10 ms·

It's tricky. I can definitely foresee a future, based on governmental record in publicly-facing IT systems, where every single word of that statement is techni

It's tricky. I can definitely foresee a future, based on governmental record in publicly-facing IT systems, where every single word of that statement is technically 100% true. First part is all but tautological - Of course it won't s not free to build or operate; and thus it wouldn't be "free for taxpayers" in the most technical sense (this doesn't mean it wouldn't be excellent value or save money overall or even cost more money but save it where it counts). It's the last sentence (unnecessarily cost taxpayers billions) that could go either way. This could in principle end up an efficient and effective, easy to use and helpful well performing system that's a brilliant investment of public money. I hate to say it though, but it's also extremely possible it would cost a lot of money with nobody using it because it sucks. Besides, it feels like in the USA, IT systems are only a part of issue with tax system. Actual tax code and submission options are the bigger part.

lowercased 3y ago
We've had the last few years of one party demonizing the IRS, insisting they're "coming after" the little guy. I suspect trust in something like this is already starting on shaky ground before it's even rolled out, which may contribute to "it's such a waste - no one uses it!". Even if a substantial of people that need this the most (people least able to afford any filing fees), this will continue to be fought. :/
willis936 3y ago
Just because it's true doesn't fireproof their pants. They already operate a service that is not free to build operate, and we know beyond a shadow of a doubt costs taxpayers needless additional billions of dollars. So then why would the taxpayers not want to invest an alternative that could spend "needless billions" to save additional needless billions?
theptip 3y ago
Classic political rhetoric. Who cares about “free”? I’m already paying for TurboTax. This only needs to be cheaper.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- GabeIsko 3y ago
  The government could always nationalize intuit.
  - vinceguidry 3y ago
    USGov hasn't nationalized a company like that since WW1 when they seized Merck, and even then they just sold it back after the war. We'll nationalize utilities, transportation and transport-adjacent industries like airport security. Also finance companies will drift into and out of state control, as finance companies do. But USGov would far sooner regulate the tax prep industry more heavily than simply take it over. We ain't no China.
    - bitxbitxbitcoin 3y ago
      Nationalization without representation doesn’t have quite the same ring to it.
  - HDThoreaun 3y ago
    Takings clause means the government would have to pay full market value which is currently 137 billion dollars.
    - brewdad 3y ago
      A few more news stories suggesting Intuit is going to see a huge drop in revenues from this free IRS offering should bring that number down significantly.
      - nightski 3y ago
        Honestly I don't see how it would impact them significantly. Intuit already offers free file for the cases that would likely be covered by this tool from the IRS.
AmericanChopper 3y ago
I’m immediately reminded of the healthcare.gov project, starting out with a budget of ~$90 million (which is already suspiciously high) and subsequently costing ~$2 billion, before launching with so many issues that it was initially unusable.
- ethbr0 3y ago
  To be fair, that's how most private sector outsourced corporate projects go as well. :)
  - AmericanChopper 3y ago
    Running over budget? Sure. But I’ve worked on much more complicated outsourced corporate projects for companies whose total revenue is only a fraction of $2 billion. Public sector inefficiency is in a league of its own. To be clear I’m not saying it’s a bad idea either, or not worth the money. But I would be surprised if it didn’t cost billions to implement.
    - CogitoCogito 3y ago
      > To be clear I’m not saying it’s a bad idea either, or not worth the money. But I would be surprised if it didn’t cost billions to implement. How much is Intuit’s revenue? Is it “billions”? If so, they provide their service at a higher cost.
    - jjoonathan 3y ago
      Still a bargain next to the private sector.
    - rsingel 3y ago
      It didn't cost billions and it was a key incident that led to a huge revolution in how federal websites and projects get built, e.g. 18f and the US Digital Service. https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2015/07/the-secret-startup-saved-healthcare-gov-the-worst-website-in-america/397784/ https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2015/07/the-s... In fact the IRS partnered with the US Digital Service to make this prototype in 9 months. It's fair to be cynical, but also give credit where it's due.
sidewndr46 3y ago
forget a "free filing" system. Why can't the IRS just send me a statement with my obligations and if I don't want to contest it I pay and I am done?
- iso1631 3y ago
  Because that's how it works in other countries, and that means people get less riled up culturally about tax
  - sidewndr46 3y ago
    paying taxes is not a voluntary thing for 90% of America. It gets taken out on your paycheck before you get it, which is your only form of income.
    - abathur 3y ago
      I think GP is suggesting that some interests want the process of filing your taxes to be annoying/frustrating/degrading/disruptive to increase anti-tax sentiment. (I.e., most people have already been deprived of the funds for some fraction of the year; what interest is served by making them waste time finding records and jumping through hoops and potentially paying a third party to help them provide the IRS with information that it mostly already has?)
      - sokoloff 3y ago
