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

561–570 of 692 posts

Re: Killing TurboTax

#561

Post by mNovak »

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 assume a huge quantity of TurboTax users are in the simplest scenarios. As others have said, once there's any level of complexity, there's likely an accountant involved anyway.

I don't think this is much at all a technical problem. I suspect most people use TT because it's convenient--it files for you, they'll even pay themselves from your refund. And TT knows well this is a huge user base, as you'll see them hide away little features like education credits into the premium version.

I agree though that state taxes are part of the moat here, let alone municipal. In the few states I have experience though, state taxes are vastly simpler than federal. Still it'd be great to see some kind of centralized digital infrastructure that states could all normalize around instead of each building their janky web portals.

Re: Killing TurboTax

#562

Post by monkeywork »

kleton wrote: post #476
masklinn wrote: post #391

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The IRS themselves need to provide this "auto tax" service. Interestingly, they now can: under the Free File program, tax prep companies would offer free filing (for taxpayers below 72k AGI) and the IRS would not compete with their service. After a ProPublica investigation in their dark pattern shenanigans (leading to about 3.5% of taxpayers to use the program when 70% are eligible) confirmed by the HSGA Senate Com…

> 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.

except the power the D's have in the senate is more about setting agenda since the vast majority of things they need to pass requires more than just a simple majority that they have.

Re: Killing TurboTax

#563

Post by acjohnson55 »

harshalizee wrote: post #555
mjevans wrote: post #548

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A wealth tax. All assets and cash need to be properly valued and then that value taxed. I agree with the sibling comment and also with past discussions where a wealth tax is the only non-regressive (not-keep the poor down) tax code.

I'm not sure that would work as simply as that. Imagine buying a volatile stock, say, TSLA at $100. This then skyrockets to $1000. You're now taxed on your wealth at that price point. Then it immediately crashes down to $120. All this while, you're just holding the stock but paid taxes on a non existent value.

I haven't thought this through, but could that actually be a feature?

Re: Killing TurboTax

#564

Post by cmeacham98 »

xyzelement wrote: post #556
null0pointer wrote: post #527

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 spend…

> Won't this disproportionately tax the poor? - Firstly, the existing tax code already does. I used to think this because it's often said, but learned it's not true. This sums it up: The top 50 percent of all taxpayers paid 97 percent of all individual income taxes, while the bottom 50 percent paid the remaining 3 percent. The top 1 percent paid a greater share of individual income taxes (38.5 percent) than the botto…

How do any of those statistics refute that statement without supplementary data on income/wealth (or whatever else you're using to measure the proportionality of tax)?

Re: Killing TurboTax

#565

Post by Spivak »

ska wrote: post #460
drdeca wrote: post #347

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are some people who are weirdly anti-charity, saying that all of it should be done through taxes? I don't understand their point of view.

I suspect most of them are actually saying that relying on charity for some things is a bad idea, which isn't inherently anti-charity.

I don't think it's enough reason to not give to charities because people need help right now but the fact that food pantries exist makes my blood boil. It is beyond ridiculous that feeding our most vulnerable people requires a charity to take would be thrown out food from grocery stores and inefficiently spread them around a network of churches staffed by volunteers.

If only there was a massive logistics network for getting food everywhere we could use.

Re: Killing TurboTax

#566

Post by Spivak »

MeinBlutIstBlau wrote: post #507
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…

It's as simple as not deducting my taxes from my paycheck and forcing me to pay in. Almost as if I'd never be overtaxed then.

Can't you already set your withholding to 0?

Re: Killing TurboTax

#567

Post by [deleted] »

cmeacham98 wrote: post #564
xyzelement wrote: post #556

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Won't this disproportionately tax the poor? - Firstly, the existing tax code already does. I used to think this because it's often said, but learned it's not true. This sums it up: The top 50 percent of all taxpayers paid 97 percent of all individual income taxes, while the bottom 50 percent paid the remaining 3 percent. The top 1 percent paid a greater share of individual income taxes (38.5 percent) than the botto…

How do any of those statistics refute that statement without supplementary data on income/wealth (or whatever else you're using to measure the proportionality of tax)?

[deleted]

Re: Killing TurboTax

#568

Post by pitaj »

mjevans wrote: post #548
null0pointer wrote: post #527

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 spend…

A wealth tax. All assets and cash need to be properly valued and then that value taxed. I agree with the sibling comment and also with past discussions where a wealth tax is the only non-regressive (not-keep the poor down) tax code.

Wealth taxes are extremely inefficient and ineffective at actually generating revenue.

Re: Killing TurboTax

#569

Post by quickthrowman »

NotSammyHagar wrote: post #547
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.

It might look that way to you but it's not that way. Two Democrats in the Senate are against almost every progressive idea (IMHO). Even if all of the Democrats except for those two want something they have to convince a couple of Republicans to go their way. Those 2 sensare basically the most powerful people in the Senate.

Who’s the other one, Synema?
Post reply on HN