Again... sure, for your situation. So *you* should not use an accountant. But my accountant doesn't charge a "ton" of money, it's quite reasonable, and a tiny fraction of the money she's already saved me, not to mention peace of mind.
Meanwhile I'll continue to spend a whopping $140 per year (which I claim on next years tax return, as well as the petrol I used getting from my home to his office) to have someone who does this for a living do it all for me and spend my time doing something I'd like to.
Pro Tip:
If you're only filing taxes ONCE per year, then you're not talking to an expert who does it for a living. You're talking to someone with a certification who does it once a year at tax time.
People who have REAL money are usually filing taxes at least twice a year, if not every quarter.
This is wrong. I file once a year, though I send estimated tax payments quarterly to avoid the penalty. I file once per year, and I have an excellent accountant - she does this for a living, and is quite good at it.
I mistyped. We're getting back $3,400, not deducting that amount. The likelihood is that in future years, my accountant will find mistakes before they happen, as well as save me money, and give me financial advice I can use, outside of filing taxes.
Like so many others who replied, your story sounds like software is good... for you. For me, I had multiple problems with software that incorrectly calculated my more complicated taxes, so a good human is better than software... for me.
I never advocated that everyone, or even *anyone* stop using software. It's curious that so many inferred what I never even implied.
Computers can only do what they're programmed to do. During an interview, humans will ask questions more than one way, and uncover a better answer than the first one (and not a lie). A good example is when our accountant asked *which kind* of corporation my wife should be, and that lead to lots of questions about past, and more importantly, future prospects for the business. Computers cannot do this, not because it isn't technically possible, but because it's not economically feasible - the market for a tax accountant program with that level of sophistication is too small (for now, at least). They do okay for the majority of people with simple tax situations.
I can tell you from experience that the popular tax software programs don't even come close to what a good accountant can do, for my tax situation.
Software seems a good choice... for you. Is that easier to follow?
Exactly. Turbo Tax is the right choice... for you. We have lots of investments, property, one of us is a corporation, etc. The tax service is actually more convenient, faster, and (in terms of the value of our time) much cheaper.
One size does not fit all - also, since the tax software requirements were defined by tax professionals (one would hope), passed through a business analyst, and then given to programmers, any calculations more involved than what you described are pretty likely to get screwed up. It's whisper down the lane.
Whoa, Perry Mason, slow down! I wasn't aware I needed to "prove anything".
I related my experience, in which tax software made repeated mistakes, and then I used a human who did a better job. How in the world did my simple story get your panties in such a wad?
No. No, I won't save more money than I earn at my job in a month. There's not that much more to save. And I earn a lot. Enough that I've decided not to spend my leisure time becoming a tax accountant - you know, someone whose *job* it is to know taxes. Software doesn't mean shit, it's the person using it *and* their knowledge.
I could also paint my entire house, but I don't feel like doing that either.
I don't regard spending time learning tax regulations as time well spent. And, wrong again... she didn't find the deduction using tax software, but by looking at our returns, how we work, and then interviewing us. You know, employing skills that software doesn't do well.
...whose name you know. More than once it incorrectly calculated taxes owed, leading both the Fed and State governments to send me a check, saying, "hey, you way overpaid your taxes."
I'm done with tax software. It's back to a human accountant. Her first consultation with us turned up a $3,400 deduction we had missed a couple of years back. That alone pays for a few years of returns and advice.
Actually, Chromecast is not the way of the future (I think you meant "wave"). That's yet another add on device to stick somewhere in the home theater setup, either the TV or the receiver. Those devices should have the innate ability to communicate (with sufficient security) with nearly any other device that may come knocking.
This is part of the pitch to advertisers from the LG video: "Furthermore, LG Smart Ad offers useful and various advertising performance reports. That live broadcasting ads cannot. To accurately identify actual advertising effectiveness."
LG staff apparently speak like robots. Or Michael Caine. Who can only say. A few words. At a time.
I think dumping that crap in the deep ocean is a monstrous idea, but if it would keep it away from the types who could contemplate returning to "the 50,000 or so nukes we had", then it might be the lesser of two evils.
