Slashdot Mirror
Intuit Still Fighting Government Tax Software
Back in January we discussed Intuit's opposition to California's free, convenient software to file tax returns. TechDirt noticed a recent article in the LA Times about Intuit's continued lobbying efforts to get rid of those programs. Quoting:
"Most importantly, Intuit is offering nothing that California doesn't already have. The state has arranged with other tax software providers to do exactly what Intuit proposes: Help low-income folks fill in and file state and federal returns for free — although Intuit refuses to participate. It apparently only wants in on this deal if the state knocks out its free programs, thereby creating a larger potential paying customer base for TurboTax. Not surprisingly, Intuit has been greasing the wheels in order to try to sell its scheme in California. Since 2005, public filings indicate that Intuit has spent $1.25 million on lobbyists in the state. Over the same period, it contributed an additional $2.12 million to statewide campaigns, including more than $1 million to state Sen. Tony Strickland (R-Thousand Oaks), a ReadyReturn foe who is running for state controller. In all, Intuit has doled out cash to nearly 120 politicians. The impact has been clear, even if Intuit hasn't gotten its way — yet. As documented in The Times, in 2009 California Republican legislators held back their votes on 20 bills in an attempt to do the corporation's bidding and force the abolition of ReadyReturn and CalFile. They didn't succeed in killing the tax programs, but they did kill funding for domestic violence shelters, police and fire departments, and prevention of swine flu outbreaks."
Virginia used to have a web-based filing program, iFile. After successfully running the program for four or five years, the legislature voted to do away with it this year, even though I'm sure it had paid for itself and was generating significant cost savings for the state. The sad part to me is that most Virginians seemed to have been unaware of it, as I haven't found anyone else who is even remotely bothered by it. They already pay for Tax Cut or something like that. <sigh>
"Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past." -- George Orwell
Sounds like Sour Grapes to me.
So, let me get this right. A tax code is so confusing and complicated - in part because of lobbyists and politicians carving out special exceptions for each other and special punishment for their enemies - that even cash-strapped California sees the need to assist its citizens with compliance? And the result is *more* lobbying from a company that's (frankly) had a windfall for years because of the degree of difficulty of that compliance, to convince the state ... to help the company *make money* from its constituents instead of helping those constituents? Unbelievable.
I have long thought that it is a scam that you have to pay a third party to do electronic preparation and filing like the usual services (TurboTax, etc.) provide.
The government made the convoluted tax system - they should make the web-based application to navigate it.
A work that expires before its copyright never enters the public domain and thus enjoys eternal copyright protection.
And here we see why we'll never have a simplified tax code. Or any kind of reform in this area. The military/industrial (IRS/Tax preparers) complex has grown out of control.
Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
Stuff like this is why a program like the "Fair Tax" won't ever pass. There is nearly a 400 Billion dollar tax preparation industry. They would all be out of work if something like the fair tax ever passed, so not only are we stuck paying income tax we have to pay for all those tax services and tax lawyers that go with it. Intuit is part of the problem, not part of the solution, they are making your life harder not easier.
This is more government of, by, and for the corporation. Bring on the National Sales Tax of 18%. Try evading that you shady fuckers.
I'm under the impression elsewhere that tax forms are filled out by the government treasury and sent to the person who then can read it and modify and correct for things unreported. The idea that taxes need to be a guessing game for individuals is kind of crazy and perpetuated by companies like Intuit because this is their bread + butter.
And besides, these tax software companies often have a harsh software business model. I'm not entirely sure anyone should defend them.
I read that as "Inuit still fighting tax software" and had prepared myself for an amazing story of Eskimo software standards. Imagine my disappointment.
In all fairness, spending cuts, especially with regards to the police and fire department funding situation in California, are far from uncontroversial. There are definitely major pension shortfalls right now because of generally unrealistic expectations for growth in these pension plans being compounded by the market crash. A standard Republican line would be that the unions, especially the fire and police unions, are busy bankrupting the state. (In case you haven't noticed, California's in a budget crisis, and had to use IOUs to pay tax refunds for a while last year).
