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

FTC bans TurboTax from advertising 'free' services, calls deceptive advertising

cnn.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

251–260 of 268 posts

Re: FTC bans TurboTax from advertising 'free' services, calls deceptive advertising

#251

Post by lacker »

I think this is good. I rarely watch network TV, and when I do I'm surprised by how maliciously misleading the advertisements often are. Every "only $X per month" claim is undercut by something explaining that it doesn't really apply. I noticed watching the NFL playoffs that Intuit is a big abuser of this advertising technique, constantly claiming their tax filing product is free, when this is not really the case from a normal human point of view.

I would like to see "fine print" completely disallowed for video ads. Don't let people read out loud a claim like "Get your blah for free" or "For only thirty dollars a month", if that claim is only legal because the exceptions are explained in words too small for most people to notice.

Re: FTC bans TurboTax from advertising 'free' services, calls deceptive advertising

#252

Post by olliej »

I feel that advertisements that say “could be free” or “up to X% off”, or similar should only be legal if the statements are accurate for the overwhelming majority of customers.

E.g you could advertise “free filing” if your free filing applied to 90% off people filing on your platform, you could say up to 20% off everything if more than 90% of expected sales are in the 19-20% range (also prohibit”sale” prices that are functionally the normal price with a fake markdown)

Re: FTC bans TurboTax from advertising 'free' services, calls deceptive advertising

#253

Post by thegrim33 »

xyst wrote: post #86
logiduck wrote: post #22

I just saw an TurboTax Ad where a guy was like "I Like free stuff" and then it said he was "happy to read the disclaimer" on TurboTax and see that "Roughly 37% of taxpayers qualify" which he looks thoughtfully in the distance and says "Thats me!" I thought it was a funny commercial because 37% doesn't seem like a lot and Turbotax is portraying it as the average person will identify themselves as part of that 37% even…

How this ad got green lit, distributed to various mediums (tv ads, yt channel, social media), and nobody saying “wait, this is terrible” is unfathomable to me.

Well, I mean, that extends to pretty much all advertising nowadays. It's all completely awful. A while back I saw a CGI cookie hop up on a table and twerk its animated cookie ass at the camera to rap music, on public television, in order to sell cookies. How many people were involved in making something like that, and all agreed that this was how they wanted to sell cookies. The same mentalities are built in to most companies now, it's all downhill from here.

Re: FTC bans TurboTax from advertising 'free' services, calls deceptive advertising

#255

Post by CatWChainsaw »

xyst wrote: post #86
logiduck wrote: post #22

I just saw an TurboTax Ad where a guy was like "I Like free stuff" and then it said he was "happy to read the disclaimer" on TurboTax and see that "Roughly 37% of taxpayers qualify" which he looks thoughtfully in the distance and says "Thats me!" I thought it was a funny commercial because 37% doesn't seem like a lot and Turbotax is portraying it as the average person will identify themselves as part of that 37% even…

How this ad got green lit, distributed to various mediums (tv ads, yt channel, social media), and nobody saying “wait, this is terrible” is unfathomable to me.

Just remember all the other tone-deaf commercials that have ever been released. They all passed teams of people saying "this is a great idea."

Re: FTC bans TurboTax from advertising 'free' services, calls deceptive advertising

#256

Post by onetimeuse92304 »

zelon88 wrote: post #247
mrandish wrote: post #242

The part of me that reveres clear, concise, correct communication appreciates any effort to encourage factual correctness. However, the cynically jaded part of me concedes that this battle has already been lost - at least in the public sphere of communication (eg politics, advertising, journalism, social media, corporate comms). Anyone paying attention already knows that anything of value you don't pay for directly w…

There is a negative connotation with "FREE" to savvy consumers who understand, at least somehwat, the product or service they are buying. However, many consumers don't understand a) economics or b) what they are buying. For example, look at all the Facebook posts from older people who repost things like "TODAY IS YOUR LUCKY DAY!!! SHARE AND YOU WILL FIND $10K TODAY!!!" They don't realize it's fake. They don't underst…

Yes. As a consumer, I try to avoid "free" services and products offered by commercial entities. They almost never are. I very much prefer to pay for things.

When I learn something is very cheap or free, my first though is definitely not "what an occasion!", my first thought is to look for the fine print and start from the position of distrust.

"You will not get what you haven't paid for."

Paying for things does not guarantee good service or product, but buying things for cheap or getting them for free (from commercial entities) pretty much ensures you get crap and/or strings attached.

I can understand people who have no money trying to get by paying as little as possible for things. And I do not criticise.

Re: FTC bans TurboTax from advertising 'free' services, calls deceptive advertising

#257

Post by mulmen »

ifwinterco wrote: post #241
mulmen wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thanks for the explanation, I only did a quick search. Is there a capital gains tax in the UK? Do you have tax deductions? Edit: I looked it up. Yes, the UK has capital gains taxes and they must be calculated by the taxpayer. https://www.gov.uk/capital-gains-tax/reporting-and-paying-ca... There are also deductions for savings and dividends. Those deductions look a lot like the US deductions. They also (sometimes?) ha…

There used to be relatively generous yearly allowances for savings (£1,000) dividends (£2,000) and CGT (£12,300) which meant most people would be exempt and not have to fill in a tax return. Saving interest is often paid gross but if you go over the savings allowance and don't fill in a tax return HMRC will just automatically take more tax from your payslip. There is also a £20,000/year ISA allowance which shields in…

Thanks for that context.

