Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Killing TurboTax

kunle.app

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

521–530 of 692 posts

Re: Killing TurboTax

#521

Post by foerbert »

AndrewUnmuted wrote: post #498
Shaliber wrote: post #492

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is incredibly naive of the current way the filibuster is employed. There is no care in how it's used because the line in the sand has gone from "did you vote on bill" to "did you block bill from being voted on" for attack ads. How can you say we're "careful" when it's tripled in usage. https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/democracy/reports/20... The current reason we care about a few senators is because we ar…

Your own article proves my very point: > Note that, in some cases, filibustered bills were eventually passed but with substantial concessions to the senators blocking the original bill. We have clearly seen over the past many decades an evolution in the kinds of bills we pass, and I think it's quite easy to observe that controversial bills are front-loaded specifically to combat this. The negotiations have changed to…

I can find no way to read this comment generously.

Your original point was that use of the fillibuster was judicious. The article goes on, at length, about exactly how the use of the fillibuster has only substantially increased over time.

And then here you plucked out a single sentence from the article used as a good-faith caveat before presenting data to say the article "proved your point."

Re: Killing TurboTax

#522

Post by faitswulff »

anadem wrote: post #479
kleton wrote: post #476

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the GOP We now have an opportunity to test your hypothesis- for at least two years there will be single party rule by the other party.

Single party rule would be true only if the Senate was not encumbered by the filibuster.

And Senate Majority Leader Joe Manchin has stated that he is unequivocally against removing the filibuster.

Re: Killing TurboTax

#524

Post by loopercal »

gamblor956 wrote: post #520
loopercal wrote: post #439

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>especially my income is at the boundary between two tax brackets Wait, can you explain how tax brackets work because I think there may be a fundamental misunderstanding here. If we have two brackets, 10% for $100, what do you think the tax bill would be for someone who earned $101?

It would be $10.90. $10 for the first bracket. The remaining untaxed income is $1, taxed at 90% = $0.90 tax. But the Republican Party has spent a lot of money to make people think that the tax would be $90.90 (i.e,. a flat rate), which is why so many people are opposed to increasing the tax bracket rates...even though the actual affect is marginal to most people (even those affected).

The smartest person I know, idolized him since I was a kid, had that same misconception last year when we were discussing top end tax brackets.

I feel like every April news orgs should just run segments with accountants doing this example.

Re: Killing TurboTax

#525

Post by millstone »

asciident wrote: post #434
codegeek wrote: post #398

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agreed. This is primarily not a "software" problem. Unless we simplify our tax codes in the US, tools like turbotax will stay. In fact, to be honest, turbotax was great when I used it last in 2009ish (I know they got acquired by Intuit and have gone downhill due to Intuit ) but the point is that it is overall an excellent software that really makes it easy to calculate and file things based on current tax codes. I wo…

Simplifying the tax code will require removing special exemptions for certain interest groups. This is often rephrased as "raising the taxes on [group]" which gets a lot of pushback. For example, raising the taxes on teachers, native americans, certain small businesses, public servants, antarctica scientists, students at for-profits, etc. It's hard to fight against that message.

One proposal here is to eliminate the ordinary income tax, and keep only the AMT, which is much simpler. The political advantage is that nobody gets a tax increase, and nobody's taxes get harder. And the revenue loss is surprisingly small - estimated at $63 billion annually in 2010 (though perhaps higher now due to the lower SALT limits).

I am in camp-AMT-only and it seems like both parties could get on board.

Re: Killing TurboTax

#526

Post by millstone »

anonisko wrote: post #420
ghaff wrote: post #325

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I know it's nice to have a corporate bogeyman to rail against but it's not that simple. For example, there have been all sorts of tax deductions over the years to incentivize things like home energy efficiency improvements, EVs, solar power, charitable contributions, etc. And the mortgage deduction was/is intended to promote home ownership. I could go on. Someone can disagree with some of the choices around tax rates…

Basically, the tax code is used by governments as an incentive mechanism to manipulate entities into behaving in ways they want.