Whether or not providing funding to those departments is the right thing to do (in the short term or the long one) is a matter of significant political contention; they're hardly just sacrificing orphaned firemen on the altar of personal greed, like TFS implies. So please excuse me if I'm hesitant to join in the two minutes' hate just because a blurb on Slashdot tells me they're evil.
The World Wide Web is dying. Soon, we shall have only the Internet.
They didn't succeed in killing the tax programs, but they did kill funding for domestic violence shelters, police and fire departments, and prevention of swine flu outbreaks.
What were these doing in a bill about tax software in the first place?
If I had my way, Turbo Tax would not exist. And neither would the IRS. I know that a flat tax or fair tax or even a significantly simplified tax code is a pipe dream at this point, but even though I've used Turbo Tax in the past, I hated every frustrating/confusing/boring minute of it, so I tend to have little sympathy for companies like Intuit in situations like this.
It also means that British accounting systems have to be really good because they have to do the essential Government functions more easily than the free versions.
From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."
Hmm, then my sales tax exemption form will be REALLY useful!
As I understand it, these sales tax exemptions correspond roughly to the deduction of business expenses from taxable income.
Make the cost of tax software a credit instead of a deduction. Everyone likes corporate welfare and gratis software. Then, problem solved.
--Jim (me)
By "Fair Tax" I suppose you mean the proposed "Poor Tax" where you only pay tax on what you spend, i.e., the poor pay tax on their whole income, whereas the wealthy pay tax on, say, 5% of their income. Yep, that's real fair, if you are among the wealthy few that are becomming more and more of an oligarchy.
Intuit goes out of their way to make things difficult, here is my experience asking about Quicken for Linux:
http://dotancohen.com/eng/quicken_on_linux.html
After that experience, I'm actually not so sure that I do want to use their software.
It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong.
This is not politics. It is corruption at its worst. It's time to create laws that severely slam those who would use our governmental systems for financial purposes. Get rid of lobbyists.
This is why USA is dying. WE make are money off pushing bits of paper around and never actually DO anything.
Honestly if our Forefathers we're here to see us today they'd be ashamed. In their day, they would have long ago strung up these politicians in Liberty Trees and been done with 'em.
:T:R:A:N:S:
A lot of people hate big corporations and 'the man' for rather mindless reasons, and others blame 'big government,' but their understanding isn't nuanced enough to see the real problem.
The real problem is when corporations get special favors from the government. A large, evil corporation will be limited by market forces and legality (it's illegal to kill, illegal to ruin the environment, etc), but when a company gets special favors from the government it distorts market forces and can get around the force of legality. This happens all the time, and its why companies lobby in the first place. Right now it is easy to get put on a board if a company if you have strong 'political connections,' but if politicians didn't bow to this pressure, that wouldn't happen because those connections would be worthless.
Intuit is just the most vocal right now. Another case in California was portable building manufacturers lobbying to make a law that schools need to buy (ugly) portable buildings. Another case was some internet dating company whose entire business model was based on doing background checks for people dating online lobbying to make background checks required by law. Fortunately that one failed.
Fannie May and Freddie Mac are other examples of when this goes wrong. They are private companies whose risk is taken by the public. There is nothing wrong with the goal of helping poor people get houses, but that isn't what Fannie and Freddie have been doing primarily. Banks of course do their lobbying. And lawyers are among the worst: Attorney Generals have their pay-to-play schemes set up all over the country.
Because of how this distorts the market, if it all got cleaned up, it would easily add 5% to the GDP. The rent-seekers would suffer a bit, but let them go do something productive.
Qxe4
s/WE make are/We make our/
:T:R:A:N:S:
The United States is not even close being as corrupt as a 3rd world dictatorship. According to: World Audit, the United States is 16th in the world in terms of being free from corruption. All the countries above it in the rankings are first world democracies (although I admit some people would debate Singapore).
I know it is the fashion to insult the US government at the moment, and there *is* a hell of a lot of room for improvement. However, hyperbole and fighting words (comparing the US government to that of a third world dictatorship) just shuts down debate and, frankly, damages your credibility. Let's keep this civil and factual, OK?
