6 ms·

This quote is just another example of willful misunderstanding of issues by the people in Congress. They don't even try to understand an issue but stick to some

This quote is just another example of willful misunderstanding of issues by the people in Congress. They don't even try to understand an issue but stick to some talking points that make sense only on the surface. It's really infuriating that such idiots are allowed to participate in the discussion of important issues. The same happens in health care. If the IRS sent a pre-prepared tax return it would give the tax payer an advantage because the IRS would give away what it already knows. In the current situation the tax payer sends a return and the IRS compares it to the data they already have. The tax payer doesn't know what the IRS knows though.

yborg 9y ago
"It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!" In the very article, it's noted that Roskam was the direct recipient of campaign contributions from Intuit and H&R Block. To me, this is plain anti-establishment pandering, and ironic in that the anti-establishment movement was once considered the domain of radical leftists. That the people are better off having their taxes calculated by for-profit corporations that directly donate to the individuals who control the government seems counter-intuitive to me.
- tzs 9y ago
  > In the very article, it's noted that Roskam was the direct recipient of campaign contributions from Intuit and H&R Block. The contribution from Intuit was $13 600 over 10 years. During that same period there was also $21 200 from individuals who worked for Intuit. If we count all of that as being Intuit, that's a total of $34 800 over 10 years. For H&R Block, it was $2 500. If $3.7k/year is enough to buy a Congressman's vote, a handful of middle class people in the district should be able to get together and easily afford to counter that. For a group of 10 like minded people, that's only $31/month each. I think people generally get the causality wrong on the relationship between campaign contributions and the positions or votes of the politician. The politicians don't set their positions based on campaign contributions. It's usually the other way around--the contributors chose where to place their contributions based on the known positions and past votes of the politician. If that is not known, they place contributions based on party, on the assumption that the politician is going to generally go along with the party.
  - praneshp 9y ago
    > "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!" I guess this part of your parent's comment was true!
  - maxxxxx 9y ago
    "The politicians don't set their positions based on campaign contributions. It's usually the other way around--the contributors chose where to place their contributions based on the known positions and past votes of the politician." That's how it should be but often it's the other way around. Don't forget that most laws get written by lobbyists and the politicians are just a front for them. There are few issues where the people in Congress have their own opinion but there are lots of other issues where a well spoken lobbyist with some cash has a big influence. I agree that the contributions are really low. That why lobbying has a huge rate of return. You can get billions in tax breaks for a few million in expense.
    - rayiner 9y ago
      Your conclusion makes no sense. If you can get “billions in tax breaks for a few million in expense,” then every money manager who isn’t investing in campaign contributions is breaching their fiduciary duties. As a general economic principle, investment opportunities that return 1000x don’t just sit around, they get arbitraged until the rate of return drops to match the risk. The fact that campaign contributions are so small relative to the amount of money affected by these decisions is powerful evidence that they have extremely attenuated influence on the results. @tzs’s theory makes much more sense: companies contribute to the candidates that are ideologically predisposed to them in hopes of ensuring they keep their seats.
- siruncledrew 9y ago
  Campaign donations are the only logical explanation for a government employee, of all people, giving such a retarded statement. Why would it be better for citizens to not know their taxes, while the government clearly does know (or else how could they verify), and then have the citizen go through a confusing-as-fuck, detailed process before finally coming back to the government with their best guess in amount due? I can see where cases like business expenses may still have to be itemized by the citizen, but for someone with just a W2 (and maybe an IRA) getting an itemized bill from the government would be so much more convenient (as some countries in Europe do) rather than going through all the paperwork associated with taxes. The level of understanding required to correctly file taxes is also a huge burden on all the people who are young, poor, uneducated, or immigrants (which is why even online filing with TurboTax is still not easy). No wonder why there are so many tax preparation offices in the cities from companies like H&R Block ready to suck up all their refunds....
  - vonmoltke 9y ago
    > Campaign donations are the only logical explanation for a government employee, of all people, giving such a retarded statement. Perhaps the only logical one that fits your worldview. There are many people here who believe that statement, and it is not preposterous that such people would elect someone who agrees with them. > Why would it be better for citizens to not know their taxes, while the government clearly does know (or else how could they verify), and then have the citizen go through a confusing-as-fuck, detailed process before finally coming back to the government with their best guess in amount due? The government does not know, or have the ability to easily verify, this information. Why do you think it "clearly" does? The IRS only audits a small fraction of returns, gives itself several years to do so, and invests significant manual labor in each. I can see where cases like business expenses may still have to be itemized by the citizen, but for