under-reporting, tax-evading, foreign tourists, etc. This is the biggest uptick.

      - Spending less on enforcement and almost entirely abolishing the IRS. Taxes are collected through (in most states) existing infrastructures.

      - Spending less on maintaining/changing the tax code.

      - People spending less on the reporting of taxes. Rather than hiring experts or paying for TurboTax, or spending hours on their own figuring taxes, it is very simple to figure a sales tax.

      probably cut taxes on a lot of the super-rich, at least those that haven't figured out how to avoid income taxes completely.

      Who cares?! They have more money than you, they are saving more money than you, they are investing more money than you (which benefits you indirectly), and most importantly, THEY ARE SPENDING MORE THAN YOU. That means they are paying more than you in taxes under FairTax.

      --
      Ironically, the word ironically is often used incorrectly.
    14. Re:Sales tax NOT regressive by GoofyBoy · · Score: 1

      >You can't escape the reality, however, that under the national sales tax, the people with more money are paying more in taxes than those who make less

      The reality is, that no matter how simple or fair you think a national sales tax is, it will get complicated fast and there will be holes that you can drive a truck through.

      From your website (which I just only briefly looked at);
      "Under the FairTax plan, money retained in the business and reinvested to create jobs, build factories, or develop new technologies, pays no tax"

      I can see this as a huge loophole. Big time. Just like *IAA should never underestimate the will and power of people with computers connected to highspeed Internet, don't underestimate the will and power of rich people who are connected to accountants and polititions.

      --
      The surprise isn't how often we make bad choices; the surprise is how seldom they defeat us.
    15. Re:Sales tax NOT regressive by eric_brissette · · Score: 1

      Yes, the company I used to work for publishes a top ten list ever year of interesting/quirky/strange Sales Tax laws.

      Here is last year's:
      http://www.taxware.com/taxware_newsroom/2004%20PR/ TaxLaws_April04.htm

    16. Re:Sales tax NOT regressive by anthony_dipierro · · Score: 1

      You just pointed out that each person earning more and more money is paying more in more in taxes.

      But that they are paying less as a percentage of their income, which is the definition of a regressive tax.

      Yet you deem it regressive because you are basing the tax paid on the percentage of income earned.

      Right, because that's what the term "regressive tax" means. http://www.answers.com/regressive+tax

      You can't escape the reality, however, that under the national sales tax, the people with more money are paying more in taxes than those who make less.

      That may or may not be true. What's certainly true is that the people who spend more money are paying more in taxes than those who spend less. But people with more money may or may not pay more in taxes than those who make less (if you could even compare how much someone has to how much someone else makes, but I think I know what you mean.

      Why are you trying to couch it in terms of how much they make?

      The question was raised as to whether or not it was a regressive tax. That is a term based on how much they are taxed as a percentage of how much they make.

      What does it matter how much they make, as long as those with more money are paying more than those who make less?

      Actually I personally think people should be taxed as a fixed percentage of how much they own, without regard to how much they make or how much they buy (though with an exception for necessities at the poverty line).

      The tax is fair because they pay more, because it is a fixed tax rate, and because no one pays taxes on the basic necessities of life.

      By your definition, that would be a fair tax.

    17. Re:Sales tax NOT regressive by stinerman · · Score: 1

      I think the best way to fix the problem is to:

      * eliminate income taxes on labor -- People who sell their labor tend to be poorer.
      * make the capital gains tax >50% and tax stock transactions a flat fee of $.01 -- People who simply move money around (which requires no work) should be taxed accordingly.
      * institute a national sales tax in the form of a "progressive sales tax" -- "luxury" items should be taxed at much higher rates than necessities. That new mansion? 100%. That new H2? 50%. That new toaster? 1%.

    18. Re:Sales tax NOT regressive by anthony_dipierro · · Score: 1

      All the plans I've seen promise that no one would pay more in taxes, most people would pay less in taxes, and yet government revenue would go up.

      That's right. And why is that?

      Because the people talking about the plans are lying.

      Is it, as you contend, that the poor would carry a higher burden? Although I wouldn't care if it were true, it is not true.

      Well, it certainly wouldn't be the rich that carry a higher burden, because it's a primarily regressive tax which would replace a primarily progressive tax.

      The poor actually would carry less burden. You eliminate the hidden tax on them, by removing payroll taxes and thereby increasing their salaries.

      How are payroll taxes hidden? Because most businesses don't tell you (and by the way, we deducted $52.83 in order to pay for your retirement and $3.43 in order to pay for your medicare and $5.87 to buy insurance in case you become unemployed)? Would a national sales tax make it illegal for people to roll the cost of the tax into the product and say "tax included"?

      More importantly, how does a tax which costs more money carry a smaller burden just by not being hidden? If you're going to make such a statement then I want to see numbers and details. How would you create such a sales tax. What would be taxed (what type of goods, what type of services) and at what rate.

      Now taxing everyone spending money in America, including people earning money in the black markets

      But not including people spending money in the black markets.

      under-reporting, tax-evading, foreign tourists

      You can't under report or evade a sales tax? Yes, you might get more revenue from foreigners, of course to do that you'll have to greatly lower your exports and raise the trade deficit.

      Spending less on maintaining/changing the tax code.

      I think you misestimate just how complicated the sales tax code would need to be.

      People spending less on the reporting of taxes. Rather than hiring experts or paying for TurboTax, or spending hours on their own figuring taxes, it is very simple to figure a sales tax.

      It's almost surely simpler than our current personal income taxes, but I still think you're underestimating many of the complications. Do you tax new products, or old ones too? What about services? What about things which are part new and part old? What about leases? How about rentals? The loopholes would likely be enormous unless you tax everything that would be taxed under an income tax anyway.

      Who cares?!

      Everyone except the super-rich care, because if they have to pay less in taxes it means either I'll have to pay more or I'll receive worse services.

      They have more money than you

      Sure do, since I'm not super rich.

      they are saving more money than you

      Probably...

      they are investing more money than you

      Probably...

      (which benefits you indirectly)

      Depends what they're investing it in.

      most importantly, THEY ARE SPENDING MORE THAN YOU

      Maybe, maybe not. It depends for one thing what you consider spending.

    19. Re:Sales tax NOT regressive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Omigawd. You mean Bill Gates DOESN'T buy $100,000,000 worth of toilet paper each year!!!????

    20. Re:Sales tax NOT regressive by daigu · · Score: 1

      Hey Marie Antoinette! I thought you would have figured out by now that the "Let Them Eat Cake" mentality is the surest way to lose everything you have - including your head.

    21. Re:Sales tax NOT regressive by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 1

      So notice that full sized pies are not taxed but single servings are.

      Why are you surprised by that? Don't you know that you can't have your pie and eat it too?

      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    22. Re:Sales tax NOT regressive by jackbird · · Score: 1
      Actually I personally think people should be taxed as a fixed percentage of how much they own, without regard to how much they make or how much they buy (though with an exception for necessities at the poverty line).

      That falls apart right at the property line of a valuable nonliquid asset like real estate. I know the "family farmers" (ha!) are the republican strawman for estate/capital gains taxes, but if ALL taxation went that route, it'd actually be valid. End result being a consolidation of land ownership among those rich enough to pay the tax. And that's uncomfortably close to feudalism, or sharecropping.

    23. Re:Sales tax NOT regressive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      " I think the best way to fix the problem is to:

      * eliminate income taxes on labor -- People who sell their labor tend to be poorer."

      == The only good point you make...

      "* make the capital gains tax >50% and tax stock transactions a flat fee of $.01 -- People who simply move money around (which requires no work) should be taxed accordingly."

      === Based on what? You consider 'moving money' NOT WORK? Ya.. so what do you consider those investment offices? Playgrounds? Whether the money is earned by your sweat, or by YOUR money being 'moved around' that was earned by your sweat shouldnt make it more vulneralbe to socialist ideas of taxation.

      "* institute a national sales tax in the form of a "progressive sales tax" -- "luxury" items should be taxed at much higher rates than necessities. That new mansion? 100%. That new H2? 50%. That new toaster? 1%."

      === Another stupid idea.. This is been tried before and FAILED (Just another example of liberal thought that demonstrates that for them, history began last week). We had luxury taxes and the 'luxury item industry' tanked. So..you want that boat? More taxes.. And ya know what happened? Sales went thru the floor.. People lost jobs.
      Proof that liberalism always produces the opposite of its stated intent..

      Ya.. I know this will get mod'd into oblivion..
      Why? Because I probably hurt the 'feelings' of the handwringing liberals. If I included 'monkey boy bush' I'd be in Karma heaven...

    24. Re:Sales tax NOT regressive by richardtallent · · Score: 1

      Like my grandfather always said, "Money ain't money 'till you spend it."

      But even if they aren't spending it, they *ARE* investing it (unless they are really, really dumb). Investments create growth, provide jobs, bolster the economy, etc., and the government *will* get its share when those people (or their heirs) spend the money.

      Refactor the tax code--support the FairTax: http://www.fairtax.org/

    25. Re:Sales tax NOT regressive by stinerman · · Score: 1

      I'll bite.

      Most of everything I'm saying is based on my principles of right and wrong. It has very little to do with what might happen if we implemented these policies. Also, I could really care less if jobs are lost in the "luxury item industry". Just so long as "old money" is first against the wall when the revolution comes.

      (is he serious?)

    26. Re:Sales tax NOT regressive by LtOcelot · · Score: 1

      Investments are also purchases -- they entail spending money for a share of something. A "sales" tax which ignores such purchases is not a "FairTax".

    27. Re:Sales tax NOT regressive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fair Tax doesn't tax used goods. Most stocks on the market are pre-owned. :)

    28. Re:Sales tax NOT regressive by That's+Unpossible! · · Score: 1

      The reality is, that no matter how simple or fair you think a national sales tax is, it will get complicated fast and there will be holes that you can drive a truck through.

      I don't think there will be many holes, and definitely not many you can drive a truck through. Compare it to what we have now, essentially swiss cheese the size of Jupiter.

      I can see this as a huge loophole. Big time. Just like *IAA should never underestimate the will and power of people with computers connected to highspeed Internet, don't underestimate the will and power of rich people who are connected to accountants and polititions.

      I'm still waiting to hear from you how this is a "loophole." The FairTax is specifically designed not to tax businesses, because those are simply hidden taxes on people.

      --
      Ironically, the word ironically is often used incorrectly.
    29. Re:Sales tax NOT regressive by That's+Unpossible! · · Score: 1

      But that they are paying less as a percentage of their income, which is the definition of a regressive tax.

      Nope, that is not.

      Right, because that's what the term "regressive tax" means. http://www.answers.com/regressive+tax

      I read their definitions. They state a regressive tax is one that effects poor people more. Such as a gas tax, or tax on food.

      Therefore the FairTax is not regressive, because there is a prebate to cover the sales tax on those basic necessities.

      What's certainly true is that the people who spend more money are paying more in taxes than those who spend less.

      Correct.