For what it's worth, Wikipedia says the U.S. built over 70,000 warheads, though it doesn't say how many were operational at any one time.
...this was lunch. Every day. I went back to the old campus recently and now it's a high end food court. The lunch ladies morphed into hot young babes.
I'm pretty sure the missiles are ejected from the sub before the engine fires, so that term is appropriate, in addition to the common usage of "throwing" to refer to launching missiles.
You're way off the reservation. Your accident scenario is just ridiculous. Claiming a zero-sum stance with my father is just beyond weird.
I put forward resources; money, time, thought. I benefited from what I learned, and the world is a slightly better place. If you can't conceive that's an investment, I think you've missed the point of being human. But hey, if that floats your boat, enjoy.
You certainly do contradict yourself. You say "live and let live", yet you publicly call those people stupid, irrational, and that they contribute little to society. I really can't explain your own words to you any more clearly, so if you still don't get it, write one more justification, and we'll be done with this topic. You seem awfully invested in it; who are you trying to convince?
Me, I genuinely feel a little sorry for you. You've shut yourself off from half of the human experience because you're too timid.
Really? You think investments have to pay off financially or with remuneration in material goods?
My wife and I invested in several kids in our city who were doing well in school, but unlikely to make it to college, by mentoring them, helping them get accepted to good schools (including taking them on multi-city tours of campuses), and funding accounts for last-dollar expenses.
Our investment paid off handsomely; those kids are very productive members of society, and my wife and I are better people.
Maybe you should rethink your investment strategy.:-)
Since weight training is not a risky behavior, that would have been off-topic, and you are apparently ascribing attributes to me that are not warranted.
I guess you *don't* think it's condescending of the GGP to call people who enjoy those activities stupid, irrational, and not contributors to society, which is why I responded in the first place. That's okay, just own it - there's very little risk in doing so.
Your points are valid, I agree with them. However, the GP says the people who *do* enjoy risky behaviors are stupid, irrational, and don't contribute much to society. That's very different.
I replied because you called those activities "stupid", implied they were irrational, said you "despise" them (rather a strong emotion), and they are (in your mind) an indicator of people who provide little value to society. That's *hardly* the philosophy you claimed in your reply, "to each his own".
And if it takes a space elevator for you to grudgingly admit Branson is a smart guy, you haven't been paying attention. If you think space tourism isn't going to advance space endeavors, you're just kidding yourself.
And not driving more than 10 mph over the limit? Hmph, I'm sure.
Yes, indeed. You show better common sense that may (or may not) prolong your existence on this earth. Your mundane, boring-ass existence.:-)
Okay, I admit I'm biased, as a private pilot, skydiving, white water kayaking, motorcycle riding idiot, who makes a living using my brain. But in 52 years, not so much as a broken bone.
Choosing to engage carefully in risky sports is not "stupid". Do you think Sir Richard Branson is a "lightweight in the department of value to humankind" because of his risky hobbies in the air and on the ocean? You might get a chance to tell him so if you book a ride with Virgin Galactic into space.
Do you ever drive more than 10 mph over the limit? Tsk, tsk, you risk-taker!
This is an illusion, and (I'm not an expert) I think you're displaying a combination of confirmation bias, and observation selection bias, where
you use these events to (1) confirm your suspicion that nefarious forces are targeting individuals you believe they find threatening, and (2)notice these events (rather than the countless other accidental death reports, for example), and you believe this happens more frequently to those individuals you believe are being targeted.
But I'm not saying they're *not* coming for you next.
Your insurance probably doesn't *forbid* you to skydive, do deep SCUBA dives, or ride sports motorcycles, it just says if you die while doing one of those things they won't pay, right?
Like my father said, while I was in college - if I go skydiving, I'm risking his investment, and he'd cut me off from the portion I was borrowing from him. He was an engineer, designing systems for the nuclear missile throwing subs, with a deeply ingrained habit of weighing cost/benefit.
Slashdot Mirror
Again... sure, for your situation. So *you* should not use an accountant. But my accountant doesn't charge a "ton" of money, it's quite reasonable, and a tiny fraction of the money she's already saved me, not to mention peace of mind.