someone with just a W2 (and maybe an IRA) getting an itemized bill from the government would be so much more convenient (as some countries in Europe do) rather than going through all the paperwork associated with taxes. The majority of Americans need to file two returns every year. A significant minority, like me, need to file three. These separate tax authorities do not communicate very well with each other and have different taxation rules. Ly understanding of most, if not all, European systems is that there is a single, central taxation authority. I don't see how you make this pre-filled form work otherwise. Also worth noting that, for an American "with just a W2 (and maybe an IRA)" the form is short and takes, at most, 20 minutes to complete. In fact, my taxes aren't even complicated enough to warrant tax software. I only buy it because it lets me file my federal and NY returns electronically for free and I find paying $35 worth it to avoid the hassle of certified mail and manually writing everything out. > The level of understanding required to correctly file taxes is also a huge burden on all the people who are young, poor, uneducated, or immigrants (which is why even online filing with TurboTax is still not easy). I find the instructions to me more complicated than they need to be. That said, the understanding required to complete forms 1040EZ and 1040A (which is what almost everyone in those groups should be using) is not nearly as great as only believed.
telchar 9y ago
That's an interesting point you bring up. By holding their cards to their chest, the IRS ensures there is significant risk in tax evasion. If they were to send out a pre-prepared return, any mistake the IRS made there in a filer's favor would be much less likely to be caught as long as the filer went along with it. By not revealing in advance what they know they incentivize the filer to be honest and thorough.
- maxxxxx 9y ago
  That means antitax people should be for such proposals not against.
  - lindasteve 9y ago
    Need a hacker? i was in a bit of some really embarrassing cyber issues which led me to meeting some scammers as well but my will to solve my issue eventually paid off when i met him, his work-rate,professionalism and discretion is top class.Hit him up at hectornovahackers@gmail.com.
  - bhauer 9y ago
    I think many or most anti-tax people do indeed favor proposals that simplify the process of paying taxes. I wouldn't call myself "anti-tax," but I definitely prefer to pay lower taxes, and as few flavors of tax as possible, so maybe that meets the definition you had in mind. I dislike paying income tax in significant part thanks to the painful process we use in the US. And that painful process is principally due to the complexity of our tax law and the IRS treating all taxpayers as guilty of fraud by default, expecting each to prove otherwise. Given the modern surveillance state, the IRS could send most of us a form saying, "We know you owe $X more than you had deducted; pay up, citizen." But they do not. In fact, for most of us, the IRS could more seamlessly handle our withholdings so that April 15 is a complete non-event, but they don't do that either. Basically, they don't provide services to taxpayers. We're not customers.
    - maxxxxx 9y ago
      I am not sure what you are trying to say here in regards to the IRS sending a prefilled tax return bass in their knowledge and you then being able make corrections as you see fit.
gbacon 9y ago
Politicians call it “staying on message.” Answer the questions you want to answer, and for the ones you don’t, answer what they should have asked. True and false don’t matter but how confidently and steadfastly you stick to your position.
- maxxxxx 9y ago
  Reminds me of the typical middle manager in a corporation. Best way to survive is to just confidently repeat what the top guys tell you and change your opinion based on political trends.
lindasteve 9y ago
Need a hacker? i was in a bit of some really embarrassing cyber issues which led me to meeting some scammers as well but my will to solve my issue eventually paid off when i met him, his work-rate,professionalism and discretion is top class.Hit him up at hectornovahackers@gmail.com.
blunte 9y ago
What you just described applies to almost every consideration that Congress makes. In most cases they know nothing about what they discuss. But in fact, nowadays they really don't discuss much - they just take prepared bills from lobby groups and ram them through using the power of majority. At least since Obama took office, and the GOP side openly declared that their primary goal was to make Obama a one term president, there has been comparatively little actual work going on in the legislative branch. (That's not to say that both sides are not in bed with corporations, however.)
- maxxxxx 9y ago
  I think it was already in the 90s or since Bush 43 that the parties declared each other as enemies that can't be talked to. I still remember listening to back then House Speaker DeLay who openly declared in along interview that the other side was the enemy and that there was no room for negotiation and the only possible outcome was full victory. That was pretty shocking to me expressed to openly.
  - blunte 9y ago
    The thing is, that kind of talk and behavior should result in immediate firing and replacement. These people are employees of the government that is paid for by the people, and they are supposed to be servants of the public (interest). By openly stating that they will not do their job, they are admitting that they are unfit for the position. Can any employee of a company imagine the outcome if they told their boss, "No, I'm not doing any work that involves my colleague Bob (that I hate)."
    - maxxxxx 9y ago
      " The thing is, that kind of talk and behavior should result in immediate firing and replacement. These people are employees of the government that is paid for by the people, and they are supposed to be servants of the public (interest). By openly stating that they will not do their job, they are admitting that they are unfit for the position." Unfortunately a lot of people have bought into the "the other side is evil" nonsense. So they are doing their job.