        I think there's another group of people who want to more closely tie the notion that "government is funded by taxes" to "government spending programs are largely choices in the short-term and entirely choices in the long-term". To that end, I would like taxes to be due about 4 Tuesdays before the Election Day Tuesday. If you want to vote for politicians who are campaigning on spending a lot of taxpayer money for good programs, so be it, but do it with recent memory of having paid your taxes (assuming you are in the slight majority* who pay federal taxes on net). If you want to campaign on spending a given amount of taxpayer money, whether more, the same, or less than today, your campaign should be interpreted close to taxpaying time. I don't want it to be more onerous or annoying to pay taxes. I do want people to recognize that taxes and spending are linked (and frankly, ought to be more closely linked than they are today, IMO). * - which until very recently was a slight minority of households who paid federal taxes on net.
candiddevmike 3y ago
What's going to happen is Intuit will end up building and running the service like Booz Allen did with recreation.gov and get to skim off the top.
LanceH 3y ago
It could completely suck and still be incredibly useful if they would just tell me what 1099's (or other) they have on me. They're going to eventually if I don't file it appropriately. For instance, I just received some mail that I owe tax based on my Uber and Lyft earnings. One problem, I never worked for either. So now I'm expected a big slog through paperwork to remedy this problem that happened a couple years ago. Oh, and it may continue on to the next two years. I have no way of knowing what they think they know about me.
- Firmwarrior 3y ago
  I thought you could get your tax transcripts from the IRS any time off the website, unless you make over a certain amount of money (to be fair, I think most HackerNews readers do exceed that limit..)
  - LanceH 3y ago
    That's really interesting. I've never been able to see anything like this on their site before. Also interesting is my account balance is currently $0, and I know that's not true even if they 100% believe the last mailing denying my 1099's from Uber and Doordash (not Lyft as I said above). Incidentally, Neither Uber, nor Lyft can help through customer service. I was thinking of taking them to small claims court since I'm not bound by any forced arbitration.
    - Volundr 3y ago
      The IRS says you owe money from past earnings but irs.gov says your balance is zero? Are you sure this isn't a scam for money or personal information?
      - LanceH 3y ago
        It was 17 pages of mail with SSN, all my tax info, accounts, etc... Even if it were sent to someone scamming me (and I know it was sent to the IRS), I would have been sending back less info than they sent me. The mail I was sent does match the the 1099's in irs.gov. So maybe the mail I sent back was believed and they just zeroed out everything as the only dispute left would have been around $13. I'm sure it will play out over time. I've had a couple interactions with the IRS over the years and it's always been a fair experience. I'm sure Uber and Doordash will have a hard time providing any valid identification to the IRS.
EatingWithForks 3y ago
> I hate to say it though, but it's also extremely possible it would cost a lot of money with nobody using it because it sucks. IMO The government should directly be hiring the best and the brightest with the pay to match. I would be more than happy to pay more taxes at my pay grade (or would support higher capital taxes) for free e-filing that's easy, fast, and multiplatform. However my taxes are raised would surely be cheaper than what I pay my accountant annually to file for me. It's ridiculous to me that government contracting is always expected to cheapen out for "efficiency". Governments should have excellent software and product minds on staff at all times to manage communication and data internally and externally, imo.
- twoodfin 3y ago
  This is pretty simple to explain: Governments respond to a completely different incentive structure than private companies. It shouldn’t be surprising that their outcomes differ, even (especially?) when the government spends more.
- thebradbain 3y ago
  Yet most US constituents, of all parties and socioeconomic status, seethe at the thought of a government worker of any level making “too much” money. It doesn’t matter that someone working for the government has the potential to have a much higher impact on a nationwide level than some rank and file worker who works at some blue chip auto insurance company, the moment increased pay for government workers is even brought up, that person imagines it as coming directly out of their paycheck. See teachers, urban planners, sanitary workers, NASA scientists, etc… It’s a shame, because I have the unpopular opinion that _more_ government, filled with talented people who actually want to _fix_ the issues they’re passionate about, is the answer to almost all of the USs domestic problems. Right now the highest paid government workers are those on the brink of retirement in administrative positions so far removed from any real work. A bureaucracy of gerontocracy, if you will. I really wish the government (not the political world, but the civil staff) was seen as as a place for passionate young people to aspire to, with the pay to match.
  - username135 3y ago
xp84 3y ago
> cost a lot of money with nobody using it because it sucks. For sure it could. Haven’t dug into the details yet but the #1 cause I’d expect if that does happen is if the government contracts the actual implementation out to…surprise, one of those same shitty firms, Intuit and H&RBlock. And they would build it to suck basically on purpose. I hope existing players in the paid tax return space will be excluded from being part of building whatever this is, as it would be a huge conflict of interest.

