10 ms·

Intuit Will Sell Off Quicken

73 points by doppp 11y ago

sschueller 11y ago
Looks like they are not worried about taxes ever becoming simpler. Intuit has spent about $11.5 million on federal lobbying in the past few years to kill bills that would have simplified taxes. [1] [1] http://www.propublica.org/article/how-the-maker-of-turbotax-fought-free-simple-tax-filing http://www.propublica.org/article/how-the-maker-of-turbotax-...
- tptacek 11y ago
  If $2.3MM/yr over 5 years is enough to reshape the trajectory of fundamental laws in this country, why aren't people just Kickstarter-ing cannabis decriminalization, marriage equality, and copyright law changes? My point is: that's not a lot of money. Not that I think you can get important changes done for $2.3MM. There is real conservative opposition to return-free filing. For instance, conservatives in general think the tax code is both too complex and too onerous. In a return-free system, citizens are given a summarized bill and encouraged not to consider the line items. The concern is that the bill is unfair, and the less citizens have it shoved in their face, the less likely we are to get a fairer tax code. (I think this is silly and that we are probably under-taxed, but I understand the logic.)
  - x5n1 11y ago
    Mostly because no one has done it yet, and congressmen are much more open to corporate lobbying and serving elite and business interests than they are interested in serving the people, mostly because the government wants taxes. Taxes come from business, and business often comes from making things that should be easier harder. In a world of perfect competition everything would cost next to nothing and profits would be non-existing. The world would be at equilibrium. Lots of business is about making sure the world never gets to that state so the game can go on.
    - tptacek 11y ago
      It is certainly not the case that conservatives, who make up roughly half the government and who apparently constitute the bulk of opposition to return-free filing, want more taxes. The belief that Americans are over-taxed defines almost half of American conservative ideology.
      - x5n1 11y ago
        There is wanting taxes, and then there is wanting taxes. One is the tax rate, and other is how much business is done. The logic goes that if the government generates more jobs through lower business tax then they can get more revenue from the income tax. I guess I should restate and say that the government wants more revenue, whichever way it comes in and is more amenable to policies that produces more revenue for itself and for business in the country.
        tptacek 11y ago
        Ok, I'm being repetitive but also trying to simplify: Conservatives make up the core opposition to return-free filing. Conservatives definitionally do not want more taxation, or complicated taxation. So I'm not sure the notion that Intuit's lobbying has killed return-free filing holds up.
        makomk 11y ago
        Conservatives want lower tax rates. One common conservative argument is that if you tax less, businesses will expand more and you may even make more in taxes overall.
        tptacek 11y ago
        That's valid, but the nuance I left out of my comment was the common conservative belief that the government is simply too big, and that by cutting taxes, we can starve it back to an appropriate size. Many conservatives would not be happy with a more efficient mechanism to generate the same revenue we get today.
  - michaelt 11y ago
    why aren't people just Kickstarter-ing cannabis decriminalization, marriage equality, and copyright law changes? I would imagine it's a lot cheaper to bribe a politician when: 1. The bribe doesn't get any publicity/press coverage/cause any embarrassment. Campaign donations from big corporations are "business as usual" and the politicians don't look corrupt in the press - but do the same way in a public, attention-grabbing way and the guy looks bad if he accepts. 2. The vote you want to affect is low key and doesn't contradict the politician's public position on major issues. Changing a politician's opinion on the Concrete Masonry Products Research Education and Promotion Act of 2015 would be much cheaper than changing their opinion on overturning Roe vs Wade 3. You want to maintain the status quo. Creating new legislation and getting it through the system is a bunch of work - compared to turning up on the vote day and saying 'no'. 4. There are future votes and future bribes to look forward to. If I give a politician $200,000 to vote a certain way, he might take the donation then vote a different way - and if I ask him to vote that way and promise him the money afterwards, I might refuse to pay after he votes. But if there are 10 votes and I donate $20,000 before each one if he voted how I wanted in the last vote? Then neither of us can screw the other over too badly because we know we'll be making the same deal next year. 5. There's aren't other well-funded lobbyists bidding against you. Because if there are you'll need to get into a bidding war and they might have a lot of money to throw around. If people who vote against copyright extension get $20,000 from me but people who vote for it get $50,000 from Disney I'm going to need to up my game - and Disney probably has pretty deep pockets. TLDR: I'd expect cannabis decriminalisation or copyright law reform to cost a lot more than blocking tax code simplification. With that said, if someone would like to organise an attempt I certainly think it would be interesting to see if a kickstarter-like approach would work.
    - reviseddamage 11y ago