The right-wing thinking seems to be that since businesses bring in money -- which is A Good Thing -- then anything a business does or wants must therefore be good. I'm not sure what a political system run by businesses (or at least unduly influenced by businesses) is called but we can summarise it with the acronym USA.
An inefficient system is a boon for those who benefit from helping people manage the inefficiency. Make the system more efficient and they lose. Sometimes they revolt as did the Piemen of Erie.
Here's the feedback page for Quicken, if you want to register your dissatisfaction with their policies:
http://quicken.intuit.com/support/feedback/
Form 1040 EEZ
== == == ==
Instructions: Fill in the form. Send payment in the amount listed in the final cell to
Department of the Treasury
Internal Revenue Service
Fresno, CA 93888-0102
== == == ==
What was your total income last year? $__________.___
in the classic Collapse Of Complex Societies, Joseph A. Tainter theorizes that societies collapse when they hit a point at which increasing complexity creates negative returns. For instance, the Romans funded their society on plunder of outlying civilizations for a long time. Eventually, each incremental conquest required more and more funds to maintain while not providing enough real wealth in return. Similarly the Mayans collapsed because they farmed more and more marginal lands leading to soil degradation, etc. and tried to fix civil wars through more and more ostentatious temple building. Tainter, in his book profiles more than 20 different significant societies that all collapsed following this pattern in one form or another. He says the only solution is voluntary simplification, which has happened only a few times in history.
Now here in California we have an actual complexity industry, with its own lobbyists! How long can that last when you have an actual industry that makes money off of negative returns on additional complexity.
I hate intuit, but I need quickbooks for my small business.
Intuit sucks, quickbooks sucks. Sadly, I have not found an affordable alternative.
there are 3 kinds of people:
* those who can count
* those who can't
Who do you think pays the people that develop these "free" web-based applications? I believe that would be you, the tax payer. Nothing that government does or "gives you" is free. Everything costs you tax dollars. Frankly, I'm not surprised to see this kind of thinking on /. A free market that provides a product that is a fair value for the money will always provide better solutions and services than government, and you get good product support from companies like Intuit, HR Block, etc. compared to anything you could possibly get from government.
On the one hand, you'll pardon Intuit if they get upset that the government is using money, including some of the taxes Intuit itself pays, to eviscerate the value of Intuit's product.
On the other hand, I've been dismayed for years that there wasn't an onling government form I could fill out and hit "send" with.
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
In a country where money is speech who ever has the most speaks the loudest.
Kill the corporate income tax and forbid corporations from donating to campaigns and pacs.
I find being offended by me offensive.
So, why not just open source it and let people take care of it?
Flat tax sounds like a good idea. You have two people, one makes $200,000 a month and one makes $1000 a month. Both should be taxed at a flat rate - let say 10% - so the first pays $20,000 in taxes while the other pays $100 in taxes. Fair, right?
Okay, let say the cost of living (minimal housing, basic food staples for cooking, basic transportation because in the USA there are very few total basic services walking communities, etc) comes out to about 20% of income with a minimum cost of living of $950. Thus the first individual he pays the greater of $40,000 or $950, while the second pays the greater of $200 or $950.
Thus, the first individual has a net income of $140,000 a month while the second has a net income of -$50 a month. This means something has to give - don't eat, don't have basic shelter, or don't have transportation for work. In other words, a flat tax is a detriment to those who are in poverty - and to say that those below a certain income threshold do not need to pay income tax is merely implementing a very simple progressive tax (0% up to the poverty line, 10% above the poverty line).
This is not some theoretical discussion either. When growing up my mother was our sole source of income, and as such she constantly had to make the decision between paying the rent, buying basic food staples, or having transportation to work. Even after she finally divorced my father and was able to cut out his useless spending she still faced this decision all the time. Pardon my graphic description but even with a slipped disk she would opt to walk what should have been a 30 minute bus commute because she wanted feed and shelter her children - despite the pain being so great that she'd soil herself and have her s**t running down by the time she'd get to work. Her friends said she could work miracles with flour, and I still remember going and picking wild berries and living off them for a week. Until she was divorced, evictions were a semi-annual to annual event because she needed to feed us.