Which can be a good thing. If there's an activity with negative (positive) externalities, then there's a deadweight loss, which can be corrected by taxing (subsidizing) that activity.

Re: Killing TurboTax

#527

Post by null0pointer »

bob1029 wrote: post #298

"Killing TurboTax" is essentially a meme until we meaningfully simplify the tax code. There is no software development team on earth who could catch up with the full capabilities of TurboTax without some sort of fundamental shift in the business. I really hate to say this as someone who makes a living out of it, but dealing with the current amount of complexity in the tax code with a piece of software that a non-expe…

I agree, a vastly simplified tax code is needed.

Here's my dream for a simpler tax code: The only tax is a Sales tax/VAT/GST.

Pros:

- Individuals never have to think about tax. It would completely eliminate tax returns. That alone is worth it's weight in gold since tax returns are such a time and money burden.

- It would close all the loopholes megacorps/wealthy individuals use to pay less tax. You cannot avoid spending money in the place where you operate.

- To add to that, if every country implemented this system we would be able to move freely between countries, spending as much time as we desired, without having to worry about tax implications. Obviously that's a much much longer term vision.

Cons:

- Won't this disproportionately tax the poor?

    - Firstly, the existing tax code already does. Poor people don't have the time to understand the tax code enough to get everything they can out of their tax return. The also don't have the money to hire an accountant to do it for them. They also don't have the tax avoidance opportunities available to them that come with the scale of being a wealthy individual.

    - Secondly, many countries already discount or eliminate the ST/VAT/GST on essential items. You could even have a higher tax on luxury goods. You could even have a negative tax (subsidy) on essential items if you desired. The point is it changes the framing of tax discussions to "where does this good/service fall in the scale of essential item to luxury item" which is much much simpler for people to understand.
- Won't prices have to rise for the same tax revenue to be collected? - Yes, but now you have all this leftover money that used to just go to income taxes which you can use. Plus prices might not rise as much as you think now that the tax loopholes used by megacorps are closed.

Look, I know it's pretty radical, but I think this is the only sensible taxation in the future.

Re: Killing TurboTax

#528

Post by GCA10 »

Kalium wrote: post #477
GCA10 wrote: post #457

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Depends how intricate your taxes are. Perhaps 30 million people file Schedule C, which covers freelance income, gig income, etc. The IRS will (mostly) know your gross income, but it won't know the exact details about claimable deductions such as business travel, business meals, supplies, etc. The only way it could know that would be to peer inside your credit-card statements, bank statements, etc. and make judgments…

You're right. The IRS emphatically does not have everything. Please accept my deepest and humblest apologies for implying in any way, shape, or form that they do. In addition to hundreds of millions of W-2s, the also IRS has 1099s and 1098s of various sorts. For the majority of Americans, the IRS already has the majority of their tax data. And the infrastructure already in place to provide this to them. Why not prese…

Thanks, Kalium, but the fault is all mine! I read your original comment too narrowly. It's my apology that is needed, and I hereby submit it.

Thanks for the very helpful clarification. Your argument for provisional disclosure is compelling.

Re: Killing TurboTax

#529

Post by xyst »

The way to kill turbo tax is by getting rid of the entire industry. If other countries are able to automatically fill out these forms for you and determine your tax liability then that should be done. If you get a refund, then the IRS will send you a check or direct deposit it into your account.

Re: Killing TurboTax

#530

Post by [deleted] »

sokoloff wrote: post #514
lukeschlather wrote: post #508

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have always been troubled ever since I started receiving RSUs that the IRS doesn't already have access to the cost basis for vested RSUs, and I'm baffled that you wouldn't want them to have that information.

Fair point. I'd be somewhat comfortable with sharing that information earlier than they strictly require it. But I think a better solution to the very real problem you've identified would be for your stock plan administrator to hold that information and transmit it to the IRS as basis information just like your retail broker now transmits basis for closed positions on a 1099-B, but only transmit it in the year the cl…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN