3 ms·
> why should we invest resources in expanding our free services when taxpayers don't use what we already make available? It's not a service. It's an obligatio
by akira2501 3y ago
> why should we invest resources in expanding our free services when taxpayers don't use what we already make available?
It's not a service. It's an obligation. You want my money? Why do I have to find a "service" to get you to take it?
If you've never used one of those services, you should. Some of them have gotten better only very recently, some still look like fly-by-night scam operations that are trying to filch your personal information. The old adage "you get what you pay for" has never been more true.
> Is there data to support the notion that usage would meaningfully increase if we supported 100% of filing cases?
Yes. The billions of dollars spent lobbying the congress to prevent this very thing from happening.
- runako 3y ago> If you've never used one of those services, you should Complex tax situations, likely will be using third-party advisors from here out regardless of what the IRS provides for wage earners.
- akira2501 3y agoThat's honestly great for you and your family, but it also probably means your notions on the impediments to welcome uptake of free filing solutions for people outside of this class are out of touch with the actual problems experienced.
- runako 3y agoPersonally, yes. But I was using the data from GAO from TFA: > Though 70 percent of taxpayers qualify for those products, fewer than 3 percent of taxpayers use them, according to a Government Accountability Office report. There's something other than "free" and generally blaming lobbyists that's preventing people from using these products. Without understanding that, it may not make sense to roll them out more broadly (although I do think that should be the goal).