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

California tried to save the nation from tax filing, then Intuit stepped in

latimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

271–280 of 304 posts

Re: California tried to save the nation from tax filing, then Intuit stepped in

#271

Post by rc2634 »

Boltgolt wrote: post #232
frockington1 wrote: post #221

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Tax filing takes me a few hours and ~ $100 each year and I have multiple properties and businesses. For most people it's not that big of a deal but it's easy to jump on the anti-IRS bandwagon

Imagine paying $100 just to be able to pay your government and thinking that's "not that big of a deal"

You’ll pay one way or the other. If the government does all the calculations for you, they will either have to pay the person who calculates it by hand or pay the people who maintain the automated systems to calculate it for you. The government doesn’t have the greatest record of this efficiently spending tax dollars, so if the government charged you to calculate how you much you owe the government, you’ll probably end up paying more.

Re: California tried to save the nation from tax filing, then Intuit stepped in

#274

Post by astura »

ghaff wrote: post #152
JackFr wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not that it's implemented poorly. It's that 1) the federal government collects multiple kinds of taxes out out of your paycheck. Social security, medicare and regular income tax are different. Income tax rates are progressive while the payroll taxes are flat but capped at a certain amount. 2) Additionally forty-two states have income taxes as do dozens of local municipalities. Consider that they also don't treat…

Furthermore, a number of states are starting to require tax returns to be filed even for short durations of working in the state for business purposes.

Yep, that is called a "jock tax."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jock_tax

Re: California tried to save the nation from tax filing, then Intuit stepped in

#275

Post by theshadowknows »

So you know in the Hunger Games when the guy was like “what if just once no one watched?” .. what if there were a truly massive protest (millions of people) who just said fuck it and didn’t pay their taxes and instead wrote in that they demand proper tax reform

Re: California tried to save the nation from tax filing, then Intuit stepped in

#276

Post by [deleted] »

MichaelZuo wrote: post #254
celeduc wrote: post #199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How? Fundraising power! Horse trading! Lobbying! The entire system of government being corrupted by corporate money from top to bottom.

What your saying implies that the entire congress is responsible as everyone is accepting deals to look the other way… maybe you need to reevaluate what your writing?

[deleted]

Re: California tried to save the nation from tax filing, then Intuit stepped in

#277

Post by astura »

mwint wrote: post #68

Since I’ve not seen it mentioned yet, https://www.freetaxusa.com/ . Used it the last few years to do my taxes, which include investment and self employment income. No complaints. Intuit’s stuff would charge quite a bit for my “complex” taxes. They charge a couple bucks to file state taxes, which gives me a bit of confidence they’re not making money by selling my info to someone.

I've been using them for more than a decade on their other domain https://www.taxhawk.com. I think their software is great and there's no dark patterns, you can even submit your federal taxes for free without paying to do your state taxes. I also really like that I can review my filled out 1040 before e-filing.

The price for state taxes is $15 where TurboTax would cost me over $100 (I have business income).

Re: California tried to save the nation from tax filing, then Intuit stepped in

#278

Post by refurb »

depaya wrote: post #203
refurb wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean red states are more rural which alone would account for more subsidies. But regardless, seems like you’re all for redistribution of wealth unless it goes to the political “undesirable”? You just made a great argument against redistribution - it’s too fraught with politics.

> I mean red states are more rural which alone would account for more subsidies. Yeah, duh, that's their point. We are strong as a country because our wealthy, dense state economies support our poorer, rural state economies; and that's why it's laughable when red-state citizens and politians rant about seceding from the "evil communist blue states."

By "poor rural" areas you mean the people that grow the food you eat?

Re: California tried to save the nation from tax filing, then Intuit stepped in

#279

Post by ashtonkem »

Clubber wrote: post #236
candiddevmike wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Definitely expand the house, but we should abolish the Senate. It serves no purpose except tyranny of the minority and gridlock.

The senate is supposed to represent the state governments at the federal level, but they stopped doing that with direct elections. It was to prevent large states with a concentration of population (currently like CA, NY, TX, FL) to have too much power over smaller states. Here's some background on the arguments for and against. It's got some partisan hyperbole so try to ignore all that. https://www.theusconstitution.…

Honestly, I don’t really care too much about representing the states per se. It’s the people of the nation that the federal government should respond to, not the divisions.

Re: California tried to save the nation from tax filing, then Intuit stepped in

#280

Post by thebigman433 »

jjcon wrote: post #172
thebigman433 wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is so important and I think a lot of people miss it. The "left" that has power in the US (establishment dems) barely qualify as being left at all. They are very much invested in protecting power and wealth. The only "left" that would push against the rentiers are people who will almost never see power. However, I wouldnt say AOC winning is a "fluke". Its definitely the exception, but progressives have been able…

> The "left" that has power in the US (establishment dems) barely qualify as being left at all So when the left does something you dont like, they must not be left? Smells of no true scottsman to me.

Im mostly comparing it to the politics of the "left" in most other first world countries. In my opinion, candidates who arent willing to support guaranteed family leave, single payer healthcare, and more progressive taxes, arent very far left.

Of course you could definitely make an argument for that being no true scottsman, so I guess it just depends on opinion.

Post reply on HN