      tbh, i think he may not have been serious about the kickstarter analogy.
    - fredkbloggs 11y ago
      It's even simpler, really, and a classic and well-researched defect in representative democracy. Any time there is an interest group (which can be one person, one corporation, an industry, etc.) that wants something that is highly advantageous to itself and costs a very large number of other people a very small amount of money each, that interest group will always pay a small portion of its benefit to politicians for support, and politicians will always support it. This is because it's not worthwhile for millions of individuals to band together and defeat something that costs each one only a few cents. Literally, the time it takes (whether to make a donation, write a letter, or make whatever other trivial contribution) exceeds the value of shutting down the special interest. Intuit likes income-tax returns and tax laws in general that are complex. But there are hundreds of other special interests, most very narrow, that favor specific bits of the tax code and will lobby to keep them. Collectively, these things cost us trillions of dollars, but individually they are impossible to defeat because no single one is large enough to be worthwhile. This happens in all representative democracies where tax law is set by the legislature. There are ways to avoid it, but there is currently no state that has tried to do so (probably because this problem is extremely profitable for the political industry).
  - patio11 11y ago
    If I can elaborate on that concern a bit: if government is allowed to be loud about transfer payments and quiet about taxes then it can successfully bribe the middle class with their own money. It is entirely possible to run a tax system without W-2 employees having to do a return at all. Many nations do it. American conservatives strongly prefer a government which is not sized like the government of those nations.
    - guelo 11y ago
      Causing extra suffering for millions of people just to make a political point is straight up evil in my book.
      - khuey 11y ago
        Not to mention it doesn't work. A lot of people think tax returns are free money from the government.
      - tptacek 11y ago
        Is there anyone on this thread that would disagree with that? Hurting people to make a political point is immoral. I don't think anyone is advocating for that.
        guelo 11y ago
        Huh? That is exactly what these conservatives are advocating. Make tax filing maximally painful to make a political point
        jerrac 11y ago
        If by painful, you mean making sure everyone knows exactly how much money they are paying in taxes, then yes, Conservatives want that. If you mean we want to make it hard to file taxes, as in make it complicated to figure out your tax return, and so on, then I'll have to ask where you got that idea. Most of the tax reform rhetoric I've seen is based on making it simpler to pay taxes, while at the same time more obvious how much you are paying.
  - crdoconnor 11y ago
    >If $2.3MM/yr over 5 years is enough to reshape the trajectory of fundamental laws in this country, why aren't people just Kickstarter-ing cannabis decriminalization, marriage equality, and copyright law changes? Not all political battles are equal. 1) There are lobbies dedicated to keeping cannabis illegal and marriage unequal. There aren't any lobbies dedicated to keeping taxes simple. 2) It's easier to kill proposed legislation than it is to propose new legislation and get it passed.
    - deleted 11y ago
      [deleted]
  - protomyth 11y ago
    > There is real conservative opposition to return-free filing. For instance, conservatives in general think the tax code is both too complex and too onerous. In a return-free system, citizens are given a summarized bill and encouraged not to consider the line items. The concern is that the bill is unfair, and the less citizens have it shoved in their face, the less likely we are to get a fairer tax code. I'm a conservative, and I do believe the tax code is complex and onerous. Its made that way by lobbyists trying to get their special deals, and politicians using a revenue generation mechanism to push behavior. The thought that its is only Intuit's 2.3MM/yr keeping the tax code complex is a bit bogus. There are many industries that rely on the current tax code's deductions and complexities to survive. The amount of money by companies, unions, and NGOs is staggering. They are backed by the helpful idiots in the media that continually preach that any tax code change is an assault on the poor. Even showing no understanding of basic math when deduction + flat rate taxes are suggested. And yes, since I barely trust government accounting, having been the victim of a $1,000+ mistake which took a long time to resolve and hurt quite a bit and growing up under Indian Health Service, I don't believe in a return-free system. The thought anyone would take "trust us" from the IRS (or any government agency) is so foreign to my thinking, I just don't understand how it would work. I believe in a flat rate tax with a larger base deductible with no social, moral, or lobbyist driven deductions. The IRS should have no political or social ties. It is there to raise revenue, nothing else.
    - glesica 11y ago