Meanwhile I'll continue to spend a whopping $140 per year (which I claim on next years tax return, as well as the petrol I used getting from my home to his office) to have someone who does this for a living do it all for me and spend my time doing something I'd like to.
Pro Tip: If you're only filing taxes ONCE per year, then you're not talking to an expert who does it for a living. You're talking to someone with a certification who does it once a year at tax time. People who have REAL money are usually filing taxes at least twice a year, if not every quarter.
This is wrong. I file once a year, though I send estimated tax payments quarterly to avoid the penalty. I file once per year, and I have an excellent accountant - she does this for a living, and is quite good at it.
I mistyped. We're getting back $3,400, not deducting that amount. The likelihood is that in future years, my accountant will find mistakes before they happen, as well as save me money, and give me financial advice I can use, outside of filing taxes.
Like so many others who replied, your story sounds like software is good... for you. For me, I had multiple problems with software that incorrectly calculated my more complicated taxes, so a good human is better than software... for me.
I never advocated that everyone, or even *anyone* stop using software. It's curious that so many inferred what I never even implied.
Computers can only do what they're programmed to do. During an interview, humans will ask questions more than one way, and uncover a better answer than the first one (and not a lie). A good example is when our accountant asked *which kind* of corporation my wife should be, and that lead to lots of questions about past, and more importantly, future prospects for the business. Computers cannot do this, not because it isn't technically possible, but because it's not economically feasible - the market for a tax accountant program with that level of sophistication is too small (for now, at least). They do okay for the majority of people with simple tax situations.
I can tell you from experience that the popular tax software programs don't even come close to what a good accountant can do, for my tax situation.
Software seems a good choice... for you. Is that easier to follow?
Exactly. Turbo Tax is the right choice... for you. We have lots of investments, property, one of us is a corporation, etc. The tax service is actually more convenient, faster, and (in terms of the value of our time) much cheaper.
One size does not fit all - also, since the tax software requirements were defined by tax professionals (one would hope), passed through a business analyst, and then given to programmers, any calculations more involved than what you described are pretty likely to get screwed up. It's whisper down the lane.
Whoa, Perry Mason, slow down! I wasn't aware I needed to "prove anything".
I related my experience, in which tax software made repeated mistakes, and then I used a human who did a better job. How in the world did my simple story get your panties in such a wad?
No. No, I won't save more money than I earn at my job in a month. There's not that much more to save. And I earn a lot. Enough that I've decided not to spend my leisure time becoming a tax accountant - you know, someone whose *job* it is to know taxes. Software doesn't mean shit, it's the person using it *and* their knowledge.
I could also paint my entire house, but I don't feel like doing that either.
I don't regard spending time learning tax regulations as time well spent. And, wrong again... she didn't find the deduction using tax software, but by looking at our returns, how we work, and then interviewing us. You know, employing skills that software doesn't do well.
Other than that, your analysis was spot on.
...is the same as Gandhi's when asked about Western civilization.
He said he though it would be a very good idea.
Crap, I used all my mod points yesterday!
...whose name you know. More than once it incorrectly calculated taxes owed, leading both the Fed and State governments to send me a check, saying, "hey, you way overpaid your taxes."
I'm done with tax software. It's back to a human accountant. Her first consultation with us turned up a $3,400 deduction we had missed a couple of years back. That alone pays for a few years of returns and advice.
Actually, Chromecast is not the way of the future (I think you meant "wave"). That's yet another add on device to stick somewhere in the home theater setup, either the TV or the receiver. Those devices should have the innate ability to communicate (with sufficient security) with nearly any other device that may come knocking.
This is part of the pitch to advertisers from the LG video: "Furthermore, LG Smart Ad offers useful and various advertising performance reports. That live broadcasting ads cannot. To accurately identify actual advertising effectiveness."
LG staff apparently speak like robots. Or Michael Caine. Who can only say. A few words. At a time.
That's pretty creepy.
Since you wrote "you've" when you apparently meant "you're", I'm guessing you're still rocking junior high.
Nice snipe, though. With whom are *you* so angry?