      But people with more money may or may not pay more in taxes than those who make less (if you could even compare how much someone has to how much someone else makes, but I think I know what you mean.

      I don't follow this logic, but even grasping at what you might mean, I don't see the point of it. On average, people that have more money spend more money. They therefore pay more in taxes. That is a fair way of doing things which doesn't penalize success or hard work, nor unfairly benefit sloth and laziness (or treachery and fraud).

      Actually I personally think people should be taxed as a fixed percentage of how much they own, without regard to how much they make or how much they buy (though with an exception for necessities at the poverty line).

      Too bad this would decimate our economy. Those hated rich people that have earned a lot of money (yes, EARNED it) benefit everyone in our economy when they are able to invest it, rather than having to fork it over to the government. Those people create businesses, hire employees, provide loans, invest in banks which provide loans. The more money invested in the economy, the better the economy.

      And that is ignoring the complexity of taxing "a percentage of what you own." Can you imagine the loopholes? The lobbyists would have an orgy over something like that. The FairTax does not give lobbyists any footholds. It is fair and transparent.

      Taxing what people "own" is even more egregious than taxing their income. It would punish people who are successful, who save, who invest, and it would favor those who are lazy, who don't make much, who don't save anything, who spend it all.

      Watch Brewster's Millions and tell me if you think taxing what people "own" is a good idea.

      Honestly, I don't think you've thought this through at all. Conversely, the people studying the FairTax proposal have been studying it for a decade. It has had hundreds of economists studying it for many years.

      --
      Ironically, the word ironically is often used incorrectly.
    30. Re:Sales tax NOT regressive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      " I'll bite.

      Most of everything I'm saying is based on my principles of right and wrong. It has very little to do with what might happen if we implemented these policies. Also, I could really care less if jobs are lost in the "luxury item industry". Just so long as "old money" is first against the wall when the revolution comes.

      (is he serious?)"

      ============

      Yup..(the same AC here)...

      Based on 'who's' idea of right and wrong?
      Yours? That seems to be the typical 'tax the rich' mentality? Or was is 'law'...which by the way is STILL an obscene MARXIST tax system.
      (BTW.. Russia has a 13% FLAT tax. So, we have Karl Marx's tax system, and Russia has Steve Forbes.. Go figure!)

      You dont care about the jobs in the 'luxury items' field? Yet I'll bet you'll be the first to demand jobs as a 'right' rather than an opportunity. (of course this is just my 'opinion' about where you stand..but I'm confident in this assumption considering you willful lack of 'real world' experience as cited in your previous post.

      Old money.. Who cares.. New, old, medium..it doesnt matter..its still SOMEBODY'S money..and its NOT YOURS to demand to be taken forcebly by the g'ment...
      *"When the people find they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic."
      --Benjamin Franklin*

      So..your waiting for the 'revolution'..
      Yup.. typical liberal.. They 'speak' of negotiation, appeasement et al(see Iraq war), but if they can't demand money of those that EARN it.. they call for a 'revolution'...
      Typical liberal.. ..And yes.. I'm serious..
      Whereas your babbling cannot be taken serious at all.. :-)

      Ooops!! Did I uncover yet more liberal hypocricy on SLASHDOT!! Oh my!!
      This post will net a -5 on the slashdot scale!

    31. Re:Sales tax NOT regressive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      ...or have any built in system that recognizes the responsibility of people in fortunate circumstnaces have to the larger society and for people not as well off as they are...

      That's precisely the attitude that I despise. Just because my neighbor earns more money than I do, does not obligate him to pay more than I do to maintain the damn street, sidewalk, and other architecture that we share! I hate to burst your bubble, but socialism sucks just as much if not more than capitalism.

      Example: "Oh look, if I just sit on my lazy ass and don't contribute, then I'm brought up to the same level as those damned over-achievers."

      Socialism. Didn't work for us 200 years ago. Won't work for us today.

    32. Re:Sales tax NOT regressive by Dachannien · · Score: 1

      Sure, you can redefine "regressive" to mean something that doesn't apply.

      How does utility not apply? I'm arguing that a tax should be based on the actual utility a person gains in life, not merely the *potential* for utility gain. That means taxing expenditures instead of income. Once the basis for taxation is actual utility gain, a sales tax is no longer regressive, and since the FairTax proposal says that people get a prebate of the bottom portion of the taxes on their expenditures, that tax is actually progressive.

      This is more than a semantic argument, which is all your comments seem to be addressing. This is about fundamentally changing what the federal government considers to be a measure of a person's worth, from potential utility gain (or money) to actual utility gain (goods and services purchased with that money).

      At least one flaw in that argument is that once you turn 59 1/2 you must start withdrawing the money. Also, traditional IRAs cannot be passed on from generation to generation tax free.

      The example of the traditional IRA was meant to indicate that the concept of not taxing potential utility gain was already present in our economy. It wasn't meant to be a perfect analogy to the sales tax. Actually, a better argument on your part would have been that Roth IRAs are generally more popular these days *because* they are taxed up front while leaving the gains on investment tax-free.

    33. Re:Sales tax NOT regressive by anthony_dipierro · · Score: 1

      I'm sorry, I don't understand what you're saying. Property tax would cause feudalism? Just the opposite is true. No property taxes would cause feudalism.

    34. Re:Sales tax NOT regressive by anthony_dipierro · · Score: 1

      Sorry, but your grandfather was wrong.

      Investments create growth, provide jobs, bolster the economy, etc., and the government *will* get its share when those people (or their heirs) spend the money.

      Maybe, maybe not. Depends what they spend it on.

    35. Re:Sales tax NOT regressive by anthony_dipierro · · Score: 1

      I'm arguing that a tax should be based on the actual utility a person gains in life, not merely the *potential* for utility gain.

      Well, personally i think a tax should be based on the services provided, but let's go with the utility gained.

      When someone creates an inheritance and passes it on to his heirs, isn't there utility derived from that?

      That means taxing expenditures instead of income.

      You can't have income without having an expenditure.

      This is more than a semantic argument, which is all your comments seem to be addressing.

      Fine, I'm going to ignore the question of whether or not the tax would be regressive.

      This is about fundamentally changing what the federal government considers to be a measure of a person's worth, from potential utility gain (or money) to actual utility gain (goods and services purchased with that money).

      I would think the measure of a person's worth would be to measure that person's worth (assets minus liabilities). That has nothing to do with income or expenditures.

      The example of the traditional IRA was meant to indicate that the concept of not taxing potential utility gain was already present in our economy.

      I don't think that was the purpose of the institution of the traditional IRA. If you have some evidence that it was, feel free to point it out.

      Actually, a better argument on your part would have been that Roth IRAs are generally more popular these days *because* they are taxed up front while leaving the gains on investment tax-free.

      Roth IRAs are more popular? I've seen hundred of taxes this year and not a single person who was eligible for a traditional IRA deduction chose to contribute to a Roth instead. Between those who contributed to a traditional and those who contributed to a Roth it was about 50/50, but all of those who contributed to a Roth IRA were either ineligible for a deductible traditional IRA or had no tax liability and therefore would not have received a deduction.

      In any case, as I said, I don't think the purpose of a traditional IRA is to tax people more fairly because of some notion of taxing only utility. If that were the case, the limit would be a lot more than $3000, and it wouldn't be phased out for high income tax payers. The traditional IRA was set up to try to encourage people to save for their retirement (at least on its face, in reality it was more likely set up to appease certain segments of the population to try to win their vote).

    36. Re:Sales tax NOT regressive by anthony_dipierro · · Score: 1

      I read their definitions. They state a regressive tax is one that effects poor people more. Such as a gas tax, or tax on food.

      I read "A tax that takes a larger percentage from the income of low-income people than the income of high-income people." "A tax that takes a higher percentage of low incomes than high ones. Sales taxes, especially on food, clothing, medicine, and other basic necessities are widely cited as examples of regressive taxes." "A regressive tax is a tax which takes a larger percentage of income from people whose income is low."

      Therefore the FairTax is not regressive, because there is a prebate to cover the sales tax on those basic necessities.

      This just shifts the portion of the curve over which the tax is regressive to the right a little bit. Sales tax is still regressive by any standard definition, because it "takes a larger percentage from the income of low-income people than the income of high-income people".

      On average, people that have more money spend more money.

      Yes, this is true, on average.

      They therefore pay more in taxes.

      On average (that is, if the sales tax were based on all spending, which no sales tax I know of is).

      That is a fair way of doing things which doesn't penalize success or hard work, nor unfairly benefit sloth and laziness (or treachery and fraud).

      I disagree that it is fair. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that any tax is unfair unless it can be proven that it funds a service which is absolutely necessary for a functioning society and that it does so in proportion to the amount of that service which is provided. Taxing someone more because they spend more makes no sense. There is nothing wrong with spending, and it should not be discouraged by the government.

      Those hated rich people that have earned a lot of money (yes, EARNED it) benefit everyone in our economy when they are able to invest it, rather than having to fork it over to the government.

      What about those hated rich people that haven't earned a lot of money? In any case, I'm not saying we should tax intangible property, such as investments, so apparently you misunderstood me. I'm talking about taxing tangible property, in fact, mainly real property (land, houses, buildings).

      And that is ignoring the complexity of taxing "a percentage of what you own." Can you imagine the loopholes?

      No, I can't, that's actually one of the benefits of a tangible property tax, especially with regard to titled property.

      The lobbyists would have an orgy over something like that. The FairTax does not give lobbyists any footholds. It is fair and transparent.

      Why? Because you say so? You don't think there are any loopholes in a sales tax? I'll get back to this.

      Taxing what people "own" is even more egregious than taxing their income. It would punish people who are successful, who save, who invest, and it would favor those who are lazy, who don't make much, who don't save anything, who spend it all.

      Again, you must think I'm talking about intangible property.

      Honestly, I don't think you've thought this through at all. Conversely, the people studying the FairTax proposal have been studying it for a decade. It has had hundreds of economists studying it for many years.

      So why don't you explain it to me, then. Forget the rest of the arguments, and just explain to me why "FairTax" is fair, and how it's going to close the loopholes. Because when I go to the site, I see a bunch of hot air and contradictory claims.

    37. Re:Sales tax NOT regressive by daigu · · Score: 1

      I don't despise it, but I do find it unfortunate that prejudices like those you express here are as common as they are: Poor people are lazy? Rich people are over-achievers? Money somehow defines your level?

      I'm glad I don't live in that world.

    38. Re:Sales tax NOT regressive by GoofyBoy · · Score: 1

      >Compare it to what we have now, essentially swiss cheese the size of Jupiter.

      Thats true, but there are lots of patches, eg Alternative Minimum Tax.

      I can't see how Fair Tax will be better in the long run. Those patches will have to be done.

      >I'm still waiting to hear from you how this is a "loophole."

      Its the part where businesses will not be taxed to create jobs. If I'm a sales person, I will get the contract/work/job better if I wear an expensive suit rather than a tshirt and pair of jeans. So shouldn't that be something that shouldn't be taxed because my business needs it to create jobs. And what about that personnal jet that I use to impress clients?