yborg 9y ago

"It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!" In the very article, it's noted that Roskam was the direct recipient of campaign contributions from Intuit and H&R Block. To me, this is plain anti-establishment pandering, and ironic in that the anti-establishment movement was once considered the domain of radical leftists. That the people are better off having their taxes calculated by for-profit corporations that directly donate to the individuals who control the government seems counter-intuitive to me.

tzs 9y ago
> In the very article, it's noted that Roskam was the direct recipient of campaign contributions from Intuit and H&R Block. The contribution from Intuit was $13 600 over 10 years. During that same period there was also $21 200 from individuals who worked for Intuit. If we count all of that as being Intuit, that's a total of $34 800 over 10 years. For H&R Block, it was $2 500. If $3.7k/year is enough to buy a Congressman's vote, a handful of middle class people in the district should be able to get together and easily afford to counter that. For a group of 10 like minded people, that's only $31/month each. I think people generally get the causality wrong on the relationship between campaign contributions and the positions or votes of the politician. The politicians don't set their positions based on campaign contributions. It's usually the other way around--the contributors chose where to place their contributions based on the known positions and past votes of the politician. If that is not known, they place contributions based on party, on the assumption that the politician is going to generally go along with the party.
- praneshp 9y ago
  > "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!" I guess this part of your parent's comment was true!
- maxxxxx 9y ago
  "The politicians don't set their positions based on campaign contributions. It's usually the other way around--the contributors chose where to place their contributions based on the known positions and past votes of the politician." That's how it should be but often it's the other way around. Don't forget that most laws get written by lobbyists and the politicians are just a front for them. There are few issues where the people in Congress have their own opinion but there are lots of other issues where a well spoken lobbyist with some cash has a big influence. I agree that the contributions are really low. That why lobbying has a huge rate of return. You can get billions in tax breaks for a few million in expense.
  - rayiner 9y ago
    Your conclusion makes no sense. If you can get “billions in tax breaks for a few million in expense,” then every money manager who isn’t investing in campaign contributions is breaching their fiduciary duties. As a general economic principle, investment opportunities that return 1000x don’t just sit around, they get arbitraged until the rate of return drops to match the risk. The fact that campaign contributions are so small relative to the amount of money affected by these decisions is powerful evidence that they have extremely attenuated influence on the results. @tzs’s theory makes much more sense: companies contribute to the candidates that are ideologically predisposed to them in hopes of ensuring they keep their seats.
siruncledrew 9y ago
Campaign donations are the only logical explanation for a government employee, of all people, giving such a retarded statement. Why would it be better for citizens to not know their taxes, while the government clearly does know (or else how could they verify), and then have the citizen go through a confusing-as-fuck, detailed process before finally coming back to the government with their best guess in amount due? I can see where cases like business expenses may still have to be itemized by the citizen, but for someone with just a W2 (and maybe an IRA) getting an itemized bill from the government would be so much more convenient (as some countries in Europe do) rather than going through all the paperwork associated with taxes. The level of understanding required to correctly file taxes is also a huge burden on all the people who are young, poor, uneducated, or immigrants (which is why even online filing with TurboTax is still not easy). No wonder why there are so many tax preparation offices in the cities from companies like H&R Block ready to suck up all their refunds....
- vonmoltke 9y ago
  > Campaign donations are the only logical explanation for a government employee, of all people, giving such a retarded statement. Perhaps the only logical one that fits your worldview. There are many people here who believe that statement, and it is not preposterous that such people would elect someone who agrees with them. > Why would it be better for citizens to not know their taxes, while the government clearly does know (or else how could they verify), and then have the citizen go through a confusing-as-fuck, detailed process before finally coming back to the government with their best guess in amount due? The government does not know, or have the ability to easily verify, this information. Why do you think it "clearly" does? The IRS only audits a small fraction of returns, gives itself several years to do so, and invests significant manual labor in each. I can see where cases like business expenses may still have to be itemized by the citizen, but for someone with just a W2 (and maybe an IRA) getting an itemized bill from the government would be so much more convenient (as some countries in Europe do) rather than going through all the paperwork associated with taxes. The majority of Americans need to file two returns every year. A significant minority, like me, need to file three. These separate tax authorities do not communicate very well with each other and have different taxation rules. Ly understanding of most, if not all, European systems is that there is a single, central taxation authority. I don't see how you make this pre-filled form work otherwise. Also worth noting that, for an American "with just a W2 (and maybe an IRA)" the form is short and takes, at most, 20 minutes to complete. In fact, my taxes aren't even complicated enough to warrant tax software. I only buy it because it lets me file my federal and NY returns electronically for free and I find paying $35 worth it to avoid the hassle of certified mail and manually writing everything out. > The level of understanding required to correctly file taxes is also a huge burden on all the people who are young, poor, uneducated, or immigrants (which is why even online filing with TurboTax is still not easy). I find the instructions to me more complicated than they need to be. That said, the understanding required to complete forms 1040EZ and 1040A (which is what almost everyone in those groups should be using) is not nearly as great as only believed.

