6 ms·

I love the quote from the Intuit VP, which complained that it would end up “costing billions of dollars in taxpayer money.” The current system costs billions o

by gumby 3y ago

I love the quote from the Intuit VP, which complained that it would end up “costing billions of dollars in taxpayer money.” The current system costs billions of dollars in taxpayer money, it’s just that today those dollars flow to Intuit. The IRS one should end up costing less overall, even at govt contracting rates.

toomuchtodo 3y ago
“It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.” ― Upton Sinclair
- jancsika 3y ago
  Going further-- if the company depends on it, then the man already understands it.
- gumby 3y ago
  In this case I’m pretty sure it’s simply his job to say such things and who knows what he actually believes. But sure, it’s likely that he would vote against a candidate who supported the IRS’s program.
- fwungy 3y ago
  This is the most important quote for the modern era.
wredue 3y ago
The IRS taking this on this way has incentive to automate and make taxes as easy as possible. Intuits incentive is to keep taxes complicated and as manual as possible. Therefore, the most likely outcome is that the IRS taking this on will most assuredly result in saving tax payer money.
- fwungy 3y ago
  Simple, relatively high, taxes for the plebs and a complex, exploitable tax code for the rich. There's no need for wagies with low net worths to go through the full process.
  - wredue 3y ago
    The things the rich are capable of doing with their money is beyond the reach of us “normal” people. I don’t know how we can possibly not have complex taxes for the rich short of taking all their money.
    - fwungy 3y ago
      They make the tax code complicated so they can leverage it. This is why they can't get Trump on tax issues. Trump pays the best tax people to cover him. If they nailed Trump on anything they'd have to nail a lot of other people too, who are otherwise untouchable. A flat tax would work just fine, except for all the people in the tax industry that is. You just level the flat tax until you get the equivalent revenue from the current scheme.
comte7092 3y ago
That’s just the classic anti public sector service line in general. Whatever your feelings are about single payer healthcare, it’s incredibly disingenuous when politicians debate against it by bringing up the cost of such a system, without comparing it to the current cost of the private system it would replace.
- gumby 3y ago
  A key factor is that insurance companies are a big sector, and are in everybody’s pension funds. This is one of the reason that the oil companies get subsidies (“green hydrogen” which makes no scientific sense) in the anti-climate-change legislation. Intuit and HR Block are too small to present that level of opposition.
  - kjkjadksj 3y ago
    The gain per person from having non profit single payer would probably still be higher than having that sector nuked from your portfolio unless you owned like millions in shares. And if you did own millions of shares, you’d probably be privy enough to see the writing on the wall and buy into a tech company instead with that money ahead of the collapse and public takeover.
    - gumby 3y ago
      I agree with your reasoning, but don’t think it would play out that way. If a big sector from the S&P sank it would drive an apparent large secular reduction in the overall market, and in particular in the index funds. And opponents would seize upon it and beat the drums. Most of the financial news is incoherent and lazy — this would be just another example.
- justinzollars 3y ago
  Government size as a proportion of GDP is at 42.36% [1]. How much bigger should it get? 1. https://www.imf.org/external/datamapper/exp@FPP/USA/FRA/JPN/GBR/SWE/ESP/ITA/ZAF/IND https://www.imf.org/external/datamapper/exp@FPP/USA/FRA/JPN/...
kristopolous 3y ago
Why is that person's comments even included? It'd be like reaching out to Charles Ponzi for a quote on business regulation
- gumby 3y ago
  If anyone were likely to repeat a legitimate objection it would be these guys. But to your point: if there were a legit objection we’d have heard it by now.
- tpmoney 3y ago
  Because proper journalism should allow all voices to have their say. If you wanted a one sided view on something, you wouldn’t need journalists, the press releases and self reported (and self serving) statements by interested parties would be plenty.
  - gumby 3y ago
    In general I agree with your position. But for cases like this, these kinds of statements have been so common from H&R Block and Intuit, and the topic has been wending its way through the system for a couple of decades that if you were a journalist short of time it would be fine to quote some other public statement from either of them. The actual article is about something more interesting: that they are piloting it with states that have state income taxes as well, and that they will be rolling it out in phases (the right thing to do). The response to Intuit isn't about the meat of the topic.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]