      Here in Canada, bicycle messengers can charge $10 a day of food as "fuel" for their taxes. Will this be taxed too? If so, how will they not pay the retail tax on this when they have to buy their food at retail stores? According to the FairTax, business-to-business transactions will not be taxed, but how will a retail store know/verify the person they are selling to is for business purposes?

      I'm not saying that FairTax isn't a good idea, I just think that its been tried elsewhere and its not as clean as people think it is. In a few years, it will get complicated or, as seen in other countries, even worst then the current system.

      --
      The surprise isn't how often we make bad choices; the surprise is how seldom they defeat us.
    39. Re:Sales tax NOT regressive by Dachannien · · Score: 1

      When someone creates an inheritance and passes it on to his heirs, isn't there utility derived from that?

      Well, the heirs do gain utility they personally didn't have before. If there is a sales tax rather than an income tax/estate tax, then any of the property (real, personal, whatever) owned by the deceased was presumably paid for and taxed at the time it was purchased. However, FairTax doesn't tax second-hand purchases, only first-sale retail purchases, so it's the same situation as if the heirs *bought* the property second-hand rather than inheriting it. Any non-property assets (i.e., cash) inherited would eventually be taxed once the heirs spend it.

      You can't have income without having an expenditure.

      You mean an expenditure by the employer for the person's wage? That's the whole point here, to shift the tax burden from wage expenditures to consumer expenditures. The worker derives utility only *indirectly* from their wage, when they spend it; their employer doesn't derive utility because they aren't consuming anything, they're producing.

      I would think the measure of a person's worth would be to measure that person's worth (assets minus liabilities). That has nothing to do with income or expenditures.

      My assertion here is that there's a difference between "cash/stocks/bonds" and "personal property or utility derived from services consumed". Money has no intrinsic utility until it is used to purchase and consume something. That's why I'm saying the government should switch to considering "worth" to be based on consumption rather than income. At that point, the colloquial meaning of "worth" doesn't really apply, but that's just getting into another semantic argument, so you could call it Fred if you wanted to.

      In any case, as I said, I don't think the purpose of a traditional IRA is to tax people more fairly because of some notion of taxing only utility.

      I will concede this, but I would note that I wasn't asserting that claim in the first place. Rather, I was asserting that once traditional IRAs had been created (regardless of the original intention), they effectively allowed a person to shift some of their taxation from their income to their consumption.

    40. Re:Sales tax NOT regressive by anthony_dipierro · · Score: 1

      Well, the heirs do gain utility they personally didn't have before.

      I don't mean the heirs. I mean the person giving the inheritance.

      If there is a sales tax rather than an income tax/estate tax, then any of the property (real, personal, whatever) owned by the deceased was presumably paid for and taxed at the time it was purchased.

      Are you suggesting that sales of intangible property be taxed, then? Do we get taxed on our stock purchases?

      Any non-property assets (i.e., cash)

      So, cash is a "non-property asset". Only US cash, or other currencies too? What about gold, silver, platinum, and diamonds?

      In any case, I think one problem with this is that the value of so many of these things is going to go up between the purchase and the eventual resale. To tax the purchase once and then never again means generation after generation can hoard the item and use it tax free. In fact, it seems to me that the market for new products would take an immediate nosedive, which probably means the tax would have to be raised, which in turn would cause people to shift even further to used products, ad nauseum.

      And then, how is one to identify a used vs. new product? What stops a store owner from opening up a box and calling the product old when in fact it is new? The ability to evade this tax would be enormous.

      You can't have income without having an expenditure.

      You mean an expenditure by the employer for the person's wage?

      Yep.

      That's the whole point here, to shift the tax burden from wage expenditures to consumer expenditures. The worker derives utility only *indirectly* from their wage, when they spend it; their employer doesn't derive utility because they aren't consuming anything, they're producing.

      The employer doesn't derivy utility from his workers? I'm sorry, but that's just not true. You could argue that the utility is an intermediate service which should therefore be taxed at the point of eventual resale, but you've just opened up a huge tax shelter, as the eventual resale can be postponed indefinitely.

      My assertion here is that there's a difference between "cash/stocks/bonds" and "personal property or utility derived from services consumed". Money has no intrinsic utility until it is used to purchase and consume something.

      Money may not, but stocks certainly do.

      I was asserting that once traditional IRAs had been created (regardless of the original intention), they effectively allowed a person to shift some of their taxation from their income to their consumption.

      Well, as I pointed out, that's not entirely true, since a person must withdraw from an IRA after turning 59 1/2, even if their current income covers all their costs of consumption, so you haven't necessarily shifted any taxation all the way to the point of consumption. But anyway, a traditional IRA does allow one to shift his taxation to a later date. A traditional IRA is a tax shelter, and it's limited to $3000/year in contributions ($4000 in 2005 and rising after that), and a whole host of other limitations. To change a traditional IRA so that there were no limitations, you could just put money into it, do whatever you want with it while it's there, and take any amount out whenever you wanted as long as you paid taxes, would be devestating to the economy.

      But you know what, it'd probably be a hell of a lot easier to enforce then a sales tax. So if you want to tax consumption in the way FairTax claims to be striving for, here's my proposal. Institute a flat income tax at X% with an exemption at the poverty level (no one pays any income tax on the first $Y). Then allow a traditional IRA similar in self-dealing rules to our current IRAs, which gives you a deduction from your income at the time of contribution and is taxable upon distribution. No contribution limits, no early withdrawal penalties, no forced distributions, no taxation upon transfer including inheritan

  54. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 5, Informative

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  55. Good by LordoftheFrings · · Score: 1

    I hope a lot of this goes into some statistics that show how overtaxed we are. We being us here Canadians.

  56. Re:This is exactly why... by qualico · · Score: 1

    lol, I had to stop at "Federal Alcohol Administration"

    This sounds like it should apply to Canada, eh!

  57. And here's a possible scenario.... by i_want_you_to_throw_ · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Intuit notices that you trade a lot of stock. Merrill-Lynch agrees to pay Intuit .20 for every prospective customer lead given to them and will up it to .30 if they are not already a Merrill customer.

    There's lotsa gold in them thar data mines.

    CRS/GDS companies like SABRE/Worldspan/Apollo, etc do it all the time now. ( I worked for SABRE as a developer for several years )United Airlines gives SABRE a fee for every lead they give them for customers that have flown into ski resorts. More money per lead if these folks have done it more than one year. If they flew someone besides United, then United sends them a coupon for X% off their next flight to said ski resort destination city.

    And who else pays for this data? Why the ski resorts themselves! Look for the trend and if you appear to be an outdoorsy type then maybe Jeep will send you a coupon for a special deal from one of their dealers.

  58. Re:Read the fine print for your savings and checki by PXE+Geek · · Score: 1

    Try changing your DNS server from 'automatically assigned by the ISP' to a manual setting like 4.2.2.1, 4.2.2.2, 4.2.2.4... Won't make Comcast happy ( or I think, Verizon) but should allow you to browse as normal.

  59. Re:Read the fine print for your savings and checki by ms139us · · Score: 5, Informative

    Banks make good money selling your financial information to "related buisnesses".

    Sorry to burst your bubble. I work closely with dozens of banks and credit unions on this very topic. GLB inspires more neurotic fear in bankers than anything else I have seen in some time.

    By the way, "related businness" means sharing information with other companies that must be there to support the bank, like disaster recovery companies, records archiving companies, etc.

    Whether or not you believe it, "related businesses" simply cannot use your information for anything other than performing their service for the bank.

    The closest a bank can get to profiting from your personal information is using it to offer services. A bank may notice that you have a high credit card balance and offer you a HELOC, it may notice that you have a high savings balance and offer its CDs, it may notice that your car loan is getting paid down and offer a pre-approved loan for a newer car, etc.

    Other than that, your information is strictly off limits.

  60. Re:Read the fine print for your savings and checki by Shamashmuddamiq · · Score: 1
    You must have Comcast. They always give out DNS server IP addresses with their DHCP leases, but the DNS servers they tell you to use stop functioning on a weekly basis. Since I'm in Indiana, I use the following DNS servers instead:

    128.210.11.5 (ns.purdue.edu)
    128.174.5.6 (ns.uiuc.edu)

    You may want to use some closer to you, but these should get you up and running, at least.

    --
    ...just my 2 gil.
  61. Out of context by wk633 · · Score: 1

    We could capture your name, your Social Security number or any other information that you willingly pass to a Web site,

    blah blah blah

    But he said Omniture doesn't do this. The reason, he said, is that client companies don't authorize Omniture to do it.

    What they can do and what they do are very different.

    Nothing but FUD, move along.

    1. Re:Out of context by jcomeau_ictx · · Score: 1

      Yes, it's FUD, but worse than that, by criticizing companies twice or thrice removed from the IRS and the Fed, it's indirectly legitimizing the latter two agencies. None of this crap existed before a bunch of old men went duck hunting on Jekyll Island. Then it kept branching out: H & R Block. Intuit. Every step designed to take another bite out of your paycheck. But this old-boy network has been around for a while; have you taken a Tour or a Taxi lately?

  62. It worked!!! by John+Seminal · · Score: 1
    Try changing your DNS server from 'automatically assigned by the ISP' to a manual setting like 4.2.2.1, 4.2.2.2, 4.2.2.4... Won't make Comcast happy ( or I think, Verizon) but should allow you to browse as normal.

    Thank you!!! It worked. I just hope I am not using a server for some porn site in the USSR. lol. Or maybe this is one of those times to not ask why it works.

    And if this fix is so easy, why can't comcast get their stuff to work.

    --

    Rosco: "If brains were gunpowder, Enos couldn't blow his nose."

    1. Re:It worked!!! by Aeiri · · Score: 1

      Thank you!!! It worked. I just hope I am not using a server for some porn site in the USSR. lol. Or maybe this is one of those times to not ask why it works.

      No, the grandparent was correct. 4.2.2.0/24 is Verizon's DNS servers, I have Verizon DSL, so I know :)

    2. Re:It worked!!! by symbolset · · Score: 2, Funny

      The guy who recommended to Comcast that they stick with good, old reliable Windows NT4 for DNS service just joined the unemployment line. They'll be back up in a week or two.

      --
      Help stamp out iliturcy.
    3. Re:It worked!!! by Rolan · · Score: 1

      Well, because it's simple for you to use some other company's servers, but Comcast's are completely down. I had to inform one of their operators how to change the DNS server IPs and gave him some to use. He had no idea that you could do such a thing.

      --
      - AMW
  63. Don't look here or you might learn something! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    http://givemeliberty.org/

    They have no teeth! They never have a court order!

    Jan 2005 - "IRS Summonses apply no force to taxpayers, and no consequences can befall a taxpayer who refuses or ignores, or otherwise does not comply with an IRS summons until that summons is backed by a federal court order."

