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."
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.
Wait, what? iFile was great, and I'll be pissed if it's gone. IIRC TurboTax wanted an outrageous amount of money to file state taxes which I laughed at because Virginia has (had?) such an great online system. Really, ever since Day 1 the Web has been fantastic at putting up forms for people to fill out. The IRS could have built their own website 15 years ago if they wanted, but one feels that they've gotten so cozy with HR Block, Turbotax, Legions of CPAs, etc... that they didn't want to rock the boat. It feels like the buggy whip manufacturers convinced the government that automobiles shouldn't be allowed on public roads because it would hurt their industry. (woo! Car analogy!)
I read the internet for the articles.
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?
No, "Fair Tax" won't pass because it is anything but fair.
Stuff like this is why a program like the "Fair Tax" won't ever pass.
No, a program like "Fair" Tax won't pass because it's ultimately regressive with respect to percentage of disposable income retained by low-income participants after payment of this tax and would only be used as a stalking horse for reducing the percentage paid by upper-bracket individuals while still allowing many deductions available to said upper-bracket individuals (unless you can tell me with a straight face that the government will give up all tax-related financial engineering via the tax code). People who really believe that the "Fair" Tax would really be fair are the same folks who could believe that a Libertarian government is more realistic than a Communist one, i.e., simplistic minds with simplistic solutions which lead to horrific consequences. But go for it. Destroying our government and devolving into anarchy should be on everyone's short list of things to do (and, yes, I'm being sarcastic about this last part - note added for the simplistic minded).
That is all.
No, a program like "Fair" Tax won't pass because it's ultimately regressive with respect to percentage of disposable income retained by low-income participants after payment of this tax
So it's more fair for the law to treat you differently based on how much money you earn? Equal Protection should apply to all the laws except the tax code?
only be used as a stalking horse for reducing the percentage paid by upper-bracket individuals while still allowing many deductions available to said upper-bracket individuals
You realize that almost half of this country pays no income tax whatsoever, right? It seems silly to think that the upper-brackets are getting the sweetheart deal when nearly half of the working population pays nothing.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
Your post, emphasis mine:
You realize that almost half of this country pays no income tax whatsoever, right? It seems silly to think that the upper-brackets are getting the sweetheart deal when nearly half of the working population pays nothing.
How did half of the country become equivalent to half of the working population? Those are two pretty different numbers.
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.