The grip these tax companies have on the market is insane and needs to be put in check 20 years ago. The lobbying these companies do to keep their only business model alive is outrageous, the tax system right now is unbelievably broken and it's the fault of these tax companies, and the behavior that they allegedly committed that's discussed in this article should put them out of business.
Of course I do. The fight should be fought within a reasonable expectation that it isn't impeding the progress of mankind. These aren't living entities that I should feel sympathy for after all. The idea that when they cease to exist they have some "death"? They're not people. If something doesn't go well, you don't [usually] die... you go do the next thing. If there's no longer a market for the product, it has no right to continue to exist for the sake of shareholders 'feelings' (read as: investment portfolios)...
I think trying to squeeze journalists is a really bad idea.
If you fuck up the best thing to do is just ignore it and pray no one notices. I don't think many readers of this outlet really care all that much about this topic. I mean, international readers don't care about US taxes all that much and generally people don't care.
This lobbying is pretty egregious though. But generally lobbying laws in the USA are problematic. In many countries these practices are considered illegal.
This, however, has become very much juicy gossip now, so as someone else mentioned. It's going to be the Streisand effect.
I think the interview itself is fine, their PR person messed up by sending that email and becoming the news story itself, which otherwise was a nothingburger, insert b-player-hire-c-player/founder-mode meme
I read the "heated" exchange. And it was heated. But it was more like a reporter grilling the interviewee. "You did xyz. Are you going to do zyx [the opposite]?" And then he calls him to remove this part of the interview. And I don't blame him.
The question was effectively are you going to do the opposite of what you have been doing all along. And that is not a fair question. Instead the interviewee pivots to something they have done (making taxes simpler) in similar line to what the question was asking (lobbying gov't to send a pre-prepared tax bill).
I think they should have deleted the part of the audio, and simply reported on what occurred. We grilled Sasan on pushing gov't to send people an already prepared tax bill, but he deflected to pushing govt to make taxes simpler.
I would like the government to just send me a bill and/or check by default please. Sure let people get fancy tax preparation services and advice if they’re making millions to do complicated things but honestly it’s so backwards to demand citizens compute their own bill and then penalize them if they get it wrong. Doing your own calculation should be opt-in, not opt-out (via annoying software).
Among my tech friends Intuit’s reputation is already mud for standing against human decency on tax filing reform for 30 years, but non-tech-sphere people are always surprised to hear about the Intuit lobbying & deception stuff.
I've told this story before here but it's relevant.
A few years ago, I filed my taxes and forgot to report some stock sales and therefore some short-term capital gains tax. More than a year after I filed, the IRS sent me a bill for about $8000, $7000 for the unreported capital gains, and a $1000 fine. I wasn't really upset about having to pay the $7000; if I owe the money then I owe the money, fair enough, it was my dumb fault, and I wasn't even that upset about the fine, because again it was my dumb fault.
What annoyed me is that if the IRS knows I owe the money better than I do, then why am I involved with this at all? I don't have enough money for the IRS to put a team together or anything elaborate like that, so it was almost certainly an automated program that determined I underpaid. Why not instead just send me a refund and/or bill at the end of the year and have me pay it, instead of having me write down the numbers that they already have, and then they can check to make sure I wrote those numbers down correctly by verifying it against their records.
I understand having the option to use complicated tax software for cases where the taxes are complicated, but my taxes really aren't; I have a typical W2 job, a typical mortgage, and very occasionally selling stock, I think in my case the "default" would be fine.
>if the IRS knows I owe the money better than I do, then why am I involved with this at all?
Well they made an extra $1k by doing it this way. Maybe if you'd have lawyered up you could have got them down to $500 but the point still stands.
Sure, the database and the developers and mailing the letters isn't free but you need to have basically all that overhead regardless of whether they're sending you a bill or a fine. The incentive is there.
On top of that, it costs them nothing to make you file your taxes. In fact they probably rake in a whole boat load of money from all the people who report things the IRS didn't know about or didn't have enough sophistication to attribute to them.
Are the high level policies of the IRS really incentivized to generate extra revenue via fines? I think its more likely a statute or policy issue and then collecting on underpayment is incentivized downstream.
If the IRS could just send a bill (or withhold), the way activism and the media work in the US, the first time a sympathetic family is overcharged and just files based on what they told they were told, all the pressure will move back towards the status quo.
