7 ms·

> There is no reason the IRS shouldn't have a simple, online fillable 1099EZ that makes the calculations and validations for you. It is largely due to Republic

> There is no reason the IRS shouldn't have a simple, online fillable 1099EZ that makes the calculations and validations for you. It is largely due to Republicans that we don't have such a program. Voting matters. https://priceonomics.com/the-stanford-professor-who-fought-the-tax-lobby/ https://priceonomics.com/the-stanford-professor-who-fought-t...

ars 7y ago
Are we reading the same article? Don't invent partisan issues, the article makes it clear it's not a "Republican" thing, it's an Intuit thing.
- TylerE 7y ago
  Did you read it? Intuit lobbied....Republicans.
  - ars 7y ago
    "In 2007, Eric Cantor (a Republican leader) and Zoe Lofgren (a Democrat from Silicon Valley) had introduced a bill to ban return-free filing. Both received contributions from Inuit." And Intuit did not lobby Republicans, it lobbied Grover Norquist.
    - jayd16 7y ago
      You mean the guy that got 95% of GOP congressmen to sign his tax pledge? Lobbying Norquist is lobbying the GOP.
  - Rebelgecko 7y ago
    I suppose the lobbying could be unbalanced, but that wouldn't be consistent with the numbers when you look at campaign contributions (even if you ignore individual contributions). https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/toprecips.php?id=D000026667&cycle=2020 https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/toprecips.php?id=D000026667...
    - TylerE 7y ago
      $68k in contributions vs several million in lobbying. That's not apples and oranges, that's apples and coconuts.
      - 5874-4b22-a4e0 7y ago
        Could be that dem votes are cheaper to buy.
- quasse 7y ago
  FTA: >> That morning, Frommer polled his colleagues in the Assembly and found they were a vote short. No Republicans would vote for the bill, and some Democrats would vote ‘no’ too. >> Once again, Intuit had blocked ReadyReturn. It's definitely an Intuit thing, but being bought by Intuit seems to be a majority Republican thing.
  - ars 7y ago
    > but being bought by Intuit seems to be a majority Republican thing. That's not what the article says though. It says Intuit bought Grover Norquist, who then caused Republicans to vote against it (but not because of money they got). And it says: "In 2007, Eric Cantor (a Republican leader) and Zoe Lofgren (a Democrat from Silicon Valley) had introduced a bill to ban return-free filing. Both received contributions from Inuit."
- ssalazar 7y ago
  The vote for the CA bill was effectively along partisan lines and national opposition to tax filing reform receives significant financial/political support from Grover Norquist.
- cweagans 7y ago
  In the 2004 and 2006 election cycle, Intuit donated substantially more to Republicans than Democrats: https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/totals.php?id=D000026667 https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/totals.php?id=D000026667 Bush campaigned on (among other things) rewriting and simplifying the tax code. Bush's executive order pushing that forward was signed January 2005: https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Executive_Order_13369 https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Executive_Order_13369 Maybe Intuit's donations and lobbying were not caused by that, but doesn't it seem really strange that a popular initiative suddenly changed direction after a big pile of money was given to Republicans? Politicians shouldn't be willing to change their stance for money. It's as much Intuit's fault as it is the people that took the money.
- wy35 7y ago
  The article clearly states that Intuit deliberately used Republicans to lobby against ReadyReturn. Intuit had just given $1 million to a Republican running to unseat John Chiang, an FTB member who supported ReadyReturn. The chair of the FTB, Steve Westly, says the support drummed up by Bankman gave them more political space to vote for a program they felt strongly about. Let's not ignore the fact that the Republican platform fundamentally lines up closer to Intuit's business interests. When Ronald Reagan was governor of California, he opposed a reform that would make paying taxes more seamless on the grounds that “paying taxes should hurt.” ... That morning, Frommer polled his colleagues in the Assembly and found they were a vote short. No Republicans would vote for the bill, and some Democrats would vote ‘no’ too.
polta5025 7y ago
Cool. Maybe when Democrats stop pushing Marxism and unchecked third world immigration (to the detriment of the working class) we can have a conversation about voting based on issues like tax filing.
- lisper 7y ago
  Maybe when republicans stop raising straw man arguments and misrepresenting democratic positions we can have a reasonable conversation about actual issues. Maybe.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
mkhpalm 7y ago
Both parties have been very much in charge of this tax situation in America. Both parties have had many, MANY, majority rule situations over the past decades they could have done anything else about it. Nobody would have been stopping either of them at different points in time if they ever wanted to cash in on their party rhetoric.
- Goronmon 7y ago
  The problem generally comes down to the fact that no Republican is for improving tax filing. So all it takes is for a handful of Democrats to be lobbied to oppose it and even a Democratic majority can't push changes through.
  - briandear 7y ago
    > The problem generally comes down to the fact that no Republican is for improving tax filing. And that’s a lie: https://www.tedcruz.org/postcard/ https://www.tedcruz.org/postcard/ Paul Ryan also proposed something similar. However, Democrats opposed it. Basically if it’s simpler and cheaper taxes, Democrats cry foul. Auto filled forms with the current tax system is just lipstick on a pig.
    - jdashg 7y ago
      No, better filing with the same tax system is empirically a better position. Holding auto-filling hostage to push contentious unrelated systemic changes is dirty, and why we have such gridlock. "I'm willing to allow a wide-consensus change but only if you concede me my very contention change" is not good-faith.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
hanniabu 7y ago
> Voting matters Gerrymandering and voter purging matters
- aidenn0 7y ago
  FWIW, The GOP control of the senate is clearly not due to gerrymandering, or at least not any gerrymandering that happened in the past 100 years. I think gerrymandering is an issue, but it's only a fraction of the reason why representation is not particularly proportional.
  - hanniabu 7y ago
    Of course, there's a long list of items that help rig the system including outdated electoral votes, accepting unlimited funding from big business, the removal of term limits in 1995, and now the rampant gaslighting and spread of false news where the louder voice wins instead of facts coming out on top.
    - rednerrus 7y ago
      I once had a PS professor that liked to say "The problem with our system is the people who vote."
      - ajmurmann 7y ago
        I prefer this Milton Friedman quote, because we cannot make better people: > I do not believe that the solution to our problem is simply to elect the right people. The important thing is to establish a political climate of opinion which will make it politically profitable for the wrong people to do the right thing. Unless it is politically profitable for the wrong people to do the right thing, the right people will not do the right thing either, or it they try, they will shortly be out of office.
      - lidHanteyk 7y ago
        To complement the sibling, here is another Friedman quote which hangs at the top of [0]: > We do not influence the course of events by persuading people that we are right when we make what they regard as radical proposals. Rather, we exert influence by keeping options available when something has to be done at a time of crisis. [0] http://www.erights.org/ http://www.erights.org/
CivBase 7y ago
> It is largely due to Republicans that we don't have such a program. Voting matters. Except I don't get to vote on single issues like this. The US is a republic and I get to vote for leaders who supposedly represent the voting population to which I belong. Problem is, there is never a viable representative who even somewhat closely matches my views on all issues - especially since the parties have so much influence in elections. So it's not very helpful to just imply that I should simply vote for someone else. Voter education is important for issues like this. If an idea becomes popular among a party's voters, the party will start to support that idea, which in turn influences their candidates.

