Marlon Brando look alikes have the right to lobby too. It doesn't make them any less evil.
We are talking about inexpensive tax software as an alternative to free filing methods. It's not a big deal. Of course it could be more efficient and cheaper ... but so can many government programs. Are public sector unions evil when they negotiate outrageous contracts that the public has to pick up the tab for? This is what democracy looks like.
This very article explains how they're deliberately blocking millions of desperately impoverished people from receiving billions of dollars. How is that not a big deal?
Given how much H&R Block and Intuit have unethically and corruptly leeched from the government and the taxpayers directly, I think the should literally be nationalized and have their tax software platforms absorbed into the IRS. Their company activities over the last few decades are so flagrantly, indisputably bad for the country. There's literally no upside, none at all. They have intentionally sabotaged tax filing…
> should literally be nationalized Political note: calls for nationalisation, in American politics, is a gift to the other side. It lets one paint the opposition as extremists without grounding in U.S. Constitutional law or the economic history of countries that regularly expropriate property. I get the impulse. But literally any other phrasing—massive fines, criminal prosecution, open-licensing requirements, et cete…
>It lets one paint the opposition as extremists
This happens regardless of how extreme or radical the proposal is, so why start from a position of compromise? This is what happens when one party cries "wolf" for 40 years.
Have your heard about a little thing called lobbying. https://www.propublica.org/article/inside-turbotax-20-year-f...
Lobbying is a fact of life in a democracy. For any government regulation, law, program, etc. there are multitudes of lobby groups on all sides of each issue. Why in this case is this such a big unethical crime? Lots of government programs are inefficient and expensive due to interest groups - that will never ever change. Welcome to Democracy.
No it's not a fact of life, it's a known quantity but not a fact and not life-related. And you can definitely ban it as well. It's not a requirement, and it's not the best, only or 'current' way. It's just a weak side-effect of the status quo (yes, technically that means 'weak' and 'current' but that is besides the point).
Given how much H&R Block and Intuit have unethically and corruptly leeched from the government and the taxpayers directly, I think the should literally be nationalized and have their tax software platforms absorbed into the IRS. Their company activities over the last few decades are so flagrantly, indisputably bad for the country. There's literally no upside, none at all. They have intentionally sabotaged tax filing…
> should literally be nationalized Political note: calls for nationalisation, in American politics, is a gift to the other side. It lets one paint the opposition as extremists without grounding in U.S. Constitutional law or the economic history of countries that regularly expropriate property. I get the impulse. But literally any other phrasing—massive fines, criminal prosecution, open-licensing requirements, et cete…
> Political note: calls for nationalisation, in American politics, is a gift to the other side.
Populism changes the equation. Populism blurs the left/right split.
Populists of all political persuasions can get behind nationalizing Intuit.
Have your heard about a little thing called lobbying. https://www.propublica.org/article/inside-turbotax-20-year-f...
Lobbying is a fact of life in a democracy. For any government regulation, law, program, etc. there are multitudes of lobby groups on all sides of each issue. Why in this case is this such a big unethical crime? Lots of government programs are inefficient and expensive due to interest groups - that will never ever change. Welcome to Democracy.
What form of government is not going to have lobbying?
Even an absolute monarch is going to have have various people/groups petitioning. For reasons both good and selfish.
> should literally be nationalized Political note: calls for nationalisation, in American politics, is a gift to the other side. It lets one paint the opposition as extremists without grounding in U.S. Constitutional law or the economic history of countries that regularly expropriate property. I get the impulse. But literally any other phrasing—massive fines, criminal prosecution, open-licensing requirements, et cete…
> Political note: calls for nationalisation, in American politics, is a gift to the other side. Perhaps you should rephrase this as "calls for nationalization run counter to my own free-market ideology" rather than a) assuming you know what everybody else thinks, and b) suggesting that conventional wisdom should dictate the bounds of acceptable discourse. Not to mention, plenty of countries — the US included — have s…
Unless you go back to FDR, the US has only "nationalized" (bailed out) companies when they were on the verge of collapse with catastrophic economic consequences, and because of 9/11. Nationalizing a functioning company, no matter how evil, would be unprecedented and immediately fail after being labeled communist. I'm not commenting on the merits of the idea here, only the political reality.
We are talking about inexpensive tax software as an alternative to free filing methods. It's not a big deal. Of course it could be more efficient and cheaper ... but so can many government programs. Are public sector unions evil when they negotiate outrageous contracts that the public has to pick up the tab for? This is what democracy looks like.
This very article explains how they're deliberately blocking millions of desperately impoverished people from receiving billions of dollars. How is that not a big deal?
>they're deliberately blocking millions of desperately impoverished people from receiving billions of dollars.
They aren't. Those programs don't require Intuit to claim.
This year we tried doing our taxes using both TurboTax and FreeTaxUSA. TurboTax has a much worse interface, it took almost twice as long to complete the taxes despite having an identical return. TurboTax did find about $50 more return for us somehow despite having entered the same information into both sites, but that amount is less than the fee TurboTax would charge so we ended up submitting through FreeTaxUSA inste…
I got totally screwed last year job wise. 2 of my employers have not reported my tax contributions to the state. I never received a W2 from one of them. TurboTax was able to find all my W2 from the HR companies, but I was unable to access those HR websites for my W2s. Because my contributions weren’t reported to the state I have to get all my W2 (luckily it was in my federal return) and resend them to the state. I ha…
The basic process is to:
1. Contact your employer and have them send you a W2
2. If your employer does not send you your W2 by the end of February, contact the IRS and they'll send you a Form 4852
3. If you still haven't received a W2 in time to file taxes, then you can file using the Form 4852 instead
4. If you receive the W2 after filing and the actual numbers differ from your estimates, then you have to file an amended return.
What should I use to file my taxes if I want to move away from TurboTax?
I've had great luck with freetaxusa.com, personally. I've been using them to file taxes for like, 10 years now. E-filing the federal tax form is free, and state tax form is only like $14 I think, really cheap, and the website does a good job taking you through it step by step in an easy to understand way.
+1 for freetaxusa.com
I used them this year after getting screwed by Intuit again last year and swore it would be the last time. Their UI isn’t quite as shiny but still very straightforward and easy to use for someone like me who knows almost nothing about taxes besides ‘I need to do them’.
I’ll use them again next year too, was very happy with the service.