4 ms·

The IRS helpline was much better back in 2009 when I needed some advice on a special case that the average tax preparer didn't understand. They forwarded me to

• crooked-v 3y ago
  It's literally explicit Republican policy to make filing taxes difficult and unpleasant, so that people hate the government more.
  • soco 3y ago
    I think if this is the case one should hate the Republicans (policies) more, as being the ones explicitly breaking stuff, but yeah it's easier to generalize.
  • orzig 3y ago
    Can we aspire to some baseline level of truth seeking where a phrase like “literally explicit” requires even the slightest bit of evidence? In this case, it wouldn’t have even been hard to find that evidence, though you are assertion is oversimplified: “ for the vast majority of the population, most of the pain of tax compliance could be eliminated by a few keystrokes at IRS headquarters. So why don’t we do it? Two reasons. One is lobbying by the tax preparation industry to discourage states and the feds from developing easier tax-paying systems, as California recently did. The second is lobbying by anti-tax conservatives. When the Golden State implemented its ReadyReturn system, it did so over the objections of Grover Norquist and his anti-tax pressure group Americans for Tax Reform, which fears that if taxes become less annoying voters might be less unhappy about paying them.” https://slate.com/business/2012/04/grover-norquist-and-h-r-block-the-unholy-alliance-of-tax-prep-firms-and-conservative-activists-to-make-your-taxes-even-more-complicated.html https://slate.com/business/2012/04/grover-norquist-and-h-r-b... All of this took me 120 seconds with Perplexity AI. As we strive towards being a better nation, or at least a better community, I beg that future micro-polemicists invest that much time before hitting “post”
    • Retric 3y ago
      Explicit policy stances like this should be well known by most adult Americans, but this is an international forum so people are going to mention such basic differences without citations. I don’t think anyone should need to give sources for such basic political stances as where each party takes on Abortion etc. This isn’t controversial, the parties are trying to get their message out so people will vote accordingly.
      • lupire 3y ago
        This case is a bit different, because it's not merely a policy preference, but an accusation of a bad faith metagame strategy of "intentionally breaking government and wile complaining that it's broken".
        • r00fus 3y ago
          That's the entire game of the GOP. Well, that and catering directly to funders. It's obvious.
        • Retric 3y ago
          You may disagree with a policy, but that doesn’t mean the party isn’t completely upfront about it. Meta game stuff does well in fundraising and the primaries even if not the general election because everyone already shares most of the party’s core beliefs. It’s all about convincing people your strategy will get those core ideas in place. Voter disenfranchisement being a popular example. Also, many positions seemed stupid to many voters. That doesn’t make them useless as long as there is some perceived net benefit.
    • tomrod 3y ago
      I'd argue most folks that pay attention to the space know this, and the ones that don't would nod in agreement as it conforms to biases. Do you agree?
    • silotis 3y ago
      To be fair I think the conservative objection is not quite that filing taxes needs to be annoying. The concern is more that automated tax calculation makes it easier for people to be blissfully unaware of how much of their money is going to taxes. Even now most people have minimal awareness of their tax burden thanks to automated tax withholding.
  • chiefalchemist 3y ago
    Some might turn to hate but in most cases the ambiguity and intentional half-ass'ery of the process breeds fear. As in, fear Big Brother. Geez you can get audit for a filing up to 7 years ago (I believe). This is a bipartisan Fed level effort to keep the punters in line and obedient.
    • flakeoil 3y ago
      It goes both ways though. You can also get something corrected in your favor.
      • chiefalchemist 3y ago
        You can. But that's not the way fear has been weaponized. How do you know that fives years down the road received a cheque from the IRS for a mistake the IRS made?
        • bombcar 3y ago
          That has happened to me and my dad in separate cases, but each time it took about a year and a half, not five.
          • chiefalchemist 3y ago
            So they refund is 1.5 yrs but threaten audit for seven? And that's not a fear-base paradigm?
            • c0pium 3y ago
              Those are apples and oranges. You can submit corrections for much longer than 1.5 years. Why be afraid if you filed correctly? Just have some confidence.
              • chiefalchemist 3y ago
                In the context of fear, no they are not apples and oranges. "Why be afraid if you filed correctly? Just have some confidence." LOL. Or seven years down the road...get audited? Why can't the IRS have some confidence in its collection process? Why can't the window close are two or three year? If you think confidence is what gets you through an IRS audit, you're a fool.
• londons_explore 3y ago
  Some governments will offer an "official opinion". Basically you explain your situation to one of their members of staff, who will then reply with how to declare it on the tax form. If you declare what they say, and it turns out to be wrong, they won't punish you for it.
  • bombcar 3y ago
    There is something similar in the US called (iirc) an "IRS Letter" - which is basically the IRS saying how they interpret the law. It is not binding, because they may be wrong. As long as you act in good faith, you can disagree and could end up in tax court or in real court, and the IRS could lose. If you're not in the "make wage, pay tax" basic group, you will want to seriously investigate the tax advantages available to you, and how to take advantage of them.