However, despite our poverty, I realize we were far from the bottom of the heap. My mom still worked hard despite all the pain to feed and shelter us, so we never had to be exposed to the dangerous winter lows that caused her so much hardship or go without food for more than a couple of days at a time.
So, no, a simple percentage based tax income is something beyond silly - is is criminally inhumane
How is this possible? Public records? That implies this bribery is somehow legal. Surely all these politicians are behind bars now? Here in the Netherlands, if it is even so much implied that a public figure benefits from his position through funding or favours from elsewhere, (s)he is forced to abandon h(is/er) position. The quoted implies nothing short of blatant corruption, and in my naive views of this world I refuse to believe the US is this far gone.
Unfortunately, that is the name of the game - tack on totally unrelated legislation to critical legislation in order either
I've been thinking for a while of talking with some legislators to create a "legislation atomization bill" on both the state and federal level that would say any and all parts of a bill must be covering the main subject of the bill in question or be documented as having a strong tie to that subject. However, beyond being a lazy procrastination, I realize that such a bill would never pass.
>Whenever you say "the government" should do something, you need to replace "the government" with
>"the government should take something from me/my family/my neighbors" .
>
>The government is not some entity separate from yourself, it acts using YOUR assets and its rules affect YOU.
Thank you, Captain Obvious.
A work that expires before its copyright never enters the public domain and thus enjoys eternal copyright protection.
I mean, seriously, what are you people - communists? You want the State to control the tax forms for its taxes instead of allowing the efficiency gains of a capitalistic system? Next you'll be saying you want them to have the authority to track sales, or gather information about its citizens on a periodic basis. For the last, someone already did it - they were called the Roman Empire and we all know how evil they were. The government shouldn't do anything that a "free market" corporation (who's primary purpose is to make profits for its shareholders) can do! Even the slightest thing the government does outside capitalism is outright socialism and should be killed.
Thus I am in full agreement with Intuit - how dare the government expect to run free online tax filing services inefficiently when people can pay for the privilege of corporate efficiency. They can buy their baby infant formula next week... its not like malnutrition has been ever proven to cause harm to anyone.
DISCLAIMER: I am assuming most /.-ers are smart enough to recognize sarcasm. Um, well, at least I am really hoping they can.
Lobbying used to be called bribery. It also used to be illegal.
Every politician or political group that accepts any money via these schemes should lose power immediately.
Americans have the right to have guns. Use them for what the law was intended for: fight corrupt governments.
It goes without saying that no government service is free as in beer.
Nonetheless, I should not have to pay a separate filing fee to file my taxes electronically directly with the government in a manner identical to what Turbo Tax does.
The savings in paperwork reduction alone ought to more than pay for such a service.
A work that expires before its copyright never enters the public domain and thus enjoys eternal copyright protection.
>I agree with your point but I don't see any way the government could do it.
>Their are so many loopholes, requirements, deductions, exceptions, and what not in the US
>tax system that no tax service will get it completely correct.
This is PRECISELY why the government ought to be on the hook for providing the electronic means for filing taxes.
If the government-created tax system is so complicated that even THEY cannot create an electronic system for filing then THERE IS A PROBLEM WITH THE TAX SYSTEM.
If the government had to lay its cards on the table it would be obvious to all what a joke the tax system is.
A work that expires before its copyright never enters the public domain and thus enjoys eternal copyright protection.
I thought withholding accomplished that for you -- they take what they think they're owed before you ever see your pay.
At that point, the main motivations for filing an in income tax return are to avoid prison/fines for failing to file an income tax return and to claim your tax refund since the government makes sure the amount they take what they're owed, and then some.
"but they did kill funding for domestic violence shelters, police and fire departments, and prevention of swine flu outbreaks."
At least, through a perfect storm of corruption, it ended up that the Republicans acted fiscally responsible.
