Slashdot Mirror
IRS to Allow Tax Preparers to Sell Your Info?
merkel writes "The Philadelphia Inquirer reports that the IRS has proposed rule changes allowing tax-return preparers, like H&R Block, to sell an individual's return information to marketers and data brokers. The proposed rule [PDF], which does contain some substantive protections for the processing of electronic returns, was published in the Federal Register on December 8, 2005. The official comment period has passed, but hearings will be held this month."
Put an end to the IRS gathering this information on every single person on the country. Support the FairTax.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
Ever filled out census information? Because, if you have, your information is available to anyone
I only filled out the information they need for the constitutional purpose of the census. The rest of it is none of their damned business.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
As if there's not enough trouble already with identity fraud & getting Social Security numbers of folks.
What dingbat at the IRS thought this was a good idea?
You know, one side effect of this is that it might accelerate the Flat Tax.
Hmm...it's my data, I provided it, where's my cut? I'd say $10 for every company my information was sold to. And I get royalties for every time a new company takes it from one of the original buyers. At least that would be incentive to give up your information.
The IRS wants to make it easier for people that I (may) do business with in processing my taxes to sell my tax information to marketers and whatnot?
Let me think what is on my tax info (I'm not rich and don't have a tax accountant, and I'm ignorant of needing such additional stuff).
My SSN.
My income.
My major debts (mortgage interest writeoff and student loan interest writeoff).
Doesn't equifax, and the other companies that collect and sell this information already have that and more?
My tinfoil hat might be suffering from a large dose of gamma radiation, but isn't this stuff already public knowledge?
Granted, the additional provisions for more people to be able to sell this information does absolutely nothing to my benefit, but I see where having more avenues to get to what is already practically in the public domain already is going to harm me any more.
After all, under their current procedures, people in India who were hired at Indian Minimum Wage already have access to your information. All it takes is a good memory to steal your identity. Which is why I used TurboTax previous to this- and may be switching next year if their EULA doesn't include a privacy clause.
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
Sadly, nothing is personal... not your ethnicity, not your income level, not your educational background, not your browsing habits, not your spending habits, not your tv viewing habits, etc... Maybe this will wake enough people up to change the way data about our lives is traded and sold to anyone with some green.
ConsultingFair.com
I am worried about someone with my same name trying to pass their credit card debt off on me
This isn't really much of a problem if you keep an eye on your credit reports. If something shows up that isn't yours, force the credit reporting agency to verify the entry. They'll try to avoid doing this because its troublesome for them and they don't really care if the info is right or not (as long as is right enough across millions of people to be useful to businesses). Force them to actually verify with the reporting creditor. If they verify it, contact that creditor (Via mail) and force them to verify that the debit is yours. They'll try to get out of that too, and may send you improper verification. Keep after them and force them to send proper verification and proof that they are authorized by the original creditor to collect the debit. If the debit is not yours, at this point you win.
Details about these processes and the laws that make them work can be found on the creditboards.com forums. In particular read about "Debit Verification" and the "The One-Two Punch". These are extremely effective techniques for getting inaccurate items off your credit record (or getting rid of reports from debit collectors who are not properly authorized to collect valid debits).
The proposed rules, which would become effective 30 days after a final version is published, would require a tax preparer to obtain written consent before selling tax information.
So, I don't see a problem. If for some reason, say free preparation, someone wants to give away this information, isn't that their choice? As long as I have the ability to say no to this, I don't see a problem.
Personal information is a commodity today. If you want to sell it, you should have that right. If you want to keep it private you should have a choice to do that as well.
I filled out the parts that are necessary for the Constitutional purpose of the census. For the rest, I amused myself by figuring out the most misleading possible technically true answer.
/. If the government wants us to respect the law, it should set a better example.
I'm extremely annoyed that the fed. gov. doesn't just set up a website for e-filing itself. It would save taxpayers and the government millions of dollars on paper forms and processing. It's a clear case of intentional government waste in order to create business opportunities for tax preparation services. Even my humble state of New Mexico has a simple, government run web form for me to file my taxes online. It's not rocket science.
My business scheme for next year is to start printing my own paper tax forms, then sue the govt. for sending them out and competing with my "private industry."
Enough is enough...of calling a GS tax "fair."
...and, come on, this "hidden taxes" routine is just lame. We need 2.5T to keep the proverbial lights on in the federal government. You WILL PAY FOR IT SOMEHOW. You don't need to go through all the individual taxes to know what the government is taking. Just look at the budget. It comes to about $17k per working adult. Yeah, that's a lot of cash--and that's your "fair share." Well, actually, it's about $8333 per person, so if you have a family of four, you really should be ponying up about $33k instead of getting all those child credits while sucking up the education budget.
At a certain point (generally at about $100k), the vast majority people quickly stop consuming their income and start hoarding it. Oh sure, some will burn through it on booze, drugs and hookers, but most start shoving that capital back into capital. The higher that income gets, the smaller the percentage of it that is consumed. So, your "fair" tax would, dollar-for-dollar, tax someone making $100k the same as someone making $1M...and I got news for you, that "used property" exclusion? Well, they ain't makin' any new land, so guess what will happen to the price of dirt? Well, until we're vacationing on the Moon.
Business purposes = no tax? Again, people nearing or exceeding $100k routinely put their entire damned lives on Schedule C (or into corporations) for exactly this purpose. Even if they _do_ consume above that level, it will surely be claimed as business expense--and that's determined at the point of sale or are we back to filing returns to prove it? Well, guess what, if you can avoid taxes completely by claiming business expense...you're going to find a great number of entrepreneurs and if they have to file returns, what's the benefit again in terms of paperwork and complexity reduction? If they don't, how do we prove it was business-related? Hmm.