    Second Circuit Court of Appeals Schulz v IRS (Case No. 04-0196).

    Can they get a court order? That's the point, they have no authority to do anything to you, and have no jursidiction so that is the first thing people will bring up and the case is thrown out!
    The problem has been that they didn't give you your day in court so you could ask any simple questions before taking your house!
    Read the site and learn!

    1. Re:Don't look here or you might learn something! by fishbowl · · Score: 2, Informative

      >Read the site and learn!

      What tax protestor advocates like the one you linked to never mention, is that tax protestors NEVER WIN. It's great to believe you've found some loophole that relieves you of the obligation to pay taxes, but to follow thorogh without destroying your financial status or being indicted is another story.

      Good luck with that. Unqualified success stories are few and far between among tax protestors. Those that do succeed, usually do so by appearing in forma pauperis at their bankruptcy hearing. (I.e., you offer to settle your tax bill by giving the IRS 100% of your current assets, which amount to an army surplus backpack, six dollars forty two cents cash, and a few miscellaneous bits of twine, plastic, and paper, twelve pounds of aluminum cans, and a grocery cart.)

      --
      -fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
  64. So your post was just... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yeahhh, I'm gonna say no!

    Well, people. It finally happened. Slashdot has been reduced to network-television David Spade style comedy.

    I mean, ehm...

    Whi chi cha haaaAAAAA! (comedic "ninja-style" pose)

  65. my confidential tax data is going.... by swschrad · · Score: 1

    straight from the point of a mechanical pencil to the white boxes on the tax form.

    tried doing my taxes on the confuser back before they stopped supporting nt 4.0, and frankly, it took three times as long and wasn't any less enraging.

    maybe next year, assuming there is a straight unencumbered download of free software directly from the irs that runs on osX, uses no third party crap whatsoever, doesn't intercommunicate on the web until the encrypted data goes out, and that only to one identified site and port... maybe then.

    too many scumpuppies out there pretending to 5el1 v1@gr4 that really want your web cache.....

    --
    if this is supposed to be a new economy, how come they still want my old fashioned money?
  66. And yet their online tax software is awesome by melted · · Score: 1

    And yet their online tax software is awesome. This year I've compared it with TaxCut, and at least TaxCut's online offering can't even touch TurboTax Online. Heck, you can even go through entire TT Online in Firefox! And it spits out a PDF for you in the end. It's more convenient and better thought out. Highly recommended.

    And no, I'm not a Quicken user and I don't work for Intuit.

    1. Re:And yet their online tax software is awesome by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hmmm.... seems like I remember a nice quote from Ben Franklin about people like you.

  67. Re:Read the fine print for your savings and checki by techno-vampire · · Score: 1
    4.2.2.1 for preferred and 4.2.2.2 for alternate. These are DNS servers open to public use, run by Verizon, I believe.

    No, as a matter of fact, they're owned by Level 3. I find it hard to believe, though, that such a big company doesn't know enough not to put multiple DNS servers on the same Class 3; one router goes down and they're all toast. It's happened to NanoLimp at least once. Of course, they're only for public use, not for their own customers, so they probably don't care very much.

    --
    Good, inexpensive web hosting
  68. Please note by PatientZero · · Score: 1

    You totally rule. :)

    --
    Freedom to fear. Freedom from thought. Freedom to kill.
    I guess the War on Terror really is about freedom!
  69. DNS choke issue Re:Read the fine print for your sa by swschrad · · Score: 1

    feel free to traceroute them with the IP

    traceroute 123.45.67.89

    and that should fix the DNS at your ISP, at least for the moment. until they overflow the buffer memory allotted again, and the older IPs are flushed out.

    as for the tax comments... aggregates are truckloads of chunks of rock. rock on.

    --
    if this is supposed to be a new economy, how come they still want my old fashioned money?
  70. I took a quick look at Intuit's web site by rifftide · · Score: 5, Informative
    Here's a relevant portion of their personal account login page:
    <noscript>
    <a href="http://www.shop.intuit.com/;jsessionid=ULNOD HLNVG4HOCQIBMVR3KQKBAFSOF4K">
    <img src="http://ct.intuit.com/cgi-bin/ctasp-server.cgi ?i=Wc2mzatwkBvfVzl3&i=igjdl2giGjlvwcMn&g=1" alt="Web Analytics" border=0>
    </a>
    </noscript>
    This HTML is active if scripting is disabled in your browser. There's also a corresponding block of code within a SCRIPT tag that does the same thing when scripting is enabled. I would've included that, but I couldn't get it past the /. lameness filter.

    What it does is ask the server for an image (JPEG or GIF). But this request actually triggers a CGI program on the server side, passing it a unique session identifier that was served in the original page. The CGI app on Intuit's side most likely relays the request to the tracking company's server for logging. Cute, huh?

    Since I'm not a customer, I didn't go past the login page. But it would be interesting to examine the analytics code served up in the account management pages - perhaps they pass not only the session identifier, but form values as well. (The analytics script could be triggered after the user hits the submit button, for instance). This may have been the point Omniture's CEO was making when he said that he could get customer's SSNs and salary data if he wanted to. Hopefully, there is a negotiation between Intuit and the web analytics firm about what customer information will be tracked, and procedures in place to verify that the analytics portion of the HTML does not collect more information than agreed upon.

    Maybe someone with an account at Intuit should take a closer look at the page sources to see what parameters are being passed to the analytics server while you're managing your money.

    1. Re:I took a quick look at Intuit's web site by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I took a look, it's nothing. The guy from omniture spoke a bit wrongly. Theirs is a webbug, y'all. A gif, with a query string of information variables passed along. Things tracked automatically are browser, screen size, plugin support, etc. Info that intuit passes along is the page name, which tax product you bought, your purchase id, kinda like your shopping cart id. Keep in mind folks, Omniture can only track what their clients send to them. The title of the article should be "tracking your tax web activity" not tracking your taxes. Just go to any omniture site (google "s_code_remote.js" for a list of sites or visit their site for a list of clients) and enter javascript:alert(s_pageName); in your browser location bar (or any other s_ js vars you see in the source code) to see what additional information is sent to omniture. I did this on turbo tax tonight - a bit tricky since these are set empty first. So sorry to burst anyone's bubble, but this is really not tracking your "taxes" at all.

    2. Re:I took a quick look at Intuit's web site by noknownpurpose · · Score: 1

      Actually the relevant code on their page is this:

      The other code is for some other metrics tool they are using.

  71. this is illegal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    Dissemination of your personal information without EXPLICIT voluntary consent is clearly against the law. I hope someone is smart enough and will sue the hell out of them.

    1. Re:this is illegal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      this is absolutely correct. disclosure of information to a third party without explicit consent is illegal. i don't understand why the IRS is letting something like this happening at all. looks like someone high up is profiting from this in some way. yes, hopefully someone is going to sue them. as soon as i have enough time on my hands i am looking into that.

    2. Re:this is illegal by wk633 · · Score: 1

      They're not sharing anything!!!

      RTFA- it says they COULD but DON'T. Good grief people. You fill in a form on the web. That web site COULD track all the information in the form. This is ANCIENT news. If there was any evidence that they actually were sharing, THEN this would be news. The person who summarized the article left out a very key quote.

    3. Re:this is illegal by anthony_dipierro · · Score: 1

      Because it isn't happening. No one is disclosing personal information to a third party without explicit consent. They're using cookies to track where people go on their website. The quote was taken way out of context. Yes, it's technically possible for them to "capture your name, your Social Security number or any other information that you willingly pass to a Web site", but it's not actually being done!

    4. Re:this is illegal by smackmywhammy · · Score: 2, Informative

      I must agree, if information has actually been disseminated. I work in a position that handles electronic IRS related data. They audit us at least once a year, and have no sense of humor or leniency in following strict privacy controls they require. They guard tax data closer than their teenage daughter's virginity. I can't imagine that such a breach has occurred and Intuit is still doing business.

    5. Re:this is illegal by nikolajsheller · · Score: 1

      This may be illegal, and there may be plenty of people smart enough to sue the hell out of them; but are there people that satisfy the above criteria that have the time and money to do so?

    6. Re:this is illegal by grungefade · · Score: 0

      well, if you havnt noticed, American corporations have been above the law for sometime now. And the american people don't care at all. They are happy as long as they have their T.V.

    7. Re:this is illegal by triso · · Score: 1
      ... They guard tax data closer than their teenage daughter's virginity.
      Do you have any phone numbers? Hoo! Hoo!
  72. Supercomputer creates perfect tax parasitoid. by qualico · · Score: 1

    Have there been any studies of tax data using a supercomputer?

    You could use it to predict just how much you can suck out of a system, without killing it too quickly. That way the host is efficiently milked.

    The perfect parasitoid.

    Parasitic wasp grubs are a good example.
    After a caterpillar is paralyzed by a sting, the grubs eat less-important organs first. Vital organs are saved for the last supper. ;there is a point in there somewhere. :P

  73. Offtopic, but I gotta vent by qengho · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I've never used Intuit's products, but I've hated them since the mid-90s when they made a corporate decision, under the leadership of Bill Campbell, to blow off their Mac user base. "Want new features? Use Windows." Punks. So I guess it's not really surprising that they're screwing over their current customer base like this.

    For some reason Apple decided to put Campbell on its board of directors, despite his demonstrated inimicality (yes, that's a word). I own a fair amount of AAPL, and every year I mark my proxy to withhold my votes for that SOB. Sadly, he keeps getting re-elected. Oh well.

    Thanks for listening.

    1. Re:Offtopic, but I gotta vent by King_TJ · · Score: 2, Informative

      Well, it doesn't look to me like owners of the Mac edition of Quicken 2005 are too pleased with the product either.

      They may be once again "supporting the Mac" with their products, but it's half-baked.

      I've been a Quicken user for keeping track of my checking and credit card accts. for years, and I recently migrated over to my Mac from Windows. (Mainly because I figure Windows has too many security risks like spyware apps that might potentially be able to upload my Quicken data someplace.)

      I'm disappointed with Q2005 on the Mac though. The whole U.I. just feels "cumbersome" to me. I understand their reasoning behind trying to stick with the Mac concept of keeping everything in separate windows - but for this app, it seems to just get in my way. I'm constantly having one of my account registers disappearing behind my web browser when I have it open, trying to cross-check some data between my bank's web site and Quicken. I far prefer the way all the account registers feel like they're locked inside the main Quicken screen on a Windows platform.

    2. Re:Offtopic, but I gotta vent by kylector · · Score: 1

      I use Quicken 2004 for the Mac and agree--it feels so clunky I'm tempted to write my own and be done with it. So many windows and the reporting feature is so cumbersome and un-intuitive.

      It's a bad program. I checked out multiple others for the Mac and they were far worse, though. Mostly shareware type stuff.

  74. Re:Read the fine print for your savings and checki by DigitalCrackPipe · · Score: 1

    I *do* read most of my privacy notices, and you have the opportunity to opt-out of most marketing-related information sharing... at least with scrupulous businesses. If there is no opt-out mentioned in the privacy notice (it doesn't have to be obvious or easy), then they adhere to a more strict set of guidelines (supposedly).

