4 ms·
On a meta level, this is a little biased and click-baity: the Trump references, the "abuses of power" mission statement, the emphasis on "the Disabled, the Unem
by basseq 7y ago
On a meta level, this is a little biased and click-baity: the Trump references, the "abuses of power" mission statement, the emphasis on "the Disabled, the Unemployed and Students".
In short, Intuit moved from previously-free features to their paid tiers. This move may have disproportionately affected low-income taxpayers, though—if true—that impact was unintentional, not targeted.[1]
The article cites several different features that were monetized and affect lower-earning taxpayers[2] as well as those affecting higher-end earners[3], but doesn't state that this list is comprehensive, and doesn't prove that impact was disproportionate.
ALL THAT SAID, there's still some crappy dark patterns here, as well as broader tax-ecosystem improvements that would benefit taxpayers that Intuit has fought tooth and nail to block. So I'm certainly not defending Intuit here, but I'd find more objective reporting to be more compelling.
[1] "The income levels of the groups that were being driven to paid products 'was never really considered.'"
[2] "One of these forms was for a tax credit that goes exclusively to poor taxpayers who are elderly or get disability benefits. Another is used by low- to middle-income households that receive a credit for putting money in a retirement account." (Which, if it's what I'm thinking of, applies to above-average earners, too.) "A third is used by taxpayers who collected unemployment benefits." "And then there are people with student loans, who also have to use Deluxe." (Unclear if this is a change.)
[3] "The company’s changes also affected parents who get a credit for child care expenses, as well as people filing the schedule for interest and dividends."
- threezero 7y agoWhy would you say the impact on low-income people was unintentional? Do you think that Intuit would release a tax product without an analysis of who it would affect? It feels like you’re giving Intuit the benefit of the doubt here when numerous sources, including Intuit employees, say that Intuit deliberately set out to increase revenue at the expense of lower income taxpayers.
- basseq 7y agoI'm quoting the article: > “They were always supposed to be customer focused, customer first,” one former staffer said. But the income levels of the groups that were being driven to paid products “was never really considered.” Where's the numerous sources that said Intuit deliberately set out to increase revenue at the [disproportionate] expense of lower income taxpayers (emphasis mine)?
- freeeee 7y agoThis is basic logic. The "Freefile" product is only supposed to be free for lower income people, so when Intuit misdirected everybody to the (non-free) product which they named "Free", they exclusively harmed lower income people, as the higher income people were never entitled to free filing. (that entitlement is due to an agreement with the IRS, where the IRS agreed to limit competition in the tax filing industry in return for the development of free file products). edit: also note that it is absolutely not an accident that Intuit used these names which make it almost impossible to talk about their non-free product which is named Free, and their actually free product which is named Freedom and Freefile.
- basseq 7y agoThat's a good point, and a valid one, but not the central thesis of THIS article. (ProPublica has previously written articles on that.[1]) [1] "But, as ProPublica has been reporting, Intuit has steered eligible customers away from the truly free version, aggressively marketing products that are called “free” even though many customers end up paying."
- freeeee 7y agoIt is absolutely intentional that TurboTax Free is not free and that Turbotax Freefile (which is free in return for the government's promise not to launch a competitor) is noindex'ed.
- basseq 7y agoOh, 100%. Those are some of the "dark patterns" I reference. It is a little shady, and it is a bait-and-switch. I'm not defending that at all.