      > Even showing no understanding of basic math when deduction + flat rate taxes are suggested. As a left-winger, my views and yours probably aren't that far off. I would be fine with a flat tax (that was actually collected from everyone) and a large deductible. Even more so if it was coupled with a meaningful basic income guarantee. The problem is that I don't actually believe politicians when they say that is what they will do. With all the talk about "job creators", it really, truly sounds as though the modern GOP actually wants a regressive system where the rich pay almost nothing and there is no deductible because the poor need to pay their "fair share" (whatever that means). So it isn't that we don't understand math. My preferred tax code probably looks surprisingly similar to your preferred tax code, I just don't trust any of your politicians to actually move us in that direction (and for the record, it's not like I trust HRC to do any better).
  - EGreg 11y ago
    Corporate lobbying against change always costs less.
  - seiji 11y ago
    My point is: that's not a lot of money. It's called the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tullock_paradox https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tullock_paradox — "the low costs of rent-seeking relative to the gains from rent-seeking." Influencing individuals is relatively cheap. You just have to overwhelm them. Our laws are made by a limited group of individuals. Ergo, influencing laws is relatively cheap once you've got a few million dollars to burn and can gain billions off the results.
    - tptacek 11y ago
      I do not believe that sweeping US federal tax reform is a matter of a few million dollars of lobbying. I believe that a few million dollars can get you a bunch of state court judges, and even that the state government that can be influenced by lobbying expenditures might be "where all the real governing is happening". I do not believe the narrative that Intuit's pitiful lobbying expenditure is stunting our tax system. If the disclosure in ProPublica had been that Intuit was spending 10x, 20x more than that --- and it has the resources to do that --- I'd believe it more. As it stands, the specifics revealed by ProPublica make me less concerned about Intuit's influence. For what it's worth: I'd like a return-free IRS.
  - jerrac 11y ago
    Yes, from [1], I would never support return free filing. The tax code is far too complicated, and the IRS far too inept for me to trust that they would not screw my taxes up. That said, if we went to a flat tax, or a national sales tax, or something else that drastically simplifies the tax code, then the issue would be moot. And most of those simplifications would be supported by Conservatives. (Note, I mean real Conservatives, many of the politicians who say they are conservative really aren't.) [1]http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/briefing-book/improve/return-free/what-is.cfm http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/briefing-book/improve/return-...
    - bradleyjg 11y ago
      If "flat tax" only means go to a single income bracket and percentage, it would not simplify the tax code much at all. The progressive part of tax code involves a single lookup at the end. The complexity exists almost entirely in tax expenditures -- deductions, exclusions, credits, etc., etc., etc. I don't know what "real Conservatives" think, but in polling many tax expenditures do very well. For example, 68% of Republicans, 63% of Democrats, and 58% of Independents oppose it eliminating the home mortgage interest deduction. (http://www.scribd.com/doc/117298635/CBS-News-Poll-Fiscal-Cliff http://www.scribd.com/doc/117298635/CBS-News-Poll-Fiscal-Cli... Q47)
      - jerrac 11y ago
        > The complexity exists almost entirely in tax expenditures -- deductions, exclusions, credits, etc., etc., etc. I'm not sure what everyone else thinks, but any flat tax I'd support would have to do away with all of those things. And I'm pretty sure most of my conservative friends would agree. In that poll you linked to, see the "Which Type of Plan Do You Prefer?" question 42. Republicans favored eliminating more deductions. Also, that survey is really bad. In q44-51, they didn't mention cutting spending at all. Change: "q51 (In order to reduce the budget deficit, would you favor or oppose) Reducing some government programs and services that benefit people like you?" to "q51 (In order to reduce the budget deficit, would you favor or oppose) Cutting spending on some government programs and services that benefit people like you?" I expect a lot more Republican responses would favor that idea. And they should at least have mentioned reforming social security and medicare/aid.
  - bitwarrior 11y ago
    Dan Carlin in his Common Sense podcast aired the episode [Kickstarting the Revolution](http://www.dancarlin.com/product/common-sense-282-kickstarting-revolution/ http://www.dancarlin.com/product/common-sense-282-kickstarti...) where he suggests that, being that the game is what it is (regarding campaign financing, lobbying and other such means of influencing political outcomes and the use of money), while we may not agree with the game, we should at least, as citizens, play the game. If people have donated over $65 million to get Star Citizen developed, one would imagine the public could easily finance...broader causes. And considering $2.3 million over 5 years is enough to influence lawmakers to continually reject tax code reform, it seems getting something passed would be less costly and a one-time affair. I almost like to imagine a political party or super pac with public causes (you name it) itemized its willing to support, with a donation page for each, taking that money and doing the very same thing corporations do, but effectively on behalf of citizens.
- rayiner 11y ago