The root issue here is the complexity of the tax code (generally bad) and the decentralization of financial institutions (generally good).
>Are the high level policies of the IRS really incentivized to generate extra revenue via fines? I think its more likely a statute or policy issue and then collecting on underpayment is incentivized downstream.
ROI on the IRS's budget is a pretty frequently cited talking point in their favor so there's probable at least some pressure to keep it that way lest that point in their favor go stale.
>If the IRS could just send a bill (or withhold), the way activism and the media work in the US, the first time a sympathetic family is overcharged and just files based on what they told they were told, all the pressure will move back towards the status quo.
Yeah, the media would do their usual thing and peddle fear. I think the benefit to the average person is so big that it wouldn't matter though.
>The root issue here is the complexity of the tax code (generally bad) and the decentralization of financial institutions (generally good).
I lay a lot of blame at the feet of the people who've normalized a tax break/penalty for any and every pet issue. Intuit is evil, sure, but they're capitalizing on and perpetuating a status quo they didn't create
Most places in the US send you a property tax bill with a provision to challenge if you think that it's wrong. I don't understand why the IRS can't do the same.
My property taxes (in NYC) are actually automatically paid as part of my mortgage payment. It requires literally no work on my end.
If the IRS already has my stuff, I don't see what TurboTax (and its competitors) is actually doing that's necessary. I'm confident my employer is sending the IRS my W2, ETrade is clearly sending over my stock trading stuff, my bank is probably sending over my mortgage information.
As I said, obviously some people are going to have more complicated taxes than the default thing that the IRS has access to, and for that then sure, TurboTax might be useful, but I don't think that's the majority of people.
Yeah, I came here to say this. Hard to comprehend how someone could have a comms role at Intuit and not know basic principles like this. Only plausible explanation is that the CEO insisted on taking this approach even after the very likely Streisand effect outcome was explained.
The grip these tax companies have on the market is insane and needs to be put in check 20 years ago. The lobbying these companies do to keep their only business model alive is outrageous, the tax system right now is unbelievably broken and it's the fault of these tax companies, and the behavior that they allegedly committed that's discussed in this article should put them out of business.
Do you blame them to fight to survive?
Of course I do. The fight should be fought within a reasonable expectation that it isn't impeding the progress of mankind. These aren't living entities that I should feel sympathy for after all. The idea that when they cease to exist they have some "death"? They're not people. If something doesn't go well, you don't [usually] die... you go do the next thing. If there's no longer a market for the product, it has no right to continue to exist for the sake of shareholders 'feelings' (read as: investment portfolios)...
He! Healthcare companies must be like 'hold my beer! let me show you how to lobby'.
I think trying to squeeze journalists is a really bad idea.
If you fuck up the best thing to do is just ignore it and pray no one notices. I don't think many readers of this outlet really care all that much about this topic. I mean, international readers don't care about US taxes all that much and generally people don't care.
This lobbying is pretty egregious though. But generally lobbying laws in the USA are problematic. In many countries these practices are considered illegal.
This, however, has become very much juicy gossip now, so as someone else mentioned. It's going to be the Streisand effect.
I think the interview itself is fine, their PR person messed up by sending that email and becoming the news story itself, which otherwise was a nothingburger, insert b-player-hire-c-player/founder-mode meme
Sasan Goodarzi, CEO of Intuit, seems to not like being on the record about what his company has been doing in Congress.
Shouldn't that prompt introspection about what you're doing in Congress, sasan?
For $27 million a year, he should be able to handle a hard question or two.
I read the "heated" exchange. And it was heated. But it was more like a reporter grilling the interviewee. "You did xyz. Are you going to do zyx [the opposite]?" And then he calls him to remove this part of the interview. And I don't blame him.
The question was effectively are you going to do the opposite of what you have been doing all along. And that is not a fair question. Instead the interviewee pivots to something they have done (making taxes simpler) in similar line to what the question was asking (lobbying gov't to send a pre-prepared tax bill).
I think they should have deleted the part of the audio, and simply reported on what occurred. We grilled Sasan on pushing gov't to send people an already prepared tax bill, but he deflected to pushing govt to make taxes simpler.
I would like the government to just send me a bill and/or check by default please. Sure let people get fancy tax preparation services and advice if they’re making millions to do complicated things but honestly it’s so backwards to demand citizens compute their own bill and then penalize them if they get it wrong. Doing your own calculation should be opt-in, not opt-out (via annoying software).
