5 ms·

The government needs to fix the problem that it's so difficult to know what you're required to pay without just paying the maximum guess (and then pay more ahea

The government needs to fix the problem that it's so difficult to know what you're required to pay without just paying the maximum guess (and then pay more ahead of time to avoid penalties). I've reported an instance of 2 conflicting statements in 2 separate IRS forms to the IRS, and rather than clarifying what was required they referred me to a tax advisor, who also didn't know the answer to the question. So we took the more liberal guess, and filed. And then had to rework it anyway because the law for how much tax I was required to pay in 2017 changed in 2018 anyway. The principles that we consider "rule of law" don't seem to apply to tax law.

s73v3r_ 9y ago
It's not the government's fault you lost track of your records.
- TallGuyShort 9y ago
  I'm not even talking about that - parent comment talks about requirements that are literally impossible to comply with, and I talk about laws that are put into place after a tax year ends and apply retroactively, and official documents that contradict one another and the inability to get an official explanation from the government prior to the filing deadline. How is any of that even remotely "losing track of my records"? edit: Let me be even more detailed. I had to have my accountant rework my taxes 3 times. Once because of a retroactive law change after the end of the tax year. Once because of the inconsistency I discovered in official documents. And once because ETrade's documents and my employer's conflicted. Both of the latter were prepared by professionals. That's pretty typical of my filings. If it's so complex that all of that is fairly routine, that IS the government's problem. I have no problem keeping track of my own records; in fact my own record keeping and fastidiousness led to the discovery of all 3 of those problems.
  - adrianratnapala 9y ago
    > in fact my own record keeping and fastidiousness led to the discovery of all 3 of those problems. Does that mean it might be safer to be less fastidious so that no-one can uncover records that never existed?
    - TallGuyShort 9y ago
      The records exist in all these cases. I operate under the assumption that the IRS is better at noticing these discrepancies than I am and that the cost of reworking it with my accountant is less than the cost of getting audited by an agency that gets off on this.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
cmurf 9y ago
This is a direct consequence of productizing things that should be rights. i.e. justice, education, accounting, health care, infrastructure. Making justice a product rather than a right means if you can afford a better lawyer, you get better justice. If you can afford a better accountant and tax layers, you can pay less tax. If you can make yourself not black or brown, or not show up in court and just have lawyers fight for you, you get better justice. Republicans absolutely, unequivocally, believe in class. Better people have more money. Period. They can buy better products with that money - otherwise there's no point in being wealthier than others. Democrats are kinda sorta sometimes maybe occasionally OK with this but then abruptly not OK when the political winds change a bit. The party of ambiguous ethics are the Democrats. The aristocrats' party is the Republicans. Directly asked, both party types lie. But if you look at a few dozen policy positions an individual policians has, with emphasis on the less conventional (the ones with ready talking points) ones, it's really easy to triangulate their positions and contradictions - for a political scientist.

s73v3r_ 9y ago

It's not the government's fault you lost track of your records.

TallGuyShort 9y ago
I'm not even talking about that - parent comment talks about requirements that are literally impossible to comply with, and I talk about laws that are put into place after a tax year ends and apply retroactively, and official documents that contradict one another and the inability to get an official explanation from the government prior to the filing deadline. How is any of that even remotely "losing track of my records"? edit: Let me be even more detailed. I had to have my accountant rework my taxes 3 times. Once because of a retroactive law change after the end of the tax year. Once because of the inconsistency I discovered in official documents. And once because ETrade's documents and my employer's conflicted. Both of the latter were prepared by professionals. That's pretty typical of my filings. If it's so complex that all of that is fairly routine, that IS the government's problem. I have no problem keeping track of my own records; in fact my own record keeping and fastidiousness led to the discovery of all 3 of those problems.
- adrianratnapala 9y ago
  > in fact my own record keeping and fastidiousness led to the discovery of all 3 of those problems. Does that mean it might be safer to be less fastidious so that no-one can uncover records that never existed?
  - TallGuyShort 9y ago
    The records exist in all these cases. I operate under the assumption that the IRS is better at noticing these discrepancies than I am and that the cost of reworking it with my accountant is less than the cost of getting audited by an agency that gets off on this.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

cmurf 9y ago

This is a direct consequence of productizing things that should be rights. i.e. justice, education, accounting, health care, infrastructure. Making justice a product rather than a right means if you can afford a better lawyer, you get better justice. If you can afford a better accountant and tax layers, you can pay less tax. If you can make yourself not black or brown, or not show up in court and just have lawyers fight for you, you get better justice. Republicans absolutely, unequivocally, believe in class. Better people have more money. Period. They can buy better products with that money - otherwise there's no point in being wealthier than others. Democrats are kinda sorta sometimes maybe occasionally OK with this but then abruptly not OK when the political winds change a bit. The party of ambiguous ethics are the Democrats. The aristocrats' party is the Republicans. Directly asked, both party types lie. But if you look at a few dozen policy positions an individual policians has, with emphasis on the less conventional (the ones with ready talking points) ones, it's really easy to triangulate their positions and contradictions - for a political scientist.