  Let's say hypothetically that Crate and Barrel spent a few million lobbying on behalf of gay marriage, on the theory that the uptick in marriages would be good for business. anything wrong with that? This isn't an obscure issue where a small amount of lobbying is going to push legislation in favor of a small interest group. It's literally one of the most scrutinized and contentious issues on the political table. NB: the conservative opposition to tax free filing exists and isn't illogical. I for one do my own taxes each year, and the rage induced by thinking about the mortgage interest deduction is sufficient to keep me from voting for another cycle.
femto113 11y ago
Doesn't say in the article but I assume they are keeping Mint? Desktop apps like Quicken (and the similar Microsoft Money) were dead to me the minute that came on the scene (almost 9 years ago at this point).
- weinzierl 11y ago
  I'm a happy user of many web-based services, but why would anyone give all their personal financial data to single company? Ok, the success of Mint proves me wrong, I just don't get it. It's not only that they can use your data to build and sell a profile, there is a realistic chance that the data gets leaked.
  - beagle3 11y ago
    wesabe[0] can supposedly by run on your own server; not sure if there are any forks that are useful/updated, and have never tried it myself. I'm with you. Can't figure out how millions of people just give away every piece of information about themselves with hardly a second thought (financial data -> mint; phonebook -> whatsapp=facebook; mail -> gmail=google; etc.) [0] https://github.com/wesabe https://github.com/wesabe
  - digitalzombie 11y ago
    > Ok, the success of Mint proves me wrong, I just don't get it. Well for one thing people are lazy and Mint devs actually take care of handling logins for all of those banks, credit cards companies, and credit unions. I'm not entirely sure if there's any other alternative non web base software that can do this. I would assume those apis are different between all those companies. Sure I can input my stuff manually but then again I'm lazy.
    - joshyeager 11y ago
      Quicken can download transactions from every bank I've used. From what I can tell, it uses the same APIs that Mint does. But the data is never stored anywhere but my home server.
euroclydon 11y ago
I still love Microsoft Money for personal finances. A large DB can get slow, but an SSD fixes that. Plus, it's free: http://www.microsoft.com/en-us/search/Results.aspx?q=microsoft%20money&form=DLC http://www.microsoft.com/en-us/search/Results.aspx?q=microso...
- akgoel 11y ago
  I could not get money to install on windows 10
- steverb 11y ago
  Money doesn't work on Windows 10. Or at least, I couldn't get it to work for me.
  - brevacor 11y ago
    FWIW, I was able to install on Windows 10 and create a new Money database. I didn't try any operations beyond that, but it seemed to install and work ok for me.
  - scholia 11y ago
    Apparently it needs a small registry change: https://social.microsoft.com/Forums/en-US/479281b2-90f9-42ca-85f7-644fc6e1e5c3/download-microsoft-money-installation-files-solve-activation-and-some-other-errors?forum=money https://social.microsoft.com/Forums/en-US/479281b2-90f9-42ca... Note: I don't use Money and I have not done it.
pgrote 11y ago
What is a good, active cloud based personal finance software service? The ones I have come across look ok, but aren't actively developed.
- cddotdotslash 11y ago
  Most of the suggestions I've seen are either Mint (another Intuit product), Personal Capital (more investing focused), Hello Wallet (a bit lacking on features, but it connects to bank accounts), and PocketSmith (a really expensive Mint on steroids).
- cdcarter 11y ago
  YNAB has dropbox synch and it's ideal.
  - jerrac 11y ago
    YNAB is definitely a good product. I use it, and got my brother and parents to use it as well. My only complaint is that I'd rather not rely on a third party like dropbox for sync, and I'd like a Linux version.
- raesene9 11y ago
  Money Manager EX is what I use http://www.moneymanagerex.org/ http://www.moneymanagerex.org/ . Free Cross-platform, works fine for what I need it for
- zo1 11y ago
  If you have the patience and willingness to learn some basic and not-so-basic acccounting principles: I'd suggest GNUCash (http://www.gnucash.org/ http://www.gnucash.org/)
- kentnek 11y ago
  I've been using Money Lover for a while now and it's actually really good! The UI is nice and intuitive, there're lots of features and it doesn't require bank connections to work.
rlvesco7 11y ago
It would be awesome if financial companies were required to provide free api's along with the full financial history. Currently companies like BOA charge you for automated access to your account and others actively limit Mint, for instance, from retrieving information on behalf of customers.
kumarm 11y ago
Demand Force one of the asset they are trying to sell was acquired just 3 years ago for 450 Million. You would think executives making these decisions will have some consequences :).
e40 11y ago
I switched from Quicken to Moneydance some time ago. The export/import worked fine. I had been a Quicken customer a 10-15 years and I was just so infuriated with all the UI churn to justify the upgrades and their turning off online transactions after a few years, FOR NO REASON. MD is written in Java, it's simple, it's supported, they come out with new versions, and you can upgrade if you want. I am not at all affiliated with the company that makes Moneydance. Just a completely satisfied customer who didn't want to pay Intuit another penny, for the rest of my life.
bitcuration 11y ago
The tax law should be as simple as this: there is a BGI (basic guaranteed income) and every dollar above at a fix percentage regardless how wealthier you are.