    From what I've read and gathered, the law forbids sharing information in certain ways without offering an opt-out. You do NOT have a choice about them sharing info in ways necessary to provide you the service you've signed up for.

    Of course, this doesn't apply to the government. Buy a house, and it's a matter of public record. You suddenly get loan offers out the wazoo. At least you can reduce credit card offers when you tell the credit agencies to not share your credit-worthiness. Do it here . Scroll to the bottom for opt-out, the rest is good info on your rights.

  75. IRS Invasion of Privatization by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 2, Informative

    The IRS is now outsourcing tax debt collection to regular collection corporations. Last time they piloted this program, it lost the government money. Imagine how much more this will lose, when some of our most confidential info gets "lost" into the blackhatsphere.

    --

    --
    make install -not war

    1. Re:IRS Invasion of Privatization by WillAffleck · · Score: 1

      Well, it's like the red commie Bushies want, anything to sell out America for the Red Party Elites.

      --
      Will in Seattle
  76. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  77. Lucky skunks! by uberdave · · Score: 1

    Tax freedom day in Canada isn't until the end of June.

    1. Re:Lucky skunks! by Brandybuck · · Score: 1

      But at least you get the opportunity to wait in line for a free cardiologist to fix your heart after it stopped when you saw your tax bill!

      --
      Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
  78. Damn by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And here I thought the Inuit did nothing but sit around getting drunk and contemplate suicide due to their way of life fading out. Well, that and make up new words for snow.

    Yeah I watch SeaLab.

  79. Yawn!!! by AstroDrabb · · Score: 4, Interesting
    This is total media hype. This whole thing is just about some cookies to track web usage. No big deal. I filed my taxes this year on-line with Intuit using Firefox (under Linux, even though TurboTax said I wasn't using a supported OS. I changed the UA to Firefox WinXP and TurboTax didn't complain again). Under my Firefox preferences, I set my cookie options to "ask me every time". This way, the first time a site/servername tries to set a cookie, Firefox prompts me and I can tell Firefox to "always accept" or "never accept". When I did my taxes with Intuit, I noticed non-turbo tax cookies trying to be set. I just told Firefoxt to "always deny" those cookies and to "always allow" the cookies from turbotax. I had no problems doing my taxes after that with TurboTax online.

    Just use Firefox for all of your web browsing and most of your privacy issues will go away. In FF, just go into your preferences/options under security -> cookies and set that to "ask me everytime" and your good to go.

    --
    If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land,
    it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy. -James Madison
    1. Re:Yawn!!! by Brandybuck · · Score: 1

      Yawn!!! Not to put down Firefox or anything, but EVERY browser can do this... except Internet Exploder. Netscape can do it. Mozilla can do it. Safari can do it. Opera can do it. The forbidden-to-mention Konqueror can do it. I've even heard that most text-mode browsers can do it. Yawn!!!

      --
      Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
    2. Re:Yawn!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well 'senior dude', you have no clue about web tracking techniques.

      See the post above your's for just one example.

      http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=146016&c id =12230500

    3. Re:Yawn!!! by lxw56 · · Score: 1

      I just set my options to reject third-party cookies. Does the same thing.

    4. Re:Yawn!!! by AstroDrabb · · Score: 1

      True. However, I like to see the site that is trying to set a cookie for the first time. There might be some third party cookies that I allows. For example, I don't mind web-stat type cookies. Those stats can help companies to build better sites if they know who their users are. Blocking third-party cookies would block most web stat type cookies.

      --
      If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land,
      it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy. -James Madison
  80. Re:Read the fine print for your savings and checki by Dr+Reducto · · Score: 1

    To answer your unrelated question: Comcast has been having major DNS issues. If you have another DNS server you can use, try using it. People on another forum were giving out DNS server IPs that supposedly were verizon's (they said Comcast made a deal to share DNS so that Comcast wouldn't be badly fucked).

  81. And THIS is why.... by Ghengis · · Score: 1

    This is why I filled out my 1040.... shedules A,B, and D with Paper and Pencil. Besides, if you're paying about $30.00 for the software after rebates, I figure, I just made about $25.00/hour to do it by hand ;-)

    --

    "The best laid plans of mice and men gang oft agley..." - ROBERT BURNS

  82. Product activation is a dealbreaker by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


    I dropped Microsoft in favor of Linux when Microsoft imposed product activation.

    I dropped Valve -- did not and will not buy Half Life 2 -- after they imposed product activation.

    I dropped Intuit/Turbo Tax when they imposed product activation. Been using Tax Cut ever since.

    Once you become a customer-fucking company, you lose me as a customer, and I NEVER come back

  83. Re:this is NOT illegal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I don't know what you've been smokin' dude, but there are no federal laws in the US that establish ownership of an individual's personal information. If you willingly give it to another party, or if it is made public in any way, they are free to do whatever they want with it unless they have committed to you in some legally-enforceable way that they will restrict its use.

  84. Ok, this is off-topic, but, that microsoft ad . . by OmgTEHMATRICKS · · Score: 1

    my god

    I was just looking around at some comments when OUT OF THE BLUE I HEAR THIS ENORRMOUSLY LOUD HONKING SOUND and I just about have a heart attack.

    Slashdot, please, for the love of ZOD, remove that ad! Thank you.

  85. Re:not totally on-topic but.. by waferhead · · Score: 1

    OK, google gives zero hits on "flspsed"

    Same for freshmeat, sourceforge, and in packages.debian.org

    Care to provide a link?

  86. why make yourself feel bad? by cahiha · · Score: 1

    Since I'm self-employed, nobody withholds from me, so I get to feel it when I write my two checks to Fed and State treasuries.

    You've got to pay taxes either way--why make yourself feel bad about it? The less I have to think about it, the better. And given current interest rates, it's not like you are losing a lot of money.

    1. Re:why make yourself feel bad? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why do you have to pay taxes? Have you ever read the U.S. Code regarding taxes? How do you know you have to pay them then if you haven't ever read it? I think the U.S. government has it's citizens in bondage all thanks to common knowledge such as that which you appear to hold.

    2. Re:why make yourself feel bad? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why do you have to pay taxes?

      Because they pay for public safety, public health, public infrastructure, public research, and many other things that make our nation worth living in.

      I think the U.S. government has it's citizens in bondage all thanks to common knowledge such as that which you appear to hold.

      I think people who think like you are anti-social, selfish pricks.

  87. But how long? by nsaneinside · · Score: 1

    Your point is valid and well supported - I grant you that. But how long until these things are tracked, without our knowledge or consent?

  88. Re:Ok, this is off-topic, but, that microsoft ad . by PenGun · · Score: 0

    Oh come on. I havn't even seen an add in about a year, 'cept for a couple of artful inline reggy adds.

    PenGun
    Do What Now ??? ... Standards and Practices !

  89. Turbo Tax. Do they WANT to go broke? by Newer+Guy · · Score: 1

    I mean, two years ago they lost something like 60% of their market share over that 'activation' fiasco...Now THIS???!!! Does this company have a death wish??

  90. Re:Read the fine print for your savings and checki by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 1
    Other than that, your information is strictly off limits.

    Yes, it's a good thing that banks *always* obey the law, especially when it's inconvenient or unprofitable to do so.

    --
    Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
  91. Re:This is exactly why... by fishbowl · · Score: 2, Informative


    >I'm dead serious

    Be careful. The information on that site is incomplete and clearly slanted to try to make the case from various angles that have been tried by tax protestors for years. They lose, because there are many more arguments, and more cogent and legally valid ones, than the "31" listed on your site.

    > Show me where you think the law is

    The law is in the Code of Federal Regulations, just like all other laws promulgated by Federal Agencies, with updates published in the Federal Register. This authority comes from Congress, which empowers them by delegating lawmaking authority to the agencies.

    Don't stake your future or your assets on assumptions that come from this same, tired, *losing* tax protestor line.

    Smokescreen and no substance? It has as much weight as anything else done under the authority of Congress. Don't like the tax status quo? Get organized on a national scale and elect representatives who believe as you do, and send them to DC. That, fortunately or unfortunately, is the solution.

    --
    -fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
  92. Re:not totally on-topic but.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative
  93. nonsense! Re:National sales tax now by swschrad · · Score: 1

    national sales tax, VAT, whatever you call it... it really screws the lower income folks to the point of just dropping out altogether. hurts the middle income folks. the big cigars will still bitch.

    no, either a fully flat income tax with a circuit-breaker for those who don't make the poverty line already... or a steeper progressive income tax so the big cigars start paying something to the government, and not to their tax attorneys... are the ways to reform the system.

    --
    if this is supposed to be a new economy, how come they still want my old fashioned money?
  94. Re:Read the fine print for your savings and checki by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So how come when I got a high paying job I suddenly started getting letters from AMEX offering me a gold credit card when I have never done business with AMEX in my life and they were totally uninterested in me as a struggling student working a bunch of low paying jobs?

  95. Re:not totally on-topic but.. by Brandybuck · · Score: 1

    At least you can save your filled in f1040 if you use Acroread! If it's California's f540, you can't. It's a major pain in the butt. You can't save an edited form, but you can print it or reset it... or save a new blank form. But you can't save a form with any fields filled out. Some clown in Sacramento had to deliberately remove this functionality. It makes no sense. At least I have two ounces of savvy and printed it to a pdf file, but there's a lot of people out there that don't that will be severly discombobulated by this nutnumbing idea.

    --
    Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
  96. the whole thing's avoidable anyway by digitalextremist · · Score: 1

    It's not like taxableincome.net didn't already make taxes a thing of the past as we currently allow to continue -- or Intuit were ALREADY a parasite business before selling information. Couldn't be THAT.

    --
    //de ~ 9cimi
    1. Re:the whole thing's avoidable anyway by Legion303 · · Score: 1
    2. Re:the whole thing's avoidable anyway by digitalextremist · · Score: 1

      Thanks for the link, though it's 90% sand and 10% box... I was hoping if you were suggesting the ideas were invalid at least there would be a damning cell around the person after reading. In this case they are idiots because they fail to outline a solution? What, someone else couldn't have thought of that which would suddenly make them pioneers?

      --
      //de ~ 9cimi
    3. Re:the whole thing's avoidable anyway by Legion303 · · Score: 1

      I honestly have no idea what you're babbling about. Sorry.

      "damning cell"...?

    4. Re:the whole thing's avoidable anyway by digitalextremist · · Score: 1

      heh, I mean - philosophy is eventually called on for reasons for taxation, and that needs a compelling universe to hold water long enough for the idea to thrive within it. this post upholds a universeless ideal that makes me think, wait, I can just as easily think what I do --- except with more passion and compelling evidence.

      --
      //de ~ 9cimi
  97. Read the fine print everywhere by abb3w · · Score: 1
    So how come when I got a high paying job I suddenly started getting letters from AMEX offering me a gold credit card when I have never done business with AMEX in my life and they were totally uninterested in me as a struggling student working a bunch of low paying jobs?