telchar 9y ago

That's an interesting point you bring up. By holding their cards to their chest, the IRS ensures there is significant risk in tax evasion. If they were to send out a pre-prepared return, any mistake the IRS made there in a filer's favor would be much less likely to be caught as long as the filer went along with it. By not revealing in advance what they know they incentivize the filer to be honest and thorough.

maxxxxx 9y ago
That means antitax people should be for such proposals not against.
- lindasteve 9y ago
  Need a hacker? i was in a bit of some really embarrassing cyber issues which led me to meeting some scammers as well but my will to solve my issue eventually paid off when i met him, his work-rate,professionalism and discretion is top class.Hit him up at hectornovahackers@gmail.com.
- bhauer 9y ago
  I think many or most anti-tax people do indeed favor proposals that simplify the process of paying taxes. I wouldn't call myself "anti-tax," but I definitely prefer to pay lower taxes, and as few flavors of tax as possible, so maybe that meets the definition you had in mind. I dislike paying income tax in significant part thanks to the painful process we use in the US. And that painful process is principally due to the complexity of our tax law and the IRS treating all taxpayers as guilty of fraud by default, expecting each to prove otherwise. Given the modern surveillance state, the IRS could send most of us a form saying, "We know you owe $X more than you had deducted; pay up, citizen." But they do not. In fact, for most of us, the IRS could more seamlessly handle our withholdings so that April 15 is a complete non-event, but they don't do that either. Basically, they don't provide services to taxpayers. We're not customers.
  - maxxxxx 9y ago
    I am not sure what you are trying to say here in regards to the IRS sending a prefilled tax return bass in their knowledge and you then being able make corrections as you see fit.

gbacon 9y ago

Politicians call it “staying on message.” Answer the questions you want to answer, and for the ones you don’t, answer what they should have asked. True and false don’t matter but how confidently and steadfastly you stick to your position.

maxxxxx 9y ago
Reminds me of the typical middle manager in a corporation. Best way to survive is to just confidently repeat what the top guys tell you and change your opinion based on political trends.

lindasteve 9y ago

Need a hacker? i was in a bit of some really embarrassing cyber issues which led me to meeting some scammers as well but my will to solve my issue eventually paid off when i met him, his work-rate,professionalism and discretion is top class.Hit him up at hectornovahackers@gmail.com.

blunte 9y ago

What you just described applies to almost every consideration that Congress makes. In most cases they know nothing about what they discuss. But in fact, nowadays they really don't discuss much - they just take prepared bills from lobby groups and ram them through using the power of majority. At least since Obama took office, and the GOP side openly declared that their primary goal was to make Obama a one term president, there has been comparatively little actual work going on in the legislative branch. (That's not to say that both sides are not in bed with corporations, however.)

maxxxxx 9y ago
I think it was already in the 90s or since Bush 43 that the parties declared each other as enemies that can't be talked to. I still remember listening to back then House Speaker DeLay who openly declared in along interview that the other side was the enemy and that there was no room for negotiation and the only possible outcome was full victory. That was pretty shocking to me expressed to openly.
- blunte 9y ago
  The thing is, that kind of talk and behavior should result in immediate firing and replacement. These people are employees of the government that is paid for by the people, and they are supposed to be servants of the public (interest). By openly stating that they will not do their job, they are admitting that they are unfit for the position. Can any employee of a company imagine the outcome if they told their boss, "No, I'm not doing any work that involves my colleague Bob (that I hate)."
  - maxxxxx 9y ago
    " The thing is, that kind of talk and behavior should result in immediate firing and replacement. These people are employees of the government that is paid for by the people, and they are supposed to be servants of the public (interest). By openly stating that they will not do their job, they are admitting that they are unfit for the position." Unfortunately a lot of people have bought into the "the other side is evil" nonsense. So they are doing their job.