73 points by doppp 11y ago

Looks like they are not worried about taxes ever becoming simpler. Intuit has spent about $11.5 million on federal lobbying in the past few years to kill bills that would have simplified taxes. [1] [1] http://www.propublica.org/article/how-the-maker-of-turbotax-fought-free-simple-tax-filing http://www.propublica.org/article/how-the-maker-of-turbotax-...

tptacek 11y ago
If $2.3MM/yr over 5 years is enough to reshape the trajectory of fundamental laws in this country, why aren't people just Kickstarter-ing cannabis decriminalization, marriage equality, and copyright law changes? My point is: that's not a lot of money. Not that I think you can get important changes done for $2.3MM. There is real conservative opposition to return-free filing. For instance, conservatives in general think the tax code is both too complex and too onerous. In a return-free system, citizens are given a summarized bill and encouraged not to consider the line items. The concern is that the bill is unfair, and the less citizens have it shoved in their face, the less likely we are to get a fairer tax code. (I think this is silly and that we are probably under-taxed, but I understand the logic.)
- x5n1 11y ago
  Mostly because no one has done it yet, and congressmen are much more open to corporate lobbying and serving elite and business interests than they are interested in serving the people, mostly because the government wants taxes. Taxes come from business, and business often comes from making things that should be easier harder. In a world of perfect competition everything would cost next to nothing and profits would be non-existing. The world would be at equilibrium. Lots of business is about making sure the world never gets to that state so the game can go on.
  - tptacek 11y ago
    It is certainly not the case that conservatives, who make up roughly half the government and who apparently constitute the bulk of opposition to return-free filing, want more taxes. The belief that Americans are over-taxed defines almost half of American conservative ideology.
    - x5n1 11y ago
      There is wanting taxes, and then there is wanting taxes. One is the tax rate, and other is how much business is done. The logic goes that if the government generates more jobs through lower business tax then they can get more revenue from the income tax. I guess I should restate and say that the government wants more revenue, whichever way it comes in and is more amenable to policies that produces more revenue for itself and for business in the country.
      - tptacek 11y ago
        Ok, I'm being repetitive but also trying to simplify: Conservatives make up the core opposition to return-free filing. Conservatives definitionally do not want more taxation, or complicated taxation. So I'm not sure the notion that Intuit's lobbying has killed return-free filing holds up.
        makomk 11y ago
        Conservatives want lower tax rates. One common conservative argument is that if you tax less, businesses will expand more and you may even make more in taxes overall.
        tptacek 11y ago
        That's valid, but the nuance I left out of my comment was the common conservative belief that the government is simply too big, and that by cutting taxes, we can starve it back to an appropriate size. Many conservatives would not be happy with a more efficient mechanism to generate the same revenue we get today.
- michaelt 11y ago
  why aren't people just Kickstarter-ing cannabis decriminalization, marriage equality, and copyright law changes? I would imagine it's a lot cheaper to bribe a politician when: 1. The bribe doesn't get any publicity/press coverage/cause any embarrassment. Campaign donations from big corporations are "business as usual" and the politicians don't look corrupt in the press - but do the same way in a public, attention-grabbing way and the guy looks bad if he accepts. 2. The vote you want to affect is low key and doesn't contradict the politician's public position on major issues. Changing a politician's opinion on the Concrete Masonry Products Research Education and Promotion Act of 2015 would be much cheaper than changing their opinion on overturning Roe vs Wade 3. You want to maintain the status quo. Creating new legislation and getting it through the system is a bunch of work - compared to turning up on the vote day and saying 'no'. 4. There are future votes and future bribes to look forward to. If I give a politician $200,000 to vote a certain way, he might take the donation then vote a different way - and if I ask him to vote that way and promise him the money afterwards, I might refuse to pay after he votes. But if there are 10 votes and I donate $20,000 before each one if he voted how I wanted in the last vote? Then neither of us can screw the other over too badly because we know we'll be making the same deal next year. 5. There's aren't other well-funded lobbyists bidding against you. Because if there are you'll need to get into a bidding war and they might have a lot of money to throw around. If people who vote against copyright extension get $20,000 from me but people who vote for it get $50,000 from Disney I'm going to need to up my game - and Disney probably has pretty deep pockets. TLDR: I'd expect cannabis decriminalisation or copyright law reform to cost a lot more than blocking tax code simplification. With that said, if someone would like to organise an attempt I certainly think it would be interesting to see if a kickstarter-like approach would work.
  - reviseddamage 11y ago
    tbh, i think he may not have been serious about the kickstarter analogy.
  - fredkbloggs 11y ago