lowercased 3y ago

We've had the last few years of one party demonizing the IRS, insisting they're "coming after" the little guy. I suspect trust in something like this is already starting on shaky ground before it's even rolled out, which may contribute to "it's such a waste - no one uses it!". Even if a substantial of people that need this the most (people least able to afford any filing fees), this will continue to be fought. :/

willis936 3y ago

Just because it's true doesn't fireproof their pants. They already operate a service that is not free to build operate, and we know beyond a shadow of a doubt costs taxpayers needless additional billions of dollars. So then why would the taxpayers not want to invest an alternative that could spend "needless billions" to save additional needless billions?

theptip 3y ago

Classic political rhetoric. Who cares about “free”? I’m already paying for TurboTax. This only needs to be cheaper.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
GabeIsko 3y ago
The government could always nationalize intuit.
- vinceguidry 3y ago
  USGov hasn't nationalized a company like that since WW1 when they seized Merck, and even then they just sold it back after the war. We'll nationalize utilities, transportation and transport-adjacent industries like airport security. Also finance companies will drift into and out of state control, as finance companies do. But USGov would far sooner regulate the tax prep industry more heavily than simply take it over. We ain't no China.
  - bitxbitxbitcoin 3y ago
    Nationalization without representation doesn’t have quite the same ring to it.
- HDThoreaun 3y ago
  Takings clause means the government would have to pay full market value which is currently 137 billion dollars.
  - brewdad 3y ago
    A few more news stories suggesting Intuit is going to see a huge drop in revenues from this free IRS offering should bring that number down significantly.
    - nightski 3y ago
      Honestly I don't see how it would impact them significantly. Intuit already offers free file for the cases that would likely be covered by this tool from the IRS.

AmericanChopper 3y ago

I’m immediately reminded of the healthcare.gov project, starting out with a budget of ~$90 million (which is already suspiciously high) and subsequently costing ~$2 billion, before launching with so many issues that it was initially unusable.

ethbr0 3y ago
To be fair, that's how most private sector outsourced corporate projects go as well. :)
- AmericanChopper 3y ago
  Running over budget? Sure. But I’ve worked on much more complicated outsourced corporate projects for companies whose total revenue is only a fraction of $2 billion. Public sector inefficiency is in a league of its own. To be clear I’m not saying it’s a bad idea either, or not worth the money. But I would be surprised if it didn’t cost billions to implement.
  - CogitoCogito 3y ago
    > To be clear I’m not saying it’s a bad idea either, or not worth the money. But I would be surprised if it didn’t cost billions to implement. How much is Intuit’s revenue? Is it “billions”? If so, they provide their service at a higher cost.
  - jjoonathan 3y ago
    Still a bargain next to the private sector.
  - rsingel 3y ago
    It didn't cost billions and it was a key incident that led to a huge revolution in how federal websites and projects get built, e.g. 18f and the US Digital Service. https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2015/07/the-secret-startup-saved-healthcare-gov-the-worst-website-in-america/397784/ https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2015/07/the-s... In fact the IRS partnered with the US Digital Service to make this prototype in 9 months. It's fair to be cynical, but also give credit where it's due.

sidewndr46 3y ago

forget a "free filing" system. Why can't the IRS just send me a statement with my obligations and if I don't want to contest it I pay and I am done?

iso1631 3y ago
Because that's how it works in other countries, and that means people get less riled up culturally about tax
- sidewndr46 3y ago
  paying taxes is not a voluntary thing for 90% of America. It gets taken out on your paycheck before you get it, which is your only form of income.
  - abathur 3y ago
    I think GP is suggesting that some interests want the process of filing your taxes to be annoying/frustrating/degrading/disruptive to increase anti-tax sentiment. (I.e., most people have already been deprived of the funds for some fraction of the year; what interest is served by making them waste time finding records and jumping through hoops and potentially paying a third party to help them provide the IRS with information that it mostly already has?)
    - sokoloff 3y ago
      I think there's another group of people who want to more closely tie the notion that "government is funded by taxes" to "government spending programs are largely choices in the short-term and entirely choices in the long-term". To that end, I would like taxes to be due about 4 Tuesdays before the Election Day Tuesday. If you want to vote for politicians who are campaigning on spending a lot of taxpayer money for good programs, so be it, but do it with recent memory of having paid your taxes (assuming you are in the slight majority* who pay federal taxes on net). If you want to campaign on spending a given amount of taxpayer money, whether more, the same, or less than today, your campaign should be interpreted close to taxpaying time. I don't want it to be more onerous or annoying to pay taxes. I do want people to recognize that taxes and spending are linked (and frankly, ought to be more closely linked than they are today, IMO). * - which until very recently was a slight minority of households who paid federal taxes on net.