by gumby 3y ago

toomuchtodo 3y ago

“It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.” ― Upton Sinclair

jancsika 3y ago
Going further-- if the company depends on it, then the man already understands it.
gumby 3y ago
In this case I’m pretty sure it’s simply his job to say such things and who knows what he actually believes. But sure, it’s likely that he would vote against a candidate who supported the IRS’s program.
fwungy 3y ago
This is the most important quote for the modern era.

wredue 3y ago

The IRS taking this on this way has incentive to automate and make taxes as easy as possible. Intuits incentive is to keep taxes complicated and as manual as possible. Therefore, the most likely outcome is that the IRS taking this on will most assuredly result in saving tax payer money.

fwungy 3y ago
Simple, relatively high, taxes for the plebs and a complex, exploitable tax code for the rich. There's no need for wagies with low net worths to go through the full process.
- wredue 3y ago
  The things the rich are capable of doing with their money is beyond the reach of us “normal” people. I don’t know how we can possibly not have complex taxes for the rich short of taking all their money.
  - fwungy 3y ago
    They make the tax code complicated so they can leverage it. This is why they can't get Trump on tax issues. Trump pays the best tax people to cover him. If they nailed Trump on anything they'd have to nail a lot of other people too, who are otherwise untouchable. A flat tax would work just fine, except for all the people in the tax industry that is. You just level the flat tax until you get the equivalent revenue from the current scheme.

comte7092 3y ago

That’s just the classic anti public sector service line in general. Whatever your feelings are about single payer healthcare, it’s incredibly disingenuous when politicians debate against it by bringing up the cost of such a system, without comparing it to the current cost of the private system it would replace.

gumby 3y ago
A key factor is that insurance companies are a big sector, and are in everybody’s pension funds. This is one of the reason that the oil companies get subsidies (“green hydrogen” which makes no scientific sense) in the anti-climate-change legislation. Intuit and HR Block are too small to present that level of opposition.
- kjkjadksj 3y ago
  The gain per person from having non profit single payer would probably still be higher than having that sector nuked from your portfolio unless you owned like millions in shares. And if you did own millions of shares, you’d probably be privy enough to see the writing on the wall and buy into a tech company instead with that money ahead of the collapse and public takeover.
  - gumby 3y ago
    I agree with your reasoning, but don’t think it would play out that way. If a big sector from the S&P sank it would drive an apparent large secular reduction in the overall market, and in particular in the index funds. And opponents would seize upon it and beat the drums. Most of the financial news is incoherent and lazy — this would be just another example.
justinzollars 3y ago
Government size as a proportion of GDP is at 42.36% [1]. How much bigger should it get? 1. https://www.imf.org/external/datamapper/exp@FPP/USA/FRA/JPN/GBR/SWE/ESP/ITA/ZAF/IND https://www.imf.org/external/datamapper/exp@FPP/USA/FRA/JPN/...

kristopolous 3y ago

Why is that person's comments even included? It'd be like reaching out to Charles Ponzi for a quote on business regulation

gumby 3y ago
If anyone were likely to repeat a legitimate objection it would be these guys. But to your point: if there were a legit objection we’d have heard it by now.
tpmoney 3y ago
Because proper journalism should allow all voices to have their say. If you wanted a one sided view on something, you wouldn’t need journalists, the press releases and self reported (and self serving) statements by interested parties would be plenty.
- gumby 3y ago
  In general I agree with your position. But for cases like this, these kinds of statements have been so common from H&R Block and Intuit, and the topic has been wending its way through the system for a couple of decades that if you were a journalist short of time it would be fine to quote some other public statement from either of them. The actual article is about something more interesting: that they are piloting it with states that have state income taxes as well, and that they will be rolling it out in phases (the right thing to do). The response to Intuit isn't about the meat of the topic.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]