    It's even simpler, really, and a classic and well-researched defect in representative democracy. Any time there is an interest group (which can be one person, one corporation, an industry, etc.) that wants something that is highly advantageous to itself and costs a very large number of other people a very small amount of money each, that interest group will always pay a small portion of its benefit to politicians for support, and politicians will always support it. This is because it's not worthwhile for millions of individuals to band together and defeat something that costs each one only a few cents. Literally, the time it takes (whether to make a donation, write a letter, or make whatever other trivial contribution) exceeds the value of shutting down the special interest. Intuit likes income-tax returns and tax laws in general that are complex. But there are hundreds of other special interests, most very narrow, that favor specific bits of the tax code and will lobby to keep them. Collectively, these things cost us trillions of dollars, but individually they are impossible to defeat because no single one is large enough to be worthwhile. This happens in all representative democracies where tax law is set by the legislature. There are ways to avoid it, but there is currently no state that has tried to do so (probably because this problem is extremely profitable for the political industry).
- patio11 11y ago
  If I can elaborate on that concern a bit: if government is allowed to be loud about transfer payments and quiet about taxes then it can successfully bribe the middle class with their own money. It is entirely possible to run a tax system without W-2 employees having to do a return at all. Many nations do it. American conservatives strongly prefer a government which is not sized like the government of those nations.
  - guelo 11y ago
    Causing extra suffering for millions of people just to make a political point is straight up evil in my book.
    - khuey 11y ago
      Not to mention it doesn't work. A lot of people think tax returns are free money from the government.
    - tptacek 11y ago
      Is there anyone on this thread that would disagree with that? Hurting people to make a political point is immoral. I don't think anyone is advocating for that.
      - guelo 11y ago
        Huh? That is exactly what these conservatives are advocating. Make tax filing maximally painful to make a political point
        jerrac 11y ago
        If by painful, you mean making sure everyone knows exactly how much money they are paying in taxes, then yes, Conservatives want that. If you mean we want to make it hard to file taxes, as in make it complicated to figure out your tax return, and so on, then I'll have to ask where you got that idea. Most of the tax reform rhetoric I've seen is based on making it simpler to pay taxes, while at the same time more obvious how much you are paying.
- crdoconnor 11y ago
  >If $2.3MM/yr over 5 years is enough to reshape the trajectory of fundamental laws in this country, why aren't people just Kickstarter-ing cannabis decriminalization, marriage equality, and copyright law changes? Not all political battles are equal. 1) There are lobbies dedicated to keeping cannabis illegal and marriage unequal. There aren't any lobbies dedicated to keeping taxes simple. 2) It's easier to kill proposed legislation than it is to propose new legislation and get it passed.
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
- protomyth 11y ago
  > There is real conservative opposition to return-free filing. For instance, conservatives in general think the tax code is both too complex and too onerous. In a return-free system, citizens are given a summarized bill and encouraged not to consider the line items. The concern is that the bill is unfair, and the less citizens have it shoved in their face, the less likely we are to get a fairer tax code. I'm a conservative, and I do believe the tax code is complex and onerous. Its made that way by lobbyists trying to get their special deals, and politicians using a revenue generation mechanism to push behavior. The thought that its is only Intuit's 2.3MM/yr keeping the tax code complex is a bit bogus. There are many industries that rely on the current tax code's deductions and complexities to survive. The amount of money by companies, unions, and NGOs is staggering. They are backed by the helpful idiots in the media that continually preach that any tax code change is an assault on the poor. Even showing no understanding of basic math when deduction + flat rate taxes are suggested. And yes, since I barely trust government accounting, having been the victim of a $1,000+ mistake which took a long time to resolve and hurt quite a bit and growing up under Indian Health Service, I don't believe in a return-free system. The thought anyone would take "trust us" from the IRS (or any government agency) is so foreign to my thinking, I just don't understand how it would work. I believe in a flat rate tax with a larger base deductible with no social, moral, or lobbyist driven deductions. The IRS should have no political or social ties. It is there to raise revenue, nothing else.
  - glesica 11y ago
    > Even showing no understanding of basic math when deduction + flat rate taxes are suggested. As a left-winger, my views and yours probably aren't that far off. I would be fine with a flat tax (that was actually collected from everyone) and a large deductible. Even more so if it was coupled with a meaningful basic income guarantee. The problem is that I don't actually believe politicians when they say that is what they will do. With all the talk about "job creators", it really, truly sounds as though the modern GOP actually wants a regressive system where the rich pay almost nothing and there is no deductible because the poor need to pay their "fair share" (whatever that means). So it isn't that we don't understand math. My preferred tax code probably looks surprisingly similar to your preferred tax code, I just don't trust any of your politicians to actually move us in that direction (and for the record, it's not like I trust HRC to do any better).