candiddevmike 3y ago

What's going to happen is Intuit will end up building and running the service like Booz Allen did with recreation.gov and get to skim off the top.

LanceH 3y ago

It could completely suck and still be incredibly useful if they would just tell me what 1099's (or other) they have on me. They're going to eventually if I don't file it appropriately. For instance, I just received some mail that I owe tax based on my Uber and Lyft earnings. One problem, I never worked for either. So now I'm expected a big slog through paperwork to remedy this problem that happened a couple years ago. Oh, and it may continue on to the next two years. I have no way of knowing what they think they know about me.

Firmwarrior 3y ago
I thought you could get your tax transcripts from the IRS any time off the website, unless you make over a certain amount of money (to be fair, I think most HackerNews readers do exceed that limit..)
- LanceH 3y ago
  That's really interesting. I've never been able to see anything like this on their site before. Also interesting is my account balance is currently $0, and I know that's not true even if they 100% believe the last mailing denying my 1099's from Uber and Doordash (not Lyft as I said above). Incidentally, Neither Uber, nor Lyft can help through customer service. I was thinking of taking them to small claims court since I'm not bound by any forced arbitration.
  - Volundr 3y ago
    The IRS says you owe money from past earnings but irs.gov says your balance is zero? Are you sure this isn't a scam for money or personal information?
    - LanceH 3y ago
      It was 17 pages of mail with SSN, all my tax info, accounts, etc... Even if it were sent to someone scamming me (and I know it was sent to the IRS), I would have been sending back less info than they sent me. The mail I was sent does match the the 1099's in irs.gov. So maybe the mail I sent back was believed and they just zeroed out everything as the only dispute left would have been around $13. I'm sure it will play out over time. I've had a couple interactions with the IRS over the years and it's always been a fair experience. I'm sure Uber and Doordash will have a hard time providing any valid identification to the IRS.

EatingWithForks 3y ago

> I hate to say it though, but it's also extremely possible it would cost a lot of money with nobody using it because it sucks. IMO The government should directly be hiring the best and the brightest with the pay to match. I would be more than happy to pay more taxes at my pay grade (or would support higher capital taxes) for free e-filing that's easy, fast, and multiplatform. However my taxes are raised would surely be cheaper than what I pay my accountant annually to file for me. It's ridiculous to me that government contracting is always expected to cheapen out for "efficiency". Governments should have excellent software and product minds on staff at all times to manage communication and data internally and externally, imo.

twoodfin 3y ago
This is pretty simple to explain: Governments respond to a completely different incentive structure than private companies. It shouldn’t be surprising that their outcomes differ, even (especially?) when the government spends more.
thebradbain 3y ago
Yet most US constituents, of all parties and socioeconomic status, seethe at the thought of a government worker of any level making “too much” money. It doesn’t matter that someone working for the government has the potential to have a much higher impact on a nationwide level than some rank and file worker who works at some blue chip auto insurance company, the moment increased pay for government workers is even brought up, that person imagines it as coming directly out of their paycheck. See teachers, urban planners, sanitary workers, NASA scientists, etc… It’s a shame, because I have the unpopular opinion that _more_ government, filled with talented people who actually want to _fix_ the issues they’re passionate about, is the answer to almost all of the USs domestic problems. Right now the highest paid government workers are those on the brink of retirement in administrative positions so far removed from any real work. A bureaucracy of gerontocracy, if you will. I really wish the government (not the political world, but the civil staff) was seen as as a place for passionate young people to aspire to, with the pay to match.
- username135 3y ago

xp84 3y ago

> cost a lot of money with nobody using it because it sucks. For sure it could. Haven’t dug into the details yet but the #1 cause I’d expect if that does happen is if the government contracts the actual implementation out to…surprise, one of those same shitty firms, Intuit and H&RBlock. And they would build it to suck basically on purpose. I hope existing players in the paid tax return space will be excluded from being part of building whatever this is, as it would be a huge conflict of interest.