    Indeed. Who besides you and your bank could possibly know that you now had an employer giving you a much larger paycheck?

    Oh, wait...

    --
    //Information does not want to be free; it wants to breed.
  98. Re:Read the fine print for your savings and checki by jonnystiph · · Score: 1

    In case anyone hasn't answered this for you. Your resolution issue (failure to resolve names) comes from a DNS issues. Call your ISP and check thier DNS information, then double check that against your DNS server settings. Your ISP should be able to help you with this.

    --

    If we don't make light of everything, we are just stumbling in the dark - Blank

  99. Re:Read the fine print for your savings and checki by BlueHands · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Your assuming that they got that info from the bank. All itmeans is that SOMEWHERE, something change that said to them you might be worth checking out. There are millions of bits of infomation that are tracked about you and even more if you have money and spend it. People watch people that spend money.

    --
    I mod everyone down who says "I'll get modded down for this." I hate to disappoint.
  100. Re:Read the fine print for your savings and checki by KenFury · · Score: 1

    Let me guess.. you have comcast. change your dns server to manual setup.

    NS.Bufalo.edu 128.205.1.2
    NS.UNC.EDU 152.2.21.1
    NS2.UNC.EDU 152.2.253.100
    ns.localnet.com 207.251.201.11

    Always memorize 1 stable Name server. I still remeber locanet's

  101. Your tinfoil hat is on too tight again by FlightTest · · Score: 1
    It's cutting off circulation to your brain. My personal counterexample:

    I e-filed in mid-February, and got my refunds less than 2 weeks later (federal was actually within a week). I had all my rebates from Intuit before the end of February, including the federal e-file rebate.

    I didn't get charged for filing either the state or federal returns until after the 1st of April. That's right, I had my rebate and my refunds for over a month before I got the actual charges for e-filing. So much for tracking my refunds to determine when to ding me.

    By they way, total cost for TurboTax Deluxe, State, and Quicken Deluxe, after all rebates (Costco and Intuit), and including the $15 to file my state taxes as well as the sales tax on the original sales price of the software?

    $28.

    --
    Merde, il pleut encore!
  102. Re:Read the fine print for your savings and checki by BridgeBum · · Score: 1

    Not if Comcast DNS is working but suffering from cache poisoning. Secondary DNS will only help if Comcast fails to return an answer. Secondary DNS won't help a bit if Comcast actually returns a fraudulent one.

    Just make 4.2.2.x your primary and be done with it.

    --
    My UID is the product of 2 primes.
  103. In Norway, your taxes are posted on the Internet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In Norway, the goverment provides a web-page where anyone can enter a persons name, city and aproximate age, and retrieve infrormation about the persons income and taxes for the last year. The argument is that this is supposed to prevent corruption. For some reasone information about debt is not official, only fortune. Example (page in norwegian): http://www.sol.no/okonomi/skatt/

  104. Re:Read the fine print for your savings and checki by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    > My damn internet connection is not working right.
    > I can't get to yahoo.com, but if i type in the ip
    > address, i get there. What the hell is wrong

    I have had Comcast do this to me many times, their DNS gateway would sporadically not resolve some IPs.
    Use a public DNS server in /etc/resolv.conf (or
    "network connections" -> properties -> TCP/IP), or
    a DNS server from some other ISP (Eg: 4.2.2.2, 4.2.2.1)

  105. Charles Schwab does it too! :-(( by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Charles Schwab's interactive trading website also contains web-bugs by DoubleClick.

  106. Re:Turbo Tax. Do they WANT to go broke? by Jussi+K.+Kojootti · · Score: 1

    "Now this"? Care to explain what they actually did wrong this time - use cookies?

  107. Pass the pipe please. I want some of it by DigiShaman · · Score: 1

    Republicans do it far more often then democrats, but that is only because most democrats are dirt poor.
    This has GOT to be the most ignorant statement I've read in a looonng time. Seriously, just name me ONE politition in office that is dirt poor. Hint: You can't because because a "poor politition" is an oxymoron.

    --
    Life is not for the lazy.
  108. More Slashdot Paranoia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How do stories like this get approved?

    Web "bugs" just let a server know that a graphic has been downloaded. They don't capture "tax data" or any other data.

    Admittedly, the executive giving the interview is a little carried away with himself and his ability to "do whatever we want". "You'll just have to trust us." What bullshit.

    Most people I know block third party cookies. If you don't trust Intuit, don't do your taxes online.

    I'm getting tired of the "we're so oppressed; look what they're doing to us now" political correctness on Slashdot. Grow up.

    1. Re:More Slashdot Paranoia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Though it helps, in the olong run it makes VERY LITTLE DIFFERENCE if you block third party cookies, since DoubleClick et al also track your IP address and your browser's user agent. Many people consider your IP address alone to be personally identifying information.

      You'd be better off populating your /etc/hosts file with hundreds of known web-bugging sites mapped to 127.0.0.1. I do this.

      Anything in the URL of the primary page you're displaying also gets sent to DoubleClick in the "referer" field as a part of the HTTP GET simply in the course of your browser's rendering the page.

      While in most cases actual financial data won't be leaked to the web-bugger, nonetheless a substantial amount of your browsing history is, since DoubleClick is all over the web.
      Now if the POST data got sent to the advertiser as well, that would be most insidous. But usually this happens only when your browser is broken or buggy.

    2. Re:More Slashdot Paranoia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Those are very good points--thanks.

  109. I used TurboTax, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...I printed and mailed in my tax return.

  110. Where is my tax information going? by MrResistor · · Score: 1

    Not to Intuit.

    It's been a few years since I stopped using their products. This is just another item on my list of reasons not to go back.

    Of course, I can't say with any certainty that the TaxAct folks aren't doing something similar. I can only hope that they realize I'm voting with my wallet for a company that doesn't behave that way.

    --
    Under capitalism man exploits man. Under communism it's the other way around.
  111. That's weird by wiresquire · · Score: 2, Informative
    from http://www.irs.gov/efile/article/0,,id=118991,00.h tml

    Your tax information and data will be protected -- Privacy and Security concerns

    * Tax return preparation is accomplished using proprietary software approved by the IRS; transmittal is through the established IRS e-file system.
    * Each company must attain a third party privacy and security certification.
    * Alliance companies must comply with all federal rules and regulations on taxpayer privacy for paying and free customers. These rules prohibit use of tax return data for purposes not specifically authorized by the taxpayer.
    * The IRS monitors the progress of each of the companies. If any problems develop, the companies are required to alert the IRS. If appropriate, the IRS will remove the company from the IRS.gov site until the problem is resolved.
    * For more information about IRS Privacy, please visit the IRS Privacy Policy.

    I guess you need to read the fine print on what those company's can do with your info

    --

    So does Anonymous Coward have good karma?

    1. Re:That's weird by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I guess you need to read the fine print on what those company's can do with your info.

      Or maybe you just need to read the fucking article. There is no privacy violation going on here. Move along, now.

  112. Omniture by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I have implemented this tool on other sites. By default it does not collect this type of information, and nothing personally identifying at that. All it does is collect information about where in the site you are and pass it on to a remote server. So if indeed they are collecting this information (and I see nothing in their config files that indicate this) then Intuit's web dev team would have had to have set it up to do so.

  113. Why isn't online filing at IRS.Gov a reality? by swb · · Score: 1

    That's what I don't get. If the IRS wanted to actually improve all around, they would enable online filing through their own web site and not require any third party software or services to electronically file taxes.

    It could (should?) be as basic as a 1040 long form that does the math between boxes and has instructions along the side. It doesn't have to be like TurboTax or any other third-party application that coaches deductions, etc.

    What I want to know is how much lobbying the tax software people have done to keep this from actually happening. I may gripe about my tax amounts, but it really frosts me if I'm required to pay taxes AND to pay some third party to get them paid.

    1. Re:Why isn't online filing at IRS.Gov a reality? by AndersOSU · · Score: 1

      Apperently its illegal for the IRS to compete with private companies by offering their own efile suite. Don't ask me why but I read that shortly before throwing up my hands and filling out my 1040 on paper.

      I also filed returns for 2 states, and they were both free, electronic, and provided by the state. So as to why its legal for the states to squash "competition" but not for the IRS is beyond me.

    2. Re:Why isn't online filing at IRS.Gov a reality? by qwijibo · · Score: 1

      This is an important distinction to me - I pay for tax preparation guidance and advice from a program instead of from a much more expensive human. I see this as a service, not a product. That's a common problem in how people look at software. The e-filing is just a convenience factor as far as I'm concerned. I just don't want to seriously overpay in taxes or pay several hundred dollars to someone who is going to take just as much time asking me questions as it would take for me to go through the program.

    3. Re:Why isn't online filing at IRS.Gov a reality? by swb · · Score: 1

      How can it be illegal? I mean, they're "competing" against printing and copying companies by giving away free copies of the forms in addition to allowing you to mail them the forms directly.

      This is grossly off-topic, but this smells to me exactly what you get with "privitization" -- a system no more efficient than it was to begin with that enriches some specific individual with what appears to be a manditory revenue stream.

  114. Re:Read the fine print for your savings and checki by Randseed · · Score: 1

    Set up your own DNS server and bounce the requests off the root. This is what I do, and very, very rarely do I have a DNS problem. (For the purists out there who complain that I'm abusing the root DNS servers, shove it.)

  115. TaxAct by IPFreely · · Score: 1
    Actually, at least one third party (the makers of TaxAct), offers e-file for free to everyone.

    Well, I don't know much about TaxAct, but if they are offering software to the public for free, then how do they make their own living? Could there be a motivation inside there to capture and use peoples information in a similar way to what this article is complaining about? A direct federal tax entry system would bypass that issue. It's not just aboutthe fees. That's just adding insult to injury.

    --
    There is nothing so silly as other peoples traditions, and nothing so sacred as our own.
    1. Re:TaxAct by anthony_dipierro · · Score: 1

      Well, I don't know much about TaxAct, but if they are offering software to the public for free, then how do they make their own living?

      Many ways. For one thing, the only way to get to the free version of TaxAct is to go through the government website. They also charge for state returns, for special deluxe features, and for a professional tax preparer to look over your return.

      Could there be a motivation inside there to capture and use peoples information in a similar way to what this article is complaining about?

      I highly doubt that would be in their best interests, and depending what information it was it would probably be illegal.

      A direct federal tax entry system would bypass that issue.

      All I can say is, give it time. In ten years, I bet there will be open source software out there which enables you to e-file for less than the cost of a stamp.

  116. Surely you jest by HangingChad · · Score: 1
    If the IRS would actually come out with a method of E-Filing that does not require third party involvement, they would go a long way towards elimenating this type of problem.

    The IRS? HAHAHAHA! The IRS has so badly mismanaged their IT projects that they're generally recognized as the worst of the bad government contract managers. Their old data system is barely limping along but after spending tens of millions they're no closer to a working replacement than they were two years ago.