- EGreg 11y ago
  Corporate lobbying against change always costs less.
- seiji 11y ago
  My point is: that's not a lot of money. It's called the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tullock_paradox https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tullock_paradox — "the low costs of rent-seeking relative to the gains from rent-seeking." Influencing individuals is relatively cheap. You just have to overwhelm them. Our laws are made by a limited group of individuals. Ergo, influencing laws is relatively cheap once you've got a few million dollars to burn and can gain billions off the results.
  - tptacek 11y ago
    I do not believe that sweeping US federal tax reform is a matter of a few million dollars of lobbying. I believe that a few million dollars can get you a bunch of state court judges, and even that the state government that can be influenced by lobbying expenditures might be "where all the real governing is happening". I do not believe the narrative that Intuit's pitiful lobbying expenditure is stunting our tax system. If the disclosure in ProPublica had been that Intuit was spending 10x, 20x more than that --- and it has the resources to do that --- I'd believe it more. As it stands, the specifics revealed by ProPublica make me less concerned about Intuit's influence. For what it's worth: I'd like a return-free IRS.
- jerrac 11y ago
  Yes, from [1], I would never support return free filing. The tax code is far too complicated, and the IRS far too inept for me to trust that they would not screw my taxes up. That said, if we went to a flat tax, or a national sales tax, or something else that drastically simplifies the tax code, then the issue would be moot. And most of those simplifications would be supported by Conservatives. (Note, I mean real Conservatives, many of the politicians who say they are conservative really aren't.) [1]http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/briefing-book/improve/return-free/what-is.cfm http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/briefing-book/improve/return-...
  - bradleyjg 11y ago
    If "flat tax" only means go to a single income bracket and percentage, it would not simplify the tax code much at all. The progressive part of tax code involves a single lookup at the end. The complexity exists almost entirely in tax expenditures -- deductions, exclusions, credits, etc., etc., etc. I don't know what "real Conservatives" think, but in polling many tax expenditures do very well. For example, 68% of Republicans, 63% of Democrats, and 58% of Independents oppose it eliminating the home mortgage interest deduction. (http://www.scribd.com/doc/117298635/CBS-News-Poll-Fiscal-Cliff http://www.scribd.com/doc/117298635/CBS-News-Poll-Fiscal-Cli... Q47)
    - jerrac 11y ago
      > The complexity exists almost entirely in tax expenditures -- deductions, exclusions, credits, etc., etc., etc. I'm not sure what everyone else thinks, but any flat tax I'd support would have to do away with all of those things. And I'm pretty sure most of my conservative friends would agree. In that poll you linked to, see the "Which Type of Plan Do You Prefer?" question 42. Republicans favored eliminating more deductions. Also, that survey is really bad. In q44-51, they didn't mention cutting spending at all. Change: "q51 (In order to reduce the budget deficit, would you favor or oppose) Reducing some government programs and services that benefit people like you?" to "q51 (In order to reduce the budget deficit, would you favor or oppose) Cutting spending on some government programs and services that benefit people like you?" I expect a lot more Republican responses would favor that idea. And they should at least have mentioned reforming social security and medicare/aid.
- bitwarrior 11y ago
  Dan Carlin in his Common Sense podcast aired the episode [Kickstarting the Revolution](http://www.dancarlin.com/product/common-sense-282-kickstarting-revolution/ http://www.dancarlin.com/product/common-sense-282-kickstarti...) where he suggests that, being that the game is what it is (regarding campaign financing, lobbying and other such means of influencing political outcomes and the use of money), while we may not agree with the game, we should at least, as citizens, play the game. If people have donated over $65 million to get Star Citizen developed, one would imagine the public could easily finance...broader causes. And considering $2.3 million over 5 years is enough to influence lawmakers to continually reject tax code reform, it seems getting something passed would be less costly and a one-time affair. I almost like to imagine a political party or super pac with public causes (you name it) itemized its willing to support, with a donation page for each, taking that money and doing the very same thing corporations do, but effectively on behalf of citizens.
rayiner 11y ago
Let's say hypothetically that Crate and Barrel spent a few million lobbying on behalf of gay marriage, on the theory that the uptick in marriages would be good for business. anything wrong with that? This isn't an obscure issue where a small amount of lobbying is going to push legislation in favor of a small interest group. It's literally one of the most scrutinized and contentious issues on the political table. NB: the conservative opposition to tax free filing exists and isn't illogical. I for one do my own taxes each year, and the rage induced by thinking about the mortgage interest deduction is sufficient to keep me from voting for another cycle.