A "prebate?" So, everyone gets a monthly check for the taxes on the first $14k of income, assumed to be consumed? Gah... That is going to eliminate the bureaucracy precisely HOW? So, people under $14k will get prebates for whatever % of $14k or will they have to file returns to prove exactly how poor they are? That'll really free up the ol' paperwork and fraud burden, now, won't it? What if it's a family of 12 and all but one are saving every penny. Now do we file returns to prove our consumption of "necessities?" Oy vey.
The tax structure we have now is designed to induce certain behavior in many sectors. It is also designed to pay for certain _types_ of consumption, like gas taxes paying for the interstate pavement based on use. You consume pavement, you pay for the pavement. This sort of all-encompassing tax would shift the bureaucratic burden, it wouldn't eliminate it.
Really, I think the "Fair Tax" crowd has critically examined the current problem, which is certainly well due and admirable, but I don't think they've critically examined their solution, which on even first sight is fraught with all the same problems as the existing system -- and totally ignores a number of problems that the existing system deals with quite extensively.
Yeah, it's called a government. You elect representatives that share your views, then they vote to determine a policy that represents the majority. They have absolute power to protect the people. At least, that's how it's supposed to work. Voting for the guy with the prettiest TV commercials kind of short circuits the whole thing.
There is a difference between protecting people from stupidity and protecting them from naivety. No-one is an expert in every field, and no-one has time to make themselves into one. The law should encourage/require popular services to work as the public would expect, not encourage the exact opposite.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
or
Suddenly tax-prep gets more lucrative. Of course, if they ever come through with that "flat tax" all those guys'll be out of business overnight anyway (and then I can ride to work on a flying pig every morning...)
This space intentionally left (almost) blank.
At a certain point (generally at about $100k), the vast majority people quickly stop consuming their income and start hoarding it. Oh sure, some will burn through it on booze, drugs and hookers, but most start shoving that capital back into capital.
m l#48
...and I got news for you, that "used property" exclusion? Well, they ain't makin' any new land, so guess what will happen to the price of dirt? Well, until we're vacationing on the Moon.
f
m l#3
Which is otherwise known as "investing", which is generally a good thing, providing money for loans, growing businesses, etc.
"The higher that income gets, the smaller the percentage of it that is consumed. So, your "fair" tax would, dollar-for-dollar, tax someone making $100k the same as someone making $1M
So what? If a millionare wants to reign in his spending to match that of someone making $100K, so what? You may be interested in: http://www.fairtaxvolunteer.org/smart/faq-main.ht
But they are, of course, making new houses and other buildings. You might be interested in: http://www.fairtax.org/pdfs/TreatmentOFhousing.pd
"We need 2.5T to keep the proverbial lights on in the federal government. You WILL PAY FOR IT SOMEHOW."
The Fair Tax has been set up with an initial rate of 23%, which is calculated to directly replace the funds currently used to keep the lights on by the Federal Income Tax.
"A "prebate?" So, everyone gets a monthly check for the taxes on the first $14k of income, assumed to be consumed? Gah... That is going to eliminate the bureaucracy precisely HOW?"
The prebate has nothing to do with income. You might be interested in: http://www.fairtaxvolunteer.org/smart/faq-main.ht
"Business purposes = no tax? Again, people nearing or exceeding $100k routinely put their entire damned lives on Schedule C (or into corporations) for exactly this purpose."
This is a valid area for concern. But remember, people cheat on their taxes today. The goal of the Fair Tax isn't to make a more cheat-proof system (though I believe it does just that), but rather to make a simpler, fairer system of taxation.
Steve
A work that expires before its copyright never enters the public domain and thus enjoys eternal copyright protection.
The "Fair" Tax people want to move the entire tax burden to sales taxes, so that poor people will pay more of the tax burden.
Flat Tax proponents want to have a flat rate tax on all income, so everyone pays a fair share in direct proportion to how much they can afford.
GCHQ Quantum Insert installed. If only our tongues were made of glass, how much more careful we would be when we speak
I highly doubt that, like someone making $20k/year, many people making $1M/year are spending 30% of their incomes in restaurants. Honestly, you think it is _common_ at that level of income to spend $904 PER DAY EVERY DAY on FOOD? Yeah, they spend more, but at a certain point, the restaurants just don't get much more expensive.
t y_real_estate_wrap_howard_owns_the_hamptons.php
for example, Howard Stern likes to eat at Nobu. Dinner at Nobu is about $100. He makes that in 30 seconds (24/7). I pretty routinely eat at places, say, half that expensive at about $50. An average dinner tab for me is thus about one twentieth of one percent of my income. 1/20th of 1% of his income would be $50,000.
That's about 500 plates of Nobu goodness. He must be REALLY hungry.
He must spend much more on housing, though. Oh wait, no, his house cost $20M.
http://www.curbed.com/archives/2005/11/14/celebri
That's ONE FIFTH of his annual income. Most people around or below the $100K mark are buying homes worth FIVE TIMES their incomes--and guess what, his was "used." A great number in the $100K mark are forced out into new construction in the 'burbs. So, for a $500k suburban McMansion, I gotta pony up $69k in "Fair Tax." For Howard's $20M manse in the Hamptons, he whistles dixie.
Get it yet?