What I don't understand is why free tax filing is only available to low-income citizens. It's got to be cheaper for the state or the feds to process returns electronically. Why not offer it free to _everyone_? I think it would save the government money.
... but TurboTax Online is fantastic. Also being a government contractor myself, I'm sure a government program could never come close to creating a system as well maintained, easy to use, and nice looking as Intuit did.
They are just like the RIAA/MPAA, trying to get the government to shore up a business model that has become obsolete. Adapt or die, you greedy fucks.
There is absolutely NO NEED for them (or any software company) to be the paid middleman any longer for the preparation and electronic submission of tax returns. It's complete and total bullshit that I can't go to IRS.gov/paymytaxes, punch in my numbers, give them a checking account and routing number to withdraw or deposit the appropriate tax/refund, and click Submit and be presented with a page I can print/PDF for my records. Same goes for the states.
I guess Intuit knows which side of the bread their butter is on. Too bad they repeatedly drop it in the dirt and then cram it down our throats. I wonder if they can indefinitely stave off the hue and cry for a simpler tax code? My guess, knowing the thieves in Washington... yes!
Python: 'And then suddenly you have a language which says "we're all stuck with whatever the whiniest coder wants".'
It occurs to me that a simple percentage based income tax would not require anything more complicated than your W-2 form and a calculator to figure out.
The reason you are wrong is because you first have to define "income" and doing that is actually quite complicated. Seriously - it's not easy. Especially if you don't want any loopholes. Just define income as W2 earnings and every taxpayer will magically make no money on their W2's the following year and all of them will be compensated some other way that isn't taxable. I'd be perfectly happy to be compensated in stock grants or in bullion instead of fiat currency if my compensation wasn't taxable. If a loophole is available people will take advantage of it and while we dislike taxes, they are actually necessary for the efficient functioning of society.
It is true that some of the social engineering has made our tax code more complicated, but MOST of the complication is simply due to the difficulty of defining what income is (and what it is not). The social engineering bits add a little to the complication but they aren't what keeps your friendly neighborhood CPA employed. The actual payment calculations are pretty simple even now. For what it is worth, if your financial picture is very simple you probably actually can do your taxes with just a 1040, a W2 and your calculator. This describes more people than you might think.
Disclosure: I'm a certified accountant.
Not everyone receives a W-2. Also, there's income from other sources, interest, stocks, dividends, tips, etc. But I do agree it could be a lot simpler.
Not as much as most people presume. The reason the tax code is complicated is because income comes in a lot of forms (as you noted) and the difficulty is in defining what income is and what it is not. Our tax code has evolved over time to eliminate loopholes and this is what constitutes much of the complication. Yes there is some unnecessary social engineering going on but speaking as a certified accountant (yes I am one), that's unquestionably NOT what makes doing your taxes such a headache. Defining income without any loopholes in the definition is an inherently complicated task. Far harder than most people will ever realize. As a result we have a pretty complicated tax code. It could be simpler but not as much as you probably would like.
To make an imperfect computer analogy, getting the core code for a complicated problem might be fairly simple but working out all the corner cases and weird exceptions can add tremendously to the volume of code. Same thing with our tax code. At its core you basically pay X% based on Y income. Not hard. But defining what income is turns out to be a very complicated problem indeed.
If this isnt reason enough to boycott a business then we are all lost.
Jack of all trades,master of none
not particularly surprised that republicans are for tax shelters but opposed to domestic violence shelters. but democrats are implicated in intuit's donations by simply participating in a system where corporations can buy votes. both parties are behaving shamelessly.
Remember kids, if you're not paying for the service, YOU ARE THE PRODUCT THAT IS BEING SOLD.
Why do the esquimaux care what software the government distributes? Unless they're planning to release I-gloo soon... ;)
I was a loyal TurboTax user until about 4 years ago. I was at first very annoyed when they began the practice forcing me to buy their latest Quicken version to match the year of TurboTax. I became irate when they moved Schedule D from standard to premium TT.
