321–330 of 332 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Intiuit is medium-large tech, like a twitter, ebay, paypal, square, uber, etc. Also they pay crap and the work is uninteresting which is why nobody focuses on them.
> Also they pay crap Do they even employ any sizable number of IC SWEs in the US, or are they all Leads/M2s that manage outsourced contracts?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You said 'Voters should be allowed to lobby' - but a charity isn't a voter. Other things that aren't voters but most people think should be able to lobby in a healthy democracy include unions.
Exactly, I said 'Voters should be allowed to lobby'. Not 'exclusively'. I said that because you stated that I was say ing 'nobody should be allowed to lobby', which is also not what I was saying. It seems that you are constantly trying to make it fit your personal narrative. And even then, does it matter? The point is that voters, which is what the government exists for, should be the ones to assess what they want, n…
Obviously a company as an abstract entity does not lobby. An individual human being lobbies. A voter.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Exactly, I said 'Voters should be allowed to lobby'. Not 'exclusively'. I said that because you stated that I was say ing 'nobody should be allowed to lobby', which is also not what I was saying. It seems that you are constantly trying to make it fit your personal narrative. And even then, does it matter? The point is that voters, which is what the government exists for, should be the ones to assess what they want, n…
If voters are allowed to lobby, then a voter who owns, is employed by, or is a customer of, or chooses to represent my company can lobby on my behalf... and that's actually what's happening anyway! Obviously a company as an abstract entity does not lobby. An individual human being lobbies. A voter.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Lobbying isn't directing the government. It's presenting your point of view to the government. What the government does with the information you give them is then up to them but sometimes they're obligated to show they've considered it. It's a super-basic part of democracy everywhere. It's usually a right and also actively encouraged through consultation periods while legislation is drafted. I can't understand anyone…
I think you have missed the point so many times it's hard to come up with a number... Intuit isn't a person, it didn't vote and it has no place telling the government what to do for the people. A company has no opinions, only a bottom line and in many lobbying cases a bunch a shareholders. A government isn't a company and doesn't need to have financial gain, it needs to support the collective people of the country it…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I always go to the forms and ignore the interview. I haven't found any other software that is practical to use in this way and has all the forms I need. I tried H&R Block's free software one year, I think, because I was mad at Intuit, but it was useless because there were big gaping holes in the functionality.
I'm curious what the big gaping holes are. I've used H&R and its predecessor, TaxCut, to do my returns for like 20 years (minus 1 or 2 years where I hired a CPA due to complicated investments and tax credits). I find it very straightforward and fast to use.
Using the word "big" may be misleading. The point is, if anything isn't quite right, it's "gaping" because what's the fallback?
And as I said, I go directly to the forms, and the free option I tried was only interview-style. I could've predicted it wouldn't work, but I did give it a try to make sure.
I'm sorry I can't be more specific, but I don't think your experience relates to mine, because I was using the free version.
I imagine there is a very hazy line between the free version being designed for typical users without sophisticated taxes and "dark patterns" designed to frustrate someone into paying.
The pay version may be better, but I wouldn't have any motivation to try it, assuming that the wizard/interview is required.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Every other government in the world doesn't have corrupt leadership, corrupt and unfair tax codes. If taxes were straightforward, then why would anyone have to compute them manually except for edge-cases, which a government representative could assist with?
Do you understand that that's the reality we're saying we want to make happen?
We had the completely free "click here for a default tax return" situation here in Canada, at least in Ontario. As of last year (in my case) finally the tax authority had all the information slips you need to file already in their database. The freely usable tax software (Studio Tax) was able to download and autofill them to generate a valid (as far as the government knows) tax return that could then be e-filed. The…
I was a bit sad that they were bought out by Wealthsimple, but Wealthsimple has been a largely ethical and transparent company with all the services they provide, be it their investing platform during the GME debacle or their SimpleTax buyout. Hopefully it stays that way.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
My reading is that if you aren't required to file a tax return, this thing creating a dummy simplified one won't hurt you. But if you are required to file one, you are likely to need a real one, and the dummy one will conflict with it. But it sounds like if you file a real one, you don't need this form, and this form is only for people who wouldn't otherwise file. But the gist of the article - that the website is imp…
That would require that a "simplified tax return" is not a "tax return". If that's the intention, it seems to fly directly in the face of the common use of the English language. Generally {ADJECTIVE} {NOUN} is a specific category of a {NOUN}. If they're using some domain-specific jargon that violates that, it strains credulity that they would expect anyone to understand it.
Yet another case where letting the free market handle things results in bad outcomes.
This is not the free market, it’s a perfect example of what’s wrong with government. The fact that the IRS rules are set by politicians and bureaucrats, not accountable to market forces, are what allows this corrupt situation to persist in the first place. You can’t say “the IRS makes this too complicated in order to funnel money into Intuit’s pocket so I am going to pay my taxes elsewhere.” And it's a perfect exampl…
This is the sort of thing you get when you start from the conclusion, "Free market good, government bad", ignore the article, and just slavishly repeat the tired free market hypothesis.
The power is in the hands of the free market here, not in the hands of the IRS. You're blaming the IRS when clearly Intuit and Equifax are to blame. Don't comment on articles you didn't read.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Your question is, why isn't the federal government of the United States, a country of 330M people, as efficient and effective as the government of the Netherlands, a country of 17M people? Holy fuck, can't you Yanks just fucking stop pulling this idiotic non-argument out of your arses every time a comparison with any other country is made?!? Sure, your pool of people to be taxed is X times bigger than some other co…
Do you think “add more administrators” is the correct solution to every problem?
...which is why I'm against having an entire corporation like Intuit inserted between me and the government I'm trying to pay taxes to. Your opinion that administrators are suddenly fine when they're a corporation is absurd.