ars 7y ago

Are we reading the same article? Don't invent partisan issues, the article makes it clear it's not a "Republican" thing, it's an Intuit thing.

TylerE 7y ago
Did you read it? Intuit lobbied....Republicans.
- ars 7y ago
  "In 2007, Eric Cantor (a Republican leader) and Zoe Lofgren (a Democrat from Silicon Valley) had introduced a bill to ban return-free filing. Both received contributions from Inuit." And Intuit did not lobby Republicans, it lobbied Grover Norquist.
  - jayd16 7y ago
    You mean the guy that got 95% of GOP congressmen to sign his tax pledge? Lobbying Norquist is lobbying the GOP.
- Rebelgecko 7y ago
  I suppose the lobbying could be unbalanced, but that wouldn't be consistent with the numbers when you look at campaign contributions (even if you ignore individual contributions). https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/toprecips.php?id=D000026667&cycle=2020 https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/toprecips.php?id=D000026667...
  - TylerE 7y ago
    $68k in contributions vs several million in lobbying. That's not apples and oranges, that's apples and coconuts.
    - 5874-4b22-a4e0 7y ago
      Could be that dem votes are cheaper to buy.
quasse 7y ago
FTA: >> That morning, Frommer polled his colleagues in the Assembly and found they were a vote short. No Republicans would vote for the bill, and some Democrats would vote ‘no’ too. >> Once again, Intuit had blocked ReadyReturn. It's definitely an Intuit thing, but being bought by Intuit seems to be a majority Republican thing.
- ars 7y ago
  > but being bought by Intuit seems to be a majority Republican thing. That's not what the article says though. It says Intuit bought Grover Norquist, who then caused Republicans to vote against it (but not because of money they got). And it says: "In 2007, Eric Cantor (a Republican leader) and Zoe Lofgren (a Democrat from Silicon Valley) had introduced a bill to ban return-free filing. Both received contributions from Inuit."
ssalazar 7y ago
The vote for the CA bill was effectively along partisan lines and national opposition to tax filing reform receives significant financial/political support from Grover Norquist.
cweagans 7y ago
In the 2004 and 2006 election cycle, Intuit donated substantially more to Republicans than Democrats: https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/totals.php?id=D000026667 https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/totals.php?id=D000026667 Bush campaigned on (among other things) rewriting and simplifying the tax code. Bush's executive order pushing that forward was signed January 2005: https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Executive_Order_13369 https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Executive_Order_13369 Maybe Intuit's donations and lobbying were not caused by that, but doesn't it seem really strange that a popular initiative suddenly changed direction after a big pile of money was given to Republicans? Politicians shouldn't be willing to change their stance for money. It's as much Intuit's fault as it is the people that took the money.
wy35 7y ago
The article clearly states that Intuit deliberately used Republicans to lobby against ReadyReturn. Intuit had just given $1 million to a Republican running to unseat John Chiang, an FTB member who supported ReadyReturn. The chair of the FTB, Steve Westly, says the support drummed up by Bankman gave them more political space to vote for a program they felt strongly about. Let's not ignore the fact that the Republican platform fundamentally lines up closer to Intuit's business interests. When Ronald Reagan was governor of California, he opposed a reform that would make paying taxes more seamless on the grounds that “paying taxes should hurt.” ... That morning, Frommer polled his colleagues in the Assembly and found they were a vote short. No Republicans would vote for the bill, and some Democrats would vote ‘no’ too.