So I dumped the money grubbers. They have really lost the low end of the market. Now they have to use government to force us to use them instead of the decent alternatives out there.
Our tax code shouldn't be complicated enough to require software / accountants.. The tax code needs to be abolished.
A simple sales based flat tax would be more than sufficient.
If the government didn't make taxes so goddamn complicated, nobody would need tax software in the first place.
How much did you make: _____
Multiply by X: _____
Pay this amount: _____
Done.
Our government is the only organization I have ever heard of that refuses to tell you how much you owe!
Nonsense. The government tells you exactly how much you might owe ahead of time. What they can't tell you ahead of time is how much you made. They provide (and enforce) the rules for calculating your income. You can do the calculations yourself or you can hire someone else to do it for you.
Could you imagine if you went to buy a car, and the ford dealership gave you the keys, then told you to submit payment, but never told you the price of the car?
Ahh, slashdot. Home of the useless and ill informed car analogies. Could you come up with a worse one? I'm not sure it's possible since this one seems to have set a new bar for absurdity.
I find it silly that we have to hire people to tell us how much we owe....
You don't hire a CPA to tell you what you owe. You hire a CPA to figure out how much you made. Accountants (myself included) get paid because calculating income (and profit) is actually a complicated endeavor. Calculating taxes once you know the amount of income is easy. Any fool can do it and the calculations for any given level of income are known to everyone. Calculating income is actually the difficult question here and if you don't think defining and calculating income is hard, you don't understand the problem sufficiently.
While it makes for good political rants, the reason our tax code is complicated is primarily because income comes in many many forms and defining what is and is not income is a really complicated problem. All the special interest stuff adds a bit to the mess but even without it it would still be a mess. We can simplify it but no matter what tax scheme you come up with you still need to define income in a way that doesn't allow for loopholes. There is no way I'm aware of to do that without a fairly voluminous set of rules governing what constitutes income.
Disclosure: I'm a certified accountant
Our whole legal system is built that way... you need a 3rd party expert in order to actually utilize the system.... sometimes you are not even allowed to access it yourself.
Our whole computer system is built that way... you need a 3rd party expert in order to actually utilize the system.... sometimes you are not even allowed to access it yourself.
Funny how someone else's job is always easier. After all, it's easy to critique what we don't understand.
Look, you don't want a simple legal system. You don't want a simple accounting system. Really. I'm dead serious. A system that is easy enough for everyone to understand is not going to work very well. Life is to complicated for that. We have division of labor because it allows things that are not possible without it. Do you REALLY want to be an expert on the finer points of international fishing regulations? Do you REALLY want to understand all the details of Sarbanes-Oxley? When was the last time you replaced a piston ring in your car? Maybe you have done one of these things but I'm pretty confident you haven't done all of them. The real world is a complicated place and relying on people who've developed an expertise is not a bad thing so long as you guard against potential abuses.
As I understand it, these sales tax exemptions correspond roughly to the deduction of business expenses from taxable income.
You understand wrong. Let's say ManufacturerCo sells a bolt to ExampleCo who then uses the bolt in an assembly which they sell to CustomerCo. If the government taxed ManufacturerCo on the sale of the bolt, they would ALSO be able to tax ExampleCo on the same bolt. CustomerCo would have to pay sales tax TWICE on the same part. Sales tax exemptions ensure that the government only gets to tax the sale of a product once. They actually are an extremely logical piece of the tax system. Would you prefer to pay sales tax multiple times on the same stuff?
Sales tax exemption forms are a Good Thing (TM)
You do realize that corporations just pass their taxes along to their consumers as a cost of doing business, right?
The proper term for that is Incidence of Taxation. That's why taxing an oil company ultimately is a tax on those who buy the oil company's products. The oil company isn't going to eat the cost of a tax increase unless some competitive pressure or regulation prevents them from passing the cost on. Doesn't mean it isn't worth doing but it's important to know who ultimately will pay the cost of any taxation.
In California, as with the Feds, you can download forms and instructions, and fill out the forms yourself. It is not that hard. A calculator and pencil, or a spreadsheet, will do fine in calculating. Ever since Turbo Tax messed up my form in the 1990's, I have avoided it like the plague and used the free forms, first in the Post Office and Libraries, and then off the Web.