    Here's one example there are many, many more.

    We can all breath a giant sigh of relief if they get the new main system online before the old one throws in the electronic towel. Any time you ask anyone in the IRS group how things are going, you'll always get the Air Force salute (shoulder shrug) in response.

    --
    That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
  117. Duh, what do you think ChoicePoint does. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The IRS already sells your tax return to anyone who has you SSN. What do you think ChoicePoint does? Any time you apply for a job, a loan or rent an apartment you are authorizing ChoicePoint to pull copies of your tax return. See http://www.4ustax.net/WhyVerify.htm for a candid explanation of the verification business model.

  118. Not all banks are evil by muellerr1 · · Score: 1

    Look for a small privately-held local bank or credit union in your nearest mid-sized city. These institutions are governed by the same laws and regulations as the big banks and yet tend to be focused on their customers in a way that big banks just can't seem to get. Selling your information would be an unthinkable breach of trust.

    They're out there. You just need to do some research.

    1. Re:Not all banks are evil by mutterc · · Score: 1
      Credit unions rock. Since they're nonprofit, they have incentive neither to nickel-and-dime you to death with fees, nor to act in consumer-unfriendly ways.

      I personally have free interest-bearing checking and savings, decent free online banking, a 5.25% 30-year-fixed mortgage, and a 12%-fixed Visa card that doesn't raise my rate when I'm late on something else (check your credit card's T's&C's - I bet you'll find something like that).

      The only restriction is that credit unions have to have a restricted field of membership (usually determined by employer), though you can get your employer to affiliate with a CU if they don't already (it shouldn't cost them anything).

      My primary one I was eligible for by virtue of having worked for a large Business Machines company, but they cover a lot of other employers as well. My old one back in Ohio I got into by virtue of my grandmother working for Western Electric/AT&T/Lucent. Nowadays Telhio goes the more adventurous route of considering you eligible if you live, work, go to school or church in their Columbus suburb.

  119. Excellent reply. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Excellent reply.

    More than just state to state, in many states, there are distinct differences county by county. I was born and raised in Western New York State. The fact that NYC even exists on the same planet, let alone in the same state, is mind bending. Of course, I thought I grew up in a rural area, then I drove all the way across America on route 80. Half way across Wyoming you start to think "Oh, now this is rural....".

    Also, I have spent time in Europe, and if you ignore the language differences (which is hard) then you see the same basic differences. Metz France is as different from Paris as Minneapolis is from NYC. Germany is as different from Sweden as Georgia is from New York.

    So get over it.....

    (BTW Minnesota is more like Sweden than France is.)

  120. Broad generalizations by benhocking · · Score: 4, Funny

    Would you say that all people who make broad generalizations are idiots? ;)

    --
    Ben Hocking
    Need a professional organizer?
    1. Re:Broad generalizations by lcsjk · · Score: 1

      All generalizations, including this one, are untrue.

  121. Actually, they're all free by benhocking · · Score: 1

    According to the IRS, all those 3rd parties are free (including TurboTax) if you come from the IRS free-file page.

    --
    Ben Hocking
    Need a professional organizer?
    1. Re:Actually, they're all free by anthony_dipierro · · Score: 1

      Yes, but most of them have income restrictions.

      Wow, I just looked at the page, and apparently most of them don't have income restrictions. I believe this has changed since I filed back in Februrary. I remember TaxAct being the only one which had no restrictions back then.

    2. Re:Actually, they're all free by Twanfox · · Score: 1

      Here's the thing. Where I file my state taxes, the revenue service for that state runs the site directly, themselves. This ensures that your data is sent straight to them and not via some other method. Filing via third party makes me wonder whether or not those third-party agents are doing something they shouldn't with your tax information. This is not really an issue when you deal directly, as whether you file by paper or electronically, need that information for a valid reason.

    3. Re:Actually, they're all free by ApproachingLinux · · Score: 1
      Right. I used TurboTax for FREE this year by doing exactly that - clicking through from the IRS web site. They want you to pay for the state return, but when you get to that part, you just say that you'll do your state tax return yourself and ... no charge. Then (in Virginia), I file online with the state (also for free).

      You can also go through the state tax part to see what your total due/refund should be (so you know if you did it right) and then when TurboTax asks for $$, just edit the return and delete the state return. No charge.

  122. Re:Read the fine print for your savings and checki by lobsterGun · · Score: 1

    BTW, this is unrelated to this story, but I need help and I have to ask (since all the smart people hang out at slashdot, and I don't know the ipa to any forus to ask). My damn internet connection is not working right. I can't get to yahoo.com, but if i type in the ip address, i get there. What the hell is wrong?


    Assuming you are running windows....

    Either your DNS is screwed up, or you have been infected by Malware. Use windows update to apply all the latest security patches. Run your anitvirus scans, run adaware, run spybot search & destroy. Reboot your system, then run adaware and spybot search and destroy again just to be sure.

    If the problem persists, don't give up. Web search for stories of people who have experienced similar problems.

    Of course there is always the nuclear option. Burn your data to CD and buy a new computer.
  123. turbotax files not fully encrypted by peter303 · · Score: 1

    Someone could scrunch tax/account info from your computer disk as well as the web. I've been able to decompile some infor out of turbotax files using simple utilities like the UNIX strings and od programs. I dont know how vulnerable other tax programs are.

  124. Why no mention of H&R Block? by jalefkowit · · Score: 1

    The summary makes it sound like Intuit is the only one doing this. When you RTFA, however, you find out that H&R Block's online product does the same thing:

    But if you're one of the millions who this year have used the electronic services of Intuit's TurboTax or H&R Block, you may not know that a stealthy technology commonly known as Web bugs was used to track your comings and goings on the Internet.

    Both Intuit and Block, which offer electronic filing for free through the IRS' Free File program, use hidden Web bugs throughout the tax-preparation process to monitor taxpayers' online behavior.

    Why single out Intuit for bashing in the summary and leave Block un-named?

    (Full disclosure: I was a happy customer of Block's tax-filing products for six years until I tried their Web tax software for the first time this year. It's borked in ways a lot more comprehensive than this. I wrote it up on my blog if you care about such things...)

  125. TurboTax Usability Paradox by Halo- · · Score: 1
    I use TurboTax for the web. I like it. So much so that I'm willing to overlook the cardinal sin of "You must use IE to access this site". I've found that IE running under WINE does just fine except for the final step where you need to download the forms as a PDF.

    I'm not a zealot, but it takes an awful lot to convince me to use a product which doesn't support my OS of choice -- Linux. The usability and ease of TurboTax won me over. It's obvious they have spent tons of money and hired some really good UI designers. The entire product is aimed at making the customer comfortable.

    When I finished my taxes, I got a pop-up asking me to take their user survey. After a brief moment of thinking "ewww... a pop-up" I decided to to take it because it might be good place to drop a hint about supporting Firefox, etc... Generally I try to take feedback surveys if I have time.

    The contrast between the well thought out design of the actual app and the absolutely horrible design of the survey was astounding! Endless pages of "Rate on a scale of 1 to 10 ... 1 being not at all, 10 being extremely important" I didn't count, but I got through at least five pages of 15 or so questions each before I bailed out. The worst part was the questions were stupid. I understand the need for baseline questions, but there were tons of questions like "how important is it the program does math correctly?"

    It seems that the actual tax application is a wonderful, well-designed, user-centeric application. On the other hand, the company surrounding it seems to not respect or understand their customers at all. (See the DRM-like fiasco a few year back)

    1. Re:TurboTax Usability Paradox by DarkBlack · · Score: 1

      I used Firefox on Linux on their site just fine.

  126. New Tax System - Flat Sales Tax by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    All of the hassle associated with income tax could be eliminated if we went to the flat federal sales tax the Bush has been talking about.

  127. Privacy Act by Craig_P92669 · · Score: 1

    Shouldn't the Privacy Act protect people against this? Knowing how unsecure web transactions can be is the exact reason I take my taxes to a CPA for perperation and filing. It may cost twice as much, but at least they don't sell my personal information.

    --
    http://xs4.xs.to/pics/04481/p556222.gif
  128. Non-web also by blogan · · Score: 1

    I used H&R Block's TaxCut program and used the e-mail address of taxcut@. I moved to a different state and bought something at the Things Remembered store in the mall. Later, I get an e-mail to taxcut@:

    Thanks for shopping a Things Remembered in Apache Mall....

    It turns out that H&R Block sold my information to a third party to track me. Things Remembered also used the same third party. So the third party just put the pieces together (and tracked my move) and gave my H&R Block e-mail to Things Remembered.

  129. Pros and Cons by benhocking · · Score: 1

    Con as in anti, not Con as in confidence man. :)

    My state (VA) also allows me to file taxes directly through them, and I think that's basically a better alternative. (Having written tax software myself long ago, I know it's not exactly brain surgery.) However, I found the process (slightly) less intuitive than the 3rd party site I used to file my federal taxes. That comes from the benefit of competition, IMO. I do agree that the downside of the 3rd party is that one more party has my personal information than needs it. Luckily for me, as a grad student, if my income information gets leaked out, I'll actually get less spam. ;)

    --
    Ben Hocking
    Need a professional organizer?
  130. Maybe check the privacy statement? by __aaanwh8370 · · Score: 1
  131. Re:Read the fine print for your savings and checki by olddotter · · Score: 1

    While I understand these restrictions are supposed to be in place. Can some one tell me why I keep getting mail from insurance companies offering me insurance to pay off my mortgage if I lose my job, get injured, etc. There mailings include the mortgage loan ammount ! I pretty sure they had to get it from the bank.

  132. Marie Antoinette did NOT say that by SpammersAreScum · · Score: 1

    Perhaps the parent poster knows this. But this is for the benefit of anyone who didn't. Please help stamp out that bogus meme! http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a2_334.html http://urbanlegends.about.com/library/bl_marie_ant oinette.htm http://alt-usage-english.org/excerpts/fxletthe.htm l

  133. Grasshoppers SCREW ants by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    if the national sales tax plan has one major flaw, it's that it fails to distinguish between the $ that people have already paid tax on, in the transisiton.

    If I have accumulated $1million in tax paid savings and neighbor has accumulated $1million in tax deferred savings, the national sales tax SCREWS ME!

    How?
    I'm gonna hae to pay tax all over again on my savings!

    If I get a check for ths tax I'll have to pay when I spend my tax paid savings, then I'm on board.

    This will never fly because class warfare leaders will say that my savings are either:
    1)ill gotten gains
    2)a result of my more 'fortunate' circumstance
    3)money I took out of circulation, therefore harmoing the economy(senseless as this is, they'll say it)

    They will not notice that I've done all my shopping at thrift stores, never owned a new car, do all my own repairs(home and auto), and cach or kill much of my dietary protein.

    Folks like me are only a percent or so of the population, but we'll be one fuvking angry and armed percent if this shit goesdown in a way that taxes us twice. The Boston tea party will look liek a fucking well....tea party.