polta5025 7y ago

Cool. Maybe when Democrats stop pushing Marxism and unchecked third world immigration (to the detriment of the working class) we can have a conversation about voting based on issues like tax filing.

lisper 7y ago
Maybe when republicans stop raising straw man arguments and misrepresenting democratic positions we can have a reasonable conversation about actual issues. Maybe.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]

mkhpalm 7y ago

Both parties have been very much in charge of this tax situation in America. Both parties have had many, MANY, majority rule situations over the past decades they could have done anything else about it. Nobody would have been stopping either of them at different points in time if they ever wanted to cash in on their party rhetoric.

Goronmon 7y ago
The problem generally comes down to the fact that no Republican is for improving tax filing. So all it takes is for a handful of Democrats to be lobbied to oppose it and even a Democratic majority can't push changes through.
- briandear 7y ago
  > The problem generally comes down to the fact that no Republican is for improving tax filing. And that’s a lie: https://www.tedcruz.org/postcard/ https://www.tedcruz.org/postcard/ Paul Ryan also proposed something similar. However, Democrats opposed it. Basically if it’s simpler and cheaper taxes, Democrats cry foul. Auto filled forms with the current tax system is just lipstick on a pig.
  - jdashg 7y ago
    No, better filing with the same tax system is empirically a better position. Holding auto-filling hostage to push contentious unrelated systemic changes is dirty, and why we have such gridlock. "I'm willing to allow a wide-consensus change but only if you concede me my very contention change" is not good-faith.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]

hanniabu 7y ago

> Voting matters Gerrymandering and voter purging matters

aidenn0 7y ago
FWIW, The GOP control of the senate is clearly not due to gerrymandering, or at least not any gerrymandering that happened in the past 100 years. I think gerrymandering is an issue, but it's only a fraction of the reason why representation is not particularly proportional.
- hanniabu 7y ago
  Of course, there's a long list of items that help rig the system including outdated electoral votes, accepting unlimited funding from big business, the removal of term limits in 1995, and now the rampant gaslighting and spread of false news where the louder voice wins instead of facts coming out on top.
  - rednerrus 7y ago
    I once had a PS professor that liked to say "The problem with our system is the people who vote."
    - ajmurmann 7y ago
      I prefer this Milton Friedman quote, because we cannot make better people: > I do not believe that the solution to our problem is simply to elect the right people. The important thing is to establish a political climate of opinion which will make it politically profitable for the wrong people to do the right thing. Unless it is politically profitable for the wrong people to do the right thing, the right people will not do the right thing either, or it they try, they will shortly be out of office.
    - lidHanteyk 7y ago
      To complement the sibling, here is another Friedman quote which hangs at the top of [0]: > We do not influence the course of events by persuading people that we are right when we make what they regard as radical proposals. Rather, we exert influence by keeping options available when something has to be done at a time of crisis. [0] http://www.erights.org/ http://www.erights.org/

CivBase 7y ago

> It is largely due to Republicans that we don't have such a program. Voting matters. Except I don't get to vote on single issues like this. The US is a republic and I get to vote for leaders who supposedly represent the voting population to which I belong. Problem is, there is never a viable representative who even somewhat closely matches my views on all issues - especially since the parties have so much influence in elections. So it's not very helpful to just imply that I should simply vote for someone else. Voter education is important for issues like this. If an idea becomes popular among a party's voters, the party will start to support that idea, which in turn influences their candidates.