IRS Reforms Free File Program, Drops Agreement Not to Compete with TurboTax

We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21923930.

Also, you're absolutely incorrect about the Federal government being able to do something. They have limited, enumerated rights. Show me in the Constitution where it has the power to take overland to hold in trust.

"This is a very interesting question, Philip. The clause on which Congress' authority might rest is:

"The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States." (Article IV, Section 3, Clause 2)

In any territory or property of the United States, there can be no doubt that Congress has the power to create national parks, pursuant to its authority to make "all needful Rules and Regulations." The only question, then, must be whether the United States had the authority to acquire such property in the first place.

There are five possible sources of congressional power to acquire lands:

1. The states may cede a "District (not exceeding ten Miles square) [to] become the Seat of the Government of the United States" (Article I, Section 8, Clause 17). National parks do not form the seat of the government, and, moreover, are more than ten square miles in area.

2. Congress may purchase land "for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings" (Article I, Section 8, Clause 17). But a national park is not a fort, magazine, arsenal, dock-yard, or building. As the Supreme Court held in Collins v. Yosemite Park, " forests, parks, ranges [and] wild life sanctuaries ... are not covered by Clause 17."

3. Congress may spend money to provide for the "general Welfare of the United States" (Article I, Section 8, Clause 1). But the welfare must be general, not local. As Alexander Hamilton expressed this limitation: "the object to which an appropriation of money is to be made be General and not local; its operation extending ... throughout the Union, and not being confined to a particular spot." National parks do not meet this criterion. Furthermore, as the Supreme Court correctly held in United States v. Butler, this clause does not extend to matters "within the sphere of state government." Parks are inherently local matters, firmly within the sphere of the states, not general ones subject to federal control.

4. Congress may acquire land under the necessary and proper clause. However, such land must be purchased for some other governmental purpose expressed in the previous clauses of Section 8. Setting up parks is not one of those purposes; therefore, the necessary and proper clause should not even come into the picture.

5. The government may seize lands under its eminent domain power. But as in the case of the necessary and proper clause, the land must be taken for some constitutional purpose, which as I said before does not exist in this instance.

It has been argued that the United States may purchase lands for any purpose. I would strongly oppose such an assertion, because it contravenes the notion that the powers of Congress are limited to those enumerated in the Constitution. The only exception is that the United States may acquire any territory from foreign countries by treaty, for any purpose whatsoever, because the treaty-making power is plenary, not limited by enumerations.

Therefore, on the whole, Congress may not buy lands from states in order to set up national parks. It may, however, set up parks in territories that were not purchased from states and do not form part of any state (e.g., Alaska before it became a state, or Puerto Rico today), and in the District of Columbia." (https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=29437.0;wa...)

I've never heard anyone promoting the idea of keeping taxes complicated to avoid higher taxes.

There's nothing inherent in complicated taxes that stops the government from raising rates.

Conservatives have long wanted the flat tax (file taxes on the back of a postcard) and lower taxes, so simpler lower taxes.

I think the reason it became so complicated was because businesses lobbied for special rules and tax breaks that made things complicated in the first place. Businesses are now setup to take advantage of these loopholes (Amazon passing $0 in taxes, etc.).

TurboTax was built as a result of complicated taxes and they lobby heavily against a simplified tax code.

It's not some cabal of citizens wanting to keep taxes complicated, it's the industries that benefit from the current tax code that wants to keep it this way.

Except many people will try TurboTax or a competing solution anyway, just in case they can get a little bit of money back.