Among my tech friends Intuit’s reputation is already mud for standing against human decency on tax filing reform for 30 years, but non-tech-sphere people are always surprised to hear about the Intuit lobbying & deception stuff.
I've told this story before here but it's relevant.
A few years ago, I filed my taxes and forgot to report some stock sales and therefore some short-term capital gains tax. More than a year after I filed, the IRS sent me a bill for about $8000, $7000 for the unreported capital gains, and a $1000 fine. I wasn't really upset about having to pay the $7000; if I owe the money then I owe the money, fair enough, it was my dumb fault, and I wasn't even that upset about the fine, because again it was my dumb fault.
What annoyed me is that if the IRS knows I owe the money better than I do, then why am I involved with this at all? I don't have enough money for the IRS to put a team together or anything elaborate like that, so it was almost certainly an automated program that determined I underpaid. Why not instead just send me a refund and/or bill at the end of the year and have me pay it, instead of having me write down the numbers that they already have, and then they can check to make sure I wrote those numbers down correctly by verifying it against their records.
I understand having the option to use complicated tax software for cases where the taxes are complicated, but my taxes really aren't; I have a typical W2 job, a typical mortgage, and very occasionally selling stock, I think in my case the "default" would be fine.
>if the IRS knows I owe the money better than I do, then why am I involved with this at all?
Well they made an extra $1k by doing it this way. Maybe if you'd have lawyered up you could have got them down to $500 but the point still stands.
Sure, the database and the developers and mailing the letters isn't free but you need to have basically all that overhead regardless of whether they're sending you a bill or a fine. The incentive is there.
On top of that, it costs them nothing to make you file your taxes. In fact they probably rake in a whole boat load of money from all the people who report things the IRS didn't know about or didn't have enough sophistication to attribute to them.
Are the high level policies of the IRS really incentivized to generate extra revenue via fines? I think its more likely a statute or policy issue and then collecting on underpayment is incentivized downstream.
If the IRS could just send a bill (or withhold), the way activism and the media work in the US, the first time a sympathetic family is overcharged and just files based on what they told they were told, all the pressure will move back towards the status quo.
The root issue here is the complexity of the tax code (generally bad) and the decentralization of financial institutions (generally good).
>Are the high level policies of the IRS really incentivized to generate extra revenue via fines? I think its more likely a statute or policy issue and then collecting on underpayment is incentivized downstream.
ROI on the IRS's budget is a pretty frequently cited talking point in their favor so there's probable at least some pressure to keep it that way lest that point in their favor go stale.
>If the IRS could just send a bill (or withhold), the way activism and the media work in the US, the first time a sympathetic family is overcharged and just files based on what they told they were told, all the pressure will move back towards the status quo.
Yeah, the media would do their usual thing and peddle fear. I think the benefit to the average person is so big that it wouldn't matter though.
>The root issue here is the complexity of the tax code (generally bad) and the decentralization of financial institutions (generally good).
I lay a lot of blame at the feet of the people who've normalized a tax break/penalty for any and every pet issue. Intuit is evil, sure, but they're capitalizing on and perpetuating a status quo they didn't create
> Well they made an extra $1k by doing it this way.
Not really, the treasury had to borrow $7000 for over a year that they wouldnt have had to otherwise, which isnt free.
Gross vs net.
Most places in the US send you a property tax bill with a provision to challenge if you think that it's wrong. I don't understand why the IRS can't do the same.
My property taxes (in NYC) are actually automatically paid as part of my mortgage payment. It requires literally no work on my end.
If the IRS already has my stuff, I don't see what TurboTax (and its competitors) is actually doing that's necessary. I'm confident my employer is sending the IRS my W2, ETrade is clearly sending over my stock trading stuff, my bank is probably sending over my mortgage information.
As I said, obviously some people are going to have more complicated taxes than the default thing that the IRS has access to, and for that then sure, TurboTax might be useful, but I don't think that's the majority of people.
They can, if congress passed a law telling them to do so. The IRS isn't the entity preventing this from happening.
>They can, if congress passed a law telling them to do so.
Louder for the people in the back.
Love living in a broken republic
Seems like the Streisand effect.
Yeah, I came here to say this. Hard to comprehend how someone could have a comms role at Intuit and not know basic principles like this. Only plausible explanation is that the CEO insisted on taking this approach even after the very likely Streisand effect outcome was explained.