The advantage of this is the little time you invest in deciding which form to file (i.e. greater standard deduction vs. itemized deductions) lets you understand your tax base. Most of it is simple, for both self-employed and employed (i.e. W-2 filers). Filling out the PDF tax forms is no harder than say, cooking breakfast so everything comes out hot at the same time: bacon, eggs, and pancakes. It really is not hard.
I am also very leery of the e-file stuff, simply because of the ability to gather data in transmission. I always send in paper forms, via mail. While it is not obviously 100% secure, both the law and exposure (via the USPS) are stacked in your favor vs. transmission over the internet. Yes its extra work for the IRS to key in or scan in your form, but my assumption is that this is done securely, vs. transmission even encrypted over the open, via internet.
Plus, I have paper and PDF copy of my form, along with a spreadsheet showing deductions, invoices, etc. If there is a question about the return, its easy to gather everything up, and come in for an audit.
The IRS has done IMHO a good job of providing PDFs for the average person's return. So has California. Not much else is really needed.
Try flat tax plus a rebate. You give welfare checks to *everyone*, not just the unemployed or pensioners. This means that if you don't have a job then you get a small amount of money. If you get a job then you keep getting checks. This allows a fairly steep flat rate tax while maintaining a passable standard of living for low-earners. It gives incentive to earn an income without getting caught in a welfare trap. You keep every penny that you earn. It also eliminates several classes of tax fraud.
Most importantly, it provides a way to manage immigration. If you're not a citizen then you still pay flat rate tax but you don't get the rebate. This gives a home advantage to voters while allowing productive foreigners to contribute to an economy.
Some public servants do something good and well intentioned that is BETTER for the public -- then some private interest finds out and declares war using whatever politicians they can sucker or buy out - the good guys LOOSE and sometimes get in trouble. This is if they don't fight, if they fight for the public then they are in trouble in 1 way or another. Making policy is not their place so even standing up for the truth on something can be seen as messing around with policy and will hurt them in the end. This is why so many learn to keep their mouths shut about anything that has such potential. They don't get whistle blower protection and they don't get job protection for doing the right thing; but if they know the right people and have a union, then they can sometimes be protected for all the wrong things...
They FEAR getting into private business's arena from my experience - because they know its not about political philosophies its because business buys influence and can wage long term battles - corrupting from the top down.
Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news
Sales Tax based solutions *always* favor the rich...
You seem to be entirely ignoring the automatic rebates that are just about universally included in any consumption tax system proposed in the past 20 years. Rebates, in addition to social and economic safety net policies, make consumption tax systems as progressive as Congress wants and does so more efficiently than any other system of taxation.
You obviously didn't pay enough attention to what the OP was saying in the third paragraph and made his argument for him. Perhaps you need Taxes 202, too.
So do the best of both... Institute a flat tax while allowing a cost of living deduction, say $30,000 just to throw a number out there, on the income. Earn anywhere up to $30,000? Pay nothing. Earn $90,000, pay tax on $60,000. Earn $1,000,000, pay tax on $970,000. The simplicity of a flat tax with the humanity of a progressive tax.
Congratulations, you just reinvented the progressive tax: 10% of 60K is 6.67% of 90K, but 10% of 970K is %9.7 of 1M. I.e. your tax rate starts at 0% below 30K and asymptotically approaches 10%. A very simple progressive tax, a very appealing progressive tax, but a progressive tax.
"You saved 1968." - Ms. Valerie Pringle to the crew of Apollo 8
Here's the problem with electricity.
I don't stick butter knives in electrical outlets because I'm not a raging moron.
The guy one income bracket down does, though, because he's a raging moron.
Now apply this to taxes. Clearly, we must do away with electricity because of all the raging morons out there. Also, sales-tax based solutions are fair. I'm sorry that there are folks out there who can't figure out that saving their money for worthwhile purchases is a senseful thing to do.