femto113 11y ago

Doesn't say in the article but I assume they are keeping Mint? Desktop apps like Quicken (and the similar Microsoft Money) were dead to me the minute that came on the scene (almost 9 years ago at this point).

weinzierl 11y ago
I'm a happy user of many web-based services, but why would anyone give all their personal financial data to single company? Ok, the success of Mint proves me wrong, I just don't get it. It's not only that they can use your data to build and sell a profile, there is a realistic chance that the data gets leaked.
- beagle3 11y ago
  wesabe[0] can supposedly by run on your own server; not sure if there are any forks that are useful/updated, and have never tried it myself. I'm with you. Can't figure out how millions of people just give away every piece of information about themselves with hardly a second thought (financial data -> mint; phonebook -> whatsapp=facebook; mail -> gmail=google; etc.) [0] https://github.com/wesabe https://github.com/wesabe
- digitalzombie 11y ago
  > Ok, the success of Mint proves me wrong, I just don't get it. Well for one thing people are lazy and Mint devs actually take care of handling logins for all of those banks, credit cards companies, and credit unions. I'm not entirely sure if there's any other alternative non web base software that can do this. I would assume those apis are different between all those companies. Sure I can input my stuff manually but then again I'm lazy.
  - joshyeager 11y ago
    Quicken can download transactions from every bank I've used. From what I can tell, it uses the same APIs that Mint does. But the data is never stored anywhere but my home server.

euroclydon 11y ago

I still love Microsoft Money for personal finances. A large DB can get slow, but an SSD fixes that. Plus, it's free: http://www.microsoft.com/en-us/search/Results.aspx?q=microsoft%20money&form=DLC http://www.microsoft.com/en-us/search/Results.aspx?q=microso...

akgoel 11y ago
I could not get money to install on windows 10
steverb 11y ago
Money doesn't work on Windows 10. Or at least, I couldn't get it to work for me.
- brevacor 11y ago
  FWIW, I was able to install on Windows 10 and create a new Money database. I didn't try any operations beyond that, but it seemed to install and work ok for me.
- scholia 11y ago
  Apparently it needs a small registry change: https://social.microsoft.com/Forums/en-US/479281b2-90f9-42ca-85f7-644fc6e1e5c3/download-microsoft-money-installation-files-solve-activation-and-some-other-errors?forum=money https://social.microsoft.com/Forums/en-US/479281b2-90f9-42ca... Note: I don't use Money and I have not done it.

pgrote 11y ago

What is a good, active cloud based personal finance software service? The ones I have come across look ok, but aren't actively developed.

cddotdotslash 11y ago
Most of the suggestions I've seen are either Mint (another Intuit product), Personal Capital (more investing focused), Hello Wallet (a bit lacking on features, but it connects to bank accounts), and PocketSmith (a really expensive Mint on steroids).
cdcarter 11y ago
YNAB has dropbox synch and it's ideal.
- jerrac 11y ago
  YNAB is definitely a good product. I use it, and got my brother and parents to use it as well. My only complaint is that I'd rather not rely on a third party like dropbox for sync, and I'd like a Linux version.
raesene9 11y ago
Money Manager EX is what I use http://www.moneymanagerex.org/ http://www.moneymanagerex.org/ . Free Cross-platform, works fine for what I need it for
zo1 11y ago
If you have the patience and willingness to learn some basic and not-so-basic acccounting principles: I'd suggest GNUCash (http://www.gnucash.org/ http://www.gnucash.org/)
kentnek 11y ago
I've been using Money Lover for a while now and it's actually really good! The UI is nice and intuitive, there're lots of features and it doesn't require bank connections to work.

rlvesco7 11y ago

It would be awesome if financial companies were required to provide free api's along with the full financial history. Currently companies like BOA charge you for automated access to your account and others actively limit Mint, for instance, from retrieving information on behalf of customers.

kumarm 11y ago

Demand Force one of the asset they are trying to sell was acquired just 3 years ago for 450 Million. You would think executives making these decisions will have some consequences :).

e40 11y ago

I switched from Quicken to Moneydance some time ago. The export/import worked fine. I had been a Quicken customer a 10-15 years and I was just so infuriated with all the UI churn to justify the upgrades and their turning off online transactions after a few years, FOR NO REASON. MD is written in Java, it's simple, it's supported, they come out with new versions, and you can upgrade if you want. I am not at all affiliated with the company that makes Moneydance. Just a completely satisfied customer who didn't want to pay Intuit another penny, for the rest of my life.

bitcuration 11y ago

The tax law should be as simple as this: there is a BGI (basic guaranteed income) and every dollar above at a fix percentage regardless how wealthier you are.