I think dumping that crap in the deep ocean is a monstrous idea, but if it would keep it away from the types who could contemplate returning to "the 50,000 or so nukes we had", then it might be the lesser of two evils.
For what it's worth, Wikipedia says the U.S. built over 70,000 warheads, though it doesn't say how many were operational at any one time.
...this was lunch. Every day. I went back to the old campus recently and now it's a high end food court. The lunch ladies morphed into hot young babes.
I'm pretty sure the missiles are ejected from the sub before the engine fires, so that term is appropriate, in addition to the common usage of "throwing" to refer to launching missiles.
Or were you just plain trolling?
You're way off the reservation. Your accident scenario is just ridiculous. Claiming a zero-sum stance with my father is just beyond weird.
I put forward resources; money, time, thought. I benefited from what I learned, and the world is a slightly better place. If you can't conceive that's an investment, I think you've missed the point of being human. But hey, if that floats your boat, enjoy.
You certainly do contradict yourself. You say "live and let live", yet you publicly call those people stupid, irrational, and that they contribute little to society. I really can't explain your own words to you any more clearly, so if you still don't get it, write one more justification, and we'll be done with this topic. You seem awfully invested in it; who are you trying to convince?
Me, I genuinely feel a little sorry for you. You've shut yourself off from half of the human experience because you're too timid.
Really? You think investments have to pay off financially or with remuneration in material goods?
:-)
My wife and I invested in several kids in our city who were doing well in school, but unlikely to make it to college, by mentoring them, helping them get accepted to good schools (including taking them on multi-city tours of campuses), and funding accounts for last-dollar expenses.
Our investment paid off handsomely; those kids are very productive members of society, and my wife and I are better people.
Maybe you should rethink your investment strategy.
Since weight training is not a risky behavior, that would have been off-topic, and you are apparently ascribing attributes to me that are not warranted.
I guess you *don't* think it's condescending of the GGP to call people who enjoy those activities stupid, irrational, and not contributors to society, which is why I responded in the first place. That's okay, just own it - there's very little risk in doing so.
Your points are valid, I agree with them. However, the GP says the people who *do* enjoy risky behaviors are stupid, irrational, and don't contribute much to society. That's very different.
I replied because you called those activities "stupid", implied they were irrational, said you "despise" them (rather a strong emotion), and they are (in your mind) an indicator of people who provide little value to society. That's *hardly* the philosophy you claimed in your reply, "to each his own".
And if it takes a space elevator for you to grudgingly admit Branson is a smart guy, you haven't been paying attention. If you think space tourism isn't going to advance space endeavors, you're just kidding yourself.
And not driving more than 10 mph over the limit? Hmph, I'm sure.
Yes, indeed. You show better common sense that may (or may not) prolong your existence on this earth. Your mundane, boring-ass existence. :-)
Okay, I admit I'm biased, as a private pilot, skydiving, white water kayaking, motorcycle riding idiot, who makes a living using my brain. But in 52 years, not so much as a broken bone.
Choosing to engage carefully in risky sports is not "stupid". Do you think Sir Richard Branson is a "lightweight in the department of value to humankind" because of his risky hobbies in the air and on the ocean? You might get a chance to tell him so if you book a ride with Virgin Galactic into space.
Do you ever drive more than 10 mph over the limit? Tsk, tsk, you risk-taker!
This is an illusion, and (I'm not an expert) I think you're displaying a combination of confirmation bias, and observation selection bias, where you use these events to (1) confirm your suspicion that nefarious forces are targeting individuals you believe they find threatening, and (2)notice these events (rather than the countless other accidental death reports, for example), and you believe this happens more frequently to those individuals you believe are being targeted.
But I'm not saying they're *not* coming for you next.
Your insurance probably doesn't *forbid* you to skydive, do deep SCUBA dives, or ride sports motorcycles, it just says if you die while doing one of those things they won't pay, right?
Like my father said, while I was in college - if I go skydiving, I'm risking his investment, and he'd cut me off from the portion I was borrowing from him. He was an engineer, designing systems for the nuclear missile throwing subs, with a deeply ingrained habit of weighing cost/benefit.