  134. it comes in an envelope FROM THE BANK by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    When the envelope those mortgage insurance offers arrive in has the Bank's name, logo and address on it ... THEN I THINK EVEN A MORON KOWS THEY GOT THE INFO FROM THE BANK.

  135. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  136. Where my tax information is going by mwood · · Score: 1

    Through the USPS, which *does* take a rather strong position on the subject of people spying on others' private business.

  137. Re:Read the fine print for your savings and checki by TheZax · · Score: 1

    ... include the mortgage loan ammount ! I pretty sure they had to get it from the bank.

    Actually I think this information is available from other places, like your credit report, and public info relating to the sale of the home, etc. I mean, maybe they got it from the bank, but you'd be surprised about the other places this could have come from.

    --

    JWall: GUI client for IPTables
  138. Re:not totally on-topic but.. by gg3po · · Score: 1

    I was able to do my state tax forms (which didn't grant me "rights" to save changes) by opening it in gv, saving the individual pages to separate .pdf files, converting them to .ps files with pdftops (don't use pdf2ps, it's crap), then importing that into Scribus. It has a nice WYSIWYG environment to do your editing.

    --
    ---
  139. My Approach to Intuit On a Mac by $criptah · · Score: 1

    I am fully aware of several popular programs trying to collect data from people. In order to avoid that, I installed "LittleSnitch" on my Mac box. This is basically a firewall wrapper that tells you whenever a program is trying to make an outgoing connection. Little bastard works well for me.

    TurboTax products worked just fine on my Mac and I haven't noticed any outgoing connections so far. Although I compute taxes via software, I always file the myself through good old snail mail.

  140. Re:Sales tax v necessities by PMuse · · Score: 1

    So nobody pays tax on necessities.

    Pardon me if I don't trust the people who are deciding what's a necessity and what's not. After all, if I read the Canadian example correctly, _they_ wound up deciding that a dozen doughnuts was an essential, but that a roll of toilet paper was not. Goodness only knows what might happen if the U.S. Congress made such a list.

    --
    "We reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals." --The American President (20.1.2009)
  141. Speaking from experience by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I happen to be the programmer for the servers that manage transmitting millions of tax returns to the IRS and other agencies for a tax software company (not Intuit). If this article is true, then Intuit is facing some charges, unless my understanding of the law is wildly wrong. Any time you have an SSN combined with any other piece of identifying info; an address, a name, even just a zip code, then that data automatically falls under federal privacy acts, and disclosing the info or allowing it to be disclosed through negligence is a felony.

    We don't let tax return data be viewed by anyone unless the preparer gives permission, usually due to some problem with the return that we are helping them sort out.

  142. Re:Read the fine print for your savings and checki by strikethree · · Score: 1

    if you can ping google.com (not the ip address, the hostname) then it is likely your hosts file is messed up. otherwise, it is your dns settings or your dns server.

    strike

    --
    "Someone needs to talk to the tree of liberty about its ghoulish drinking problem." by ohnocitizen
  143. Canopy Group? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Well, Omniture is located in Orem, UT... dangerously close to Lindon, UT where our favorite company SCO resides.

    There are a ton of Canopy Group companies in that area and although I can't find info on their site associating them with the Canopy Group I wouldn't doubt that it is. It sounds like the sleazy kind of company that Canopy would own.

    I certainly don't trust any Canopy Group company.

  144. Just One More... by MortisUmbra · · Score: 1

    In the growing list of reasons NOT to use their software.

    I have used TT for the Web for the last 4 years, this year, I switched. I was SO uncertain about my forms and what was being displayed and how things were entered that I went over my 1040 EZ (EZ, as in, you know, EASY) FOUR times and it still didnt look right (at one point it even showed my AGI as being more than my total income!).

    I spend all that time, finally went to file, and even though the front page said "$9.95 for federal" with a vague mention of extra fees for state I get to the price and its $29.95 for fed. anf $39.95 for state....where the hell did that come from?

    I looked on their forums and GOBS of people were going on about how they were ripped off by Intuit.

    I went to H&R Blocks TaxCut web based service, it actually had specific impossible to miss sections for entering forms 1099-INT and 1099-G (unemployment) and not only was I more satisfied that it was done properly, I also went from getting $6 from fed and owing $190 to state I am getting back a total of $287 between the two with the taxcut method (still less than I expected but sounds better, no way I owed, and I was more comfortable with what was entered and how that I trust it more than Intuits numbers).

    AVOID TURBOTAX LIKE THE PLAGUE!

    Between the ever-decreasing quality of their software, the crap they pull with activation (or tried to), the shady crap going on with their prices and now this....just run, dont walk, away from them!

    --

    "The saddest words of mice and men, are not those which were, but should have been."
  145. How is that anonymous? by wsanders · · Score: 1

    I mean, anyone in the US postal system could open your return and get all the information. Or, anyone in the IRS could misuse all the information?

    The people at the IRS who process your return are every bit as much minimum-wage slaves as anyone at Intuit or H&R Block, or the barista at Starbucks who runs your credit card through.

    Why not deliver your taxes to the IRS in person, in a suitcase full of unmarked $20 bills. THAT will certainly seem anonymous to them, oh yeah.

    --
    Give a man a fish and you have fed him for today. Teach a man to fish, and he'll say "WHERE'S MY FISH, YOU IDIOT?"
  146. Obvious difference by knarfling · · Score: 1
    All your information is, of course, completely correct. The difference is the return on investment. In other words, how much work it takes to achieve gains. For example, if I work at the Post Office and want to steal Social Secuirty Numbers, I get one or two SSNs for each tax envelope that I open. Each one takes a little time if I don't care about getting caught, and a little more time if I want other people to believe that the envelope was not opened. There is only so much work I can do to prepare for the actual theft. Most of my work is opening the envelope and possibly re-sealing it.

    On the other hand, with electronic theft, I can spend a lot of my theft time programming something to recognize and capture those SSNs. It takes only a little more effort to steal thousands of numbers than it does to steal 50. Furthermore, I don't have to be in any one physical location. Even if my program has to run on a specific server, I can program it, go on vacation, and collect the harvest when I get back.

    Now look at the damage potiential. Because I can only open so many envelopes in a day, I am very limited to how much damage I can cause. If I enlist the help of others, I can do more damage, but I have to share some of the spoils. Electronically, I can work alone, minimizing my investment, and harvest more numbers, maximizing my returns.

    You can obviously see the attraction for electronically capturing or even stealing data. That is why it gets more attention than the paper or hand methods. Yes, we have always had people that could steal or capture personal data for theft or marketing. But because it is easier to do it electronically, it is more attractive and therefore more prevelant.

    --
    Great civilizations have lived and died on false theories. Don't mess up mine with a few facts.
  147. Independent Study in Tax Policy 455.02 (1 hours) by PMuse · · Score: 1
    Assignment:
    Develop a standard form for evaluating new tax proposals. Use as a model the /. standard forms for evaluating proposals for eliminating SPAM, fighting piracy, and performing network administration.

    Considerations:

    tax where the money is -- those without money cannot pay

    avoid overly impeding the flow of resources towards efficient uses

    don't take so much from anyone that they cannot live adequately

    provide sufficient tax revenue (completion of Introduction to Spending Policy 360 is suggested, though not required)

    keep it simple -- to minimize illegal avoidance, cost of collection, and general confusion

    provide steady revenue under all economic conditions to extent possible

    objective results will determine more of your grade than subjective "fairness"

    --
    "We reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals." --The American President (20.1.2009)
  148. Re:Read the fine print for your savings and checki by mutterc · · Score: 1
    Real property ownership, and liens thereon (including the amount and the lienholder) are matters of public record. Therefore, whenever you get a mortgage, vendors (who I suppose pay people to watch changes at the county records office, or online) come out of the woodwork to sell you stuff.

    The only problem I have with it is that most of them try to disguise the mailings as though they're coming from your lender (by printing the lender's name in prominent positions, and leaving their own name in the Fine Print).

    Practically all of these offers I've ever gotten are from companies who are entirely unaffiliated with my credit union (they even say so in the Fine Print).

  149. Typical Intuit behaviour by sydbarrett74 · · Score: 1

    First onerous DRM with Quicken and TurboTax. Now this. That's why I use H&R Block's TaxCut. They haven't (yet) pulled this kind of shit.

    --
    'He who has to break a thing to find out what it is, has left the path of wisdom.' -- Gandalf to Saruman
  150. Re:load of crap by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I tend to strongly object. I've noticed that the Eastern European bloc tends to be THE WORST capitalists out there.

    My extensive working with a substantial amount of Eastern bloc Europeans has taught me a few things...

    1) they like to make $$ more than the avg American
    2) they have NO respect for laws in general and view laws as something that needs to be proven broken before they will admit to it being broken
    3) they are the cheapest bastards that I've EVER met.

    So if generalizations are the order of the day then I've got my own.

    It's not to hard to imagine where this ideology of theirs come from. Being poor leads to people doing whatever it takes to make a living and breaking the laws becomes the norm. Come over to the US and continue leads to unnecessary screwing of people for $$.

    where does my experience come from?
    My uncle owns a HUGE garage and over the past 20 yrs he's rented it out to immigrants from that region of the world and over the past 20 yrs there have been about 2 of 50 that had "somewhat" of morals.
    The worst offender was this Russian dude that lives with his parents, has 20 cars in their yard, doesn't pay rent, doesn't chip in for food, and plans on selling about 100 cars and retiring on some island - by himself or with a girlfriend - NOTE: No parents included. If you're willing to screw your parents then there are NO boundaries at all.

  151. Surprised? No. by argStyopa · · Score: 1

    Intuit's software is constantly trying to get through Zonealarm to call home, why does it suprise ANYONE that they feel entitled to rape your privacy in another way?

    Screw you, Intuit. You could have been the premier taxfiling software and been happy, but instead you chose the path of maximum suck.

    --
    -Styopa
  152. Re:Read the fine print for your savings and checki by olddotter · · Score: 1

    A refinance action should not be public record, because the realestate did not change hands. Companies are supposed to have your permission to check your credit. Still the data is getting out there some how!

  153. Re:not totally on-topic but.. by Per+Bothner · · Score: 1
    Some clown in Sacramento had to deliberately remove this functionality [to save filled-in forms].

    Actually, I suspect Adobe. Saving filled-in forms was not possible in Acrobat Reader 5 - only the full version of Acrobat. Acrobat 7 does give you the "right" to save filled-in documents. I'm betting "rights management" is a new and or extra-cost feature of the program used to create the PDF files. The Feds have gotten around to updating their PDF-producing software, but California hasn't.

    The concept of being allowed to print but not save a document is the kind of insanity typical of DRM-obsessed companies, of which it appears Adobe is one. Hopefully there will be a Free Software fix for this idiocy.

  154. Re:Read the fine print for your savings and checki by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yeah, because a networking company like Level3 would never think of having network redundancy on their core /24.