Rebates, in addition to social and economic safety net policies, make consumption tax systems as progressive as Congress wants and does so more efficiently than any other system of taxation.
Actually no. Do you think Warren Buffet automatically buys more donuts than Larry Ellison each year because he has a higher income? Sales taxes hit a point at which people's spending on taxable goods does not rise proportionally with income. They are also a perverse incentive: as sales taxes rise, the wealthy are encouraged to reduce their US spending. Whereas an income tax, earning an extra dollar still provides $0.60 advantage, under sales tax spending a dollar provides $1.23 punishment. The poor still have to spend because most of their spending (food, shelter, clothing) is forced. But the wealthy have much more discretionary spending, and so they can reduce theirs. And that kills the economy, as the members of the economy that have money are incentivised to reduce their US spending, either by moving it overseas (spend more time abroad) or by buying up assets instead of goods (leading to asset price inflation, and reduced employment).
From the summary:
Why, exactly speaking, are these people still free, rather than sitting in jail? This goes beyond bribery - which, while illegal in most places, seems to be an accepted practice in the USA - and reach the level of outright sabotage. These people aren't merely corrupted, they're outright and active enemy agents, so why haven't you kicked them out of office and into the jail where they belong?
Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.
The Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that limits on money are limits on speech, since it takes money to speak publicly.
Imagine a law that said that you are allowed to write whatever you want on the Internet, as long as you don't spend any money on an Internet connection or Web hosting. Would you consider that a limit on your speech? I would.
Build a man a fire, he's warm for one night. Set him on fire, and he's warm for the rest of his life.
One year, I had a sale of home by land contract. It was a half residence and half rental. Between imputed interest, recapture of depreciation, postponement of home sale capital gains, and business income and expenses, it was a snakepit of forms. I did my own taxes, because I was too cheap to pay someone. Calling the IRS for clues was useless. Three calls would result in three different answers, even when they had some knowledge about land contract sales. When I knew more than the IRS did about their own rules, I figured I was ready.
If you only have W-2 or 1099 income, it's easy.
1. corporations lose their citizenship. The supremes just put the finishing touch on making corporations citizens. (not sure this has meaning for states)
2. stop all lobbying - period. How can we be represented when the congress is paid by others?
3. all campaign financing comes from taxes. this simply completes 1 and 2.
Job done! There will still be a few congress folks who will get caught helping their friends - but not the total abdication of responsibility we have now!
I did not want to get this personal, but since this point was brought up I can only address it anecdotally.
My father did not seem like he'd be a worthless bum. He was a Chemical Engineering graduate from Cornell University. He took a job with Oscar Meyer and my parent owned a house with that pay. Then he set out on his own and the money stopped. The house was lost. The inheritance of $10k (from the mid-70s) was spent on furniture that he put into storage and then failed to pay on. It was all sold to cover a few hundred dollars in storage fees, as per the contract.
My mother came over from post-WWII Germany. She was from the region that is now Poland where the Germans were purged out of. Germany said they were Polish, Poland said they were German, so after years in a West German base as a nationless refugee she migrated to the USA. My father was 14 years older than her and "sweeped her off her feet". Now, she had no better than an 8th grade education at the time and came from a very different era. My father lied to her about proper usage of birth control, so she was surprised when she got pregnant with me. My father really wanted a male to carry on the line - but I have no intent of having kids myself for the precise reason you mentioned... I cannot adequately provide for them.
After the hell my mother went through when my dad left his job and lost the house, the cars, and so forth made her learn quickly. She self-educated herself in both real world and academic matters, and I am quite proud of her. My father I do not have any relationship with.
I cannot blame my mother for having children and going above and beyond to provide for them.
My point is this: while sometimes people are irresponsible when having sex and have children they cannot, there is also many cases where the children were born into a situation that soured. Anyone with a serious injury that resulted in the cancellation of their medical insurance and thus high medical bills can attest to that. In the USA, such a thing is not uncommon. The recent financial meltdown also shows that a good living can disappear in a short period of time. No matter what, the future is a risk and sometimes people get a bad deal.