Interest and capital gains come in sooner for Americans. Plus we have way more deductions. I can deduct business use of a home office and personal vehicle. That’s not something the IRS can know.

Re: FTC bans TurboTax from advertising 'free' services, calls deceptive advertising

#258

Post by mrandish »

zelon88 wrote: post #247
mrandish wrote: post #242

The part of me that reveres clear, concise, correct communication appreciates any effort to encourage factual correctness. However, the cynically jaded part of me concedes that this battle has already been lost - at least in the public sphere of communication (eg politics, advertising, journalism, social media, corporate comms). Anyone paying attention already knows that anything of value you don't pay for directly w…

There is a negative connotation with "FREE" to savvy consumers who understand, at least somehwat, the product or service they are buying. However, many consumers don't understand a) economics or b) what they are buying. For example, look at all the Facebook posts from older people who repost things like "TODAY IS YOUR LUCKY DAY!!! SHARE AND YOU WILL FIND $10K TODAY!!!" They don't realize it's fake. They don't underst…

> people who repost things like "TODAY IS YOUR LUCKY DAY!!! SHARE AND YOU WILL FIND $10K TODAY!!!" They don't realize it's fake.

What you're saying is, of course, correct. I personally know (and in some cases am related to) such people. However, you highlight an interesting aspect of this. I think this is one of those things that is "eternally true" in a meta sense. What I mean is that the ability of some meaningful number of humans to be stupid, gullible, silly or crazy will always exceed the well-meaning attempts of other humans to prevent negative consequences from those, apparently bottomless, intrinsically human abilities.

Obviously, there are many scenarios where it's reasonable and worthwhile to enact preventative measures, which is why we collectively do so in the form of laws and regulations. But at the same time, as a society, we need to remember that such preventative efforts will always be limited in scope due to costs, practicality and, ultimately, individual freedom to choose unwise things. At some point, being free includes the freedom to be stupid. The hard part is choosing where to draw the lines between "society will try to protect you from that" but "choose to do this and the consequences are on you." I'll never forget the bitter disillusionment I felt the day my teenaged self realized that the nature of reality is that some bad things will happen to good people and there's little we can do about many of those things other than grant Darwin Awards or turn them into cautionary tales (or both).

Re: FTC bans TurboTax from advertising 'free' services, calls deceptive advertising

#259

Post by Sohcahtoa82 »

8note wrote: post #174
xivzgrev wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is generally a good thing for folks who live paycheck to paycheck. Higher withholding forces more budgeting, and then they get a big paycheck once a year to pay off whatever

If they were budgeting, they wouldn't be living paycheck to paycheck. It makes the budgeting more challenging to give the government and interest free loan. However, giving the government an automatic loan means that a land lord cannot charge that much more in rent, and the owner does get to spend it eventually, rather than throwing it into a rent pit

> If they were budgeting, they wouldn't be living paycheck to paycheck

You are insultingly out of touch.

I'd like to paint you my picture of my life in 2009 and then compare it to today's numbers.

I was making $10.75/hr at a Subway, working ~38 hours/week. That's ~$1600 pretax, about $1,200 post-tax. Expenses:

Rent (Single-bedroom apartment): 650 car insurance: 75 water/sewage/garbage: 40 internet: 30 phone: 30 electricity: 50

That left me with $325/month to pay for gas (luckily I loved only ~3 miles from work, so that didn't cost me much), food, and entertainment. $10/day for food wasn't terrible, but it's not exactly steak and seafood, either. And remember, that $10/day is supposed to include entertainment as well. Honestly, it wasn't really THAT bad. Buuuuut....

Minimum wage increases have happened, but rent has gone up too. That job would now pay $15/hr, ($2280 for 38 hours pretax, ~$1710 post-tax), but the rent on that exact same unit is now $1,200/month.

Assuming all other bills remained the same (they wouldn't), I'd now be left with only $285/month for food. And with over 15 years of inflation, that $285 is worth significantly less.

At that point, even with budgeting, I'd still be living paycheck-to-paycheck. When wages don't keep up with the cost of living, you can't budget your way out of it.

To make it worse, that kind of living starts to take its toll on mental health. You feel like you're constantly drowning. That $4 coffee or the meal at Taco Bell will be your only source of real joy between each paycheck.

Re: FTC bans TurboTax from advertising 'free' services, calls deceptive advertising

#260

Post by smrq »

8note wrote: post #174
xivzgrev wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is generally a good thing for folks who live paycheck to paycheck. Higher withholding forces more budgeting, and then they get a big paycheck once a year to pay off whatever

If they were budgeting, they wouldn't be living paycheck to paycheck. It makes the budgeting more challenging to give the government and interest free loan. However, giving the government an automatic loan means that a land lord cannot charge that much more in rent, and the owner does get to spend it eventually, rather than throwing it into a rent pit

Other replies are going hard on the initial assertion but missing the point, on which you're totally right. There is no reason where it's theoretically advantageous to give the government an interest free loan (overpay on your taxes) and get it back later in refund form, than to simply not do that and have the money in the meantime. Take the money you were giving to the government and put it in a savings account instead, and now you at least have minimal interest. (Hell, take it and put it in a safe and at least the government doesn't get to spend it on $thing-you-disagree-with-ideologically.) There's no difference in what you can do with untouchable money in the government's pocket vs. untouchable money in yours.

Whether you have the willpower to not touch it instead of increasing your food budget from $10 to $11 or whatever is a different story, and speaks to the mentality: if you never got the money in the first place, you can't be tempted to spend it.

Post reply on HN