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."

Comments

Huh?!

[therealkevinkretz]

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.

Re:Huh?!

[Red Flayer]

Its even worse than that.. Our government is the only organization I have ever heard of that refuses to tell you how much you owe!

They don't refuse to do that. They just allow you to calculate it yourself.

You can always ask the IRS to calculate your tax for you... they'll be glad to do so, as long as you make an estimated payment of net taxes due at filing time.

Seriously, where do you wingnuts get your "facts" from? A cracker-jack box?

I find it silly that we have to hire people to tell us how much we owe....

If you need to hire someone to calculate how much you owe, you must be stupid. It's ridiculously easy, you just need to follow some instructions. What's silly is that so many people are so bad at basic arithmetic and language that they can't follow a form that was written to a seventh-grade level.

And yes, I've been self-employed and received a W2 in the same year, along with capital gains tax due. It's not hard. It takes some time. People pay others to do it because it's convenient, or because they have an irrational fear of forms and numbers.

I won't comment on fairtax, arguing about it with you would be a waste of time. But the reason you cite... it's just false.

Re:Huh?!

[Anonymous Coward]

Here's the problem with a Sales Tax based solution...

I buy expensive shoes when I can afford it. I spend, say $100. That $100 buys me a good pair of shoes that lasts me maybe 2 years.

The guy one income bracket down buys the cheap shoes because he never has $100 cash on hand. He spends the $20 he has to get a passable pair of shoes. In those 2 years he replaces them 8 times.

In two years he has spent and been taxed on $160, I have spent and been taxed on $100. This is not because he *likes* his $20 shoes, it's not because he's simply being short-sighted. It's because he simply doesn't have $100 to spend all at once on shoes.

Now, apply this same concept to any commodity or property you like. The Sales Tax based solutions *always* favor the rich who have far greater latitude to manage their money into tax-free ventures just by virtue of having more of it at any given time.

Re:The real WTF

[wjousts]

RTFA, or even the summary. They are not in the same bill. Republicans decided to withhold their votes on a bunch of unrelated bills because they didn't get their way on this one bill.

I believe they call it bi-partisanship. Everybody else would call it "my way or the highway".