9 ms·
Amazing how the idea of being able to file tax returns online, without paying for a commercial service to do it, is considered far-left extremism in the US. Yo
by Reason077 2y ago
Amazing how the idea of being able to file tax returns online, without paying for a commercial service to do it, is considered far-left extremism in the US.
You’d think that simplifying tax returns and reducing costs in the taxation system would be something the right could get behind?
- kadoban 2y agoThe right in America does not believe in a federal government. Anything that helps a federal government exist is to be destroyed.
- vkou 2y agoIt absolutely believes in a federal government. It just does not believe in a federal government that it is not in control of.
- dingnuts 2y agowho, exactly, is in control of independent agencies if Congress never corrects their power and the Executive isn't in charge? For example: the perennial fight over "net neutrality" was because Congress absconded their duty to write regulation and handed it off to the Executive to figure out in a vague way that allowed for flip flopping policies with the force of law every time the administration changed. You know what would stop the Executive power grab currently happening? If Congress would do their damn jobs. The Republicans in Congress are more to blame for this mess than the White House. This is supposed to be their power that they are just sitting and watching get taken away. But the Democrats aren't guiltless either. People who care about this sort of thing have been complaining for decades, right through Democrat majorities and administrations. They had plenty of chances. The whole beltway fucking sucks and we are so cooked.
- hackyhacky 2y ago> The Republicans in Congress are more to blame for this mess than the White House. The fact that Congress is ineffective in no way absolves the executive branch of irresponsible or illegal behavior. The president took an oath.
- Sabinus 2y agoEveryone is responsible for their own behaviour but if the legislature doesn't function nothing else will either. And we know the legislature has progressively become less functional, less bipartisan, less legislation passed every decade.
- khazhoux 2y agoGenuine question: what here is illegal?
- vkou 2y agoThe executive cannot just unilaterally shut down departments created by acts of congress. That's what makes it illegal.
- khazhoux 2y ago18F was not created via act of Congress, as far as I have been able to tell. Do you see a source that shows otherwise?
- beej71 2y agoI don't know about 18F, but the shutdowns are far more widespread than that.
- Spooky23 2y ago18F was a business unit of the General Services Administration, which was created via 41 U.S.C. 251, the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949. The act transferred the function of the Federal Works Agency and the Treasury Bureau of Federal Supply to the GSA. The agency is directed and authorized to perform a variety of tasks, from real estate, to acquisition, to information technology and telecommunications. 31 USC 1535, The Economy Act, authorizes Federal agencies to purchase from each other in the interests of economy. Obvious application is that rather than have the Social Security Administration lease an office or build a building, they sublease or lease a facility owned by the GSA so Federal demand can be aggregated. 1 big lease is cheaper than 12 little ones. In the case of 18F, having a consultive entity within the GSA maximizes the value of procurements made by GSA and other agencies. When congress appropriates money to say, the Department of Labor to perform a function, DOL may choose to engage 18F to deliver or assist, avoiding additional procurement and taking advantage of investments and capability already built. Congress in 1949 recognized that basic concepts like shared services, aggregation and mission focus deliver value and promote efficient operations. The current regime's corrupt interest is obvious to anyone with a brain.
- vkou 2y agoThe purple fringes of the congressional GOP would be crucified by their constituents if they were doing this shit, which is why it is sitting back and letting the executive do everything that the party always wanted, but couldn't, while they keep their hands free. The legislature could stop this, yes. But it won't, because he is carrying out the program the GOP always wished it could have done, but couldn't. Once this all goes to shit, they will of course, blame him, while keeping their own hands clean. And given just how fucking fast a dedicated executive can destroy anything it doesn't like, there's literally nothing the Dems could have done to prevent this. It doesn't matter what laws they passed when they had control of government, when the current executive simply doesn't follow the law. And the only people who could compel it to follow the law don't want it to. The only cure to this is never voting red, under any circumstances, for any position, in any race. It's been fully compromised, and is unsalvageable.
- BrenBarn 2y ago> And given just how fucking fast a dedicated executive can destroy anything it doesn't like, there's literally nothing the Dems could have done to prevent this. It doesn't matter what laws they passed when they had control of government, when the current executive simply doesn't follow the law. Oh yes there is. It's just more radical than they were prepared to admit was necessary. It's things like ramming through thousands of new federal judgeships, packing the Supreme Court, passing anti-gerrymandering laws with jail-time penalities for state officials that violate them, and ultimately packing the union (https://harvardlawreview.org/print/vol-133/pack-the-union-a-proposal-to-admit-new-states-for-the-purpose-of-amending-the-constitution-to-ensure-equal-representation/ https://harvardlawreview.org/print/vol-133/pack-the-union-a-...). The things that needed to be done were not "make things so no president can do this when he gets elected", it's "fix the system so these kinds of people cannot ever be elected".
- vkou 2y agoYes, I suppose they can be blamed for not doing something like that when they get a 49.8% mandate. It would also alienate half their voter base, because it actually believes in the systems and due process. (We can also blame them for not imprisoning, quicky and fairly trying, and executing Trump for sedition and treason when they could.)
- Arainach 2y agoWith the exception of a few days (which don't really count because of a sick Senator Kennedy and spineless moderate conservativeJoe Lieberman), the Democrats haven't had a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate in many, many decades.
- wat10000 2y agoBoth major parties have been giving up the power of Congress for decades. They’re constantly handing more power to the executive, seemingly because it lets them dodge responsibility. People get mad at you when you do stuff, but if you just vest some power in an executive agency then people get mad at the President instead when that agency does the stuff. People have been warning for a long time that this concentration of power in the executive is ripe for abuse. And here we are.
- stouset 2y agoThe right wants everything related to taxes to be as difficult and painful as possible, in the hopes it will encourage the government to lower them.
- kccqzy 2y agoI have heard of this argument many times but it doesn't make sense to me. Most often, the ways to lower taxes come from things like finding new deductions and credits that you didn't know apply to you. This is what the difficult part is. Otherwise, taxes are simple if you just have some W-2 and 1099-INT or 1099-DIV, and claim the standard deduction. Indeed if taxes are too difficult or painful, a reasonable person would demand that the government simplify taxes, and that's not the same as reducing taxes. But then again maybe they are banking on the masses conflating simplifying taxes and reducing taxes.
- jedberg 2y agoYou know how everyone complains "oh I can't do anything this weekend I have to do my taxes"? They want that pain, so that you bitch and moan about the heavy burden of taxation, and then support the party that claims they want to reduce the heavy burden of taxation. But also, Intuit spends a lot money lobbying.
- acdha 2y agoTaxes aren’t hard but people have been encouraged to talk about it like it’s a colonoscopy by Roto-rooter. Someone can have all W-2 income and only take the standard deduction, but thanks to that messaging they’ll act like filing your own taxes is incredibly dangerous with a high chance of ruining you for life (I know someone whose parent worked for the IRS as an auditor and they noted that many people ended up neutral or even getting a refund because an audit for someone who wasn’t trying to cheat would usually find deductions that they hadn’t claimed). That’s not accidental: the rich have been funding anti-tax messaging since the introduction of the income tax, and it’s heavily promoted by the media voices they fund. The tax preparation industry is similarly biased since it’s with so profitable for the median voter to think that they need to pay hundreds of dollars every year to fill out a couple of forms.
- Finnucane 2y agono, the right wants you to keep paying Turbotax.
- collinmcnulty 2y agoThis is commonly repeated but incorrect. The Nyquist pledge is a far more powerful force keeping tax filing complex than Intuit lobbying. This is not a conspiracy theory, this is a stated practice of Americans for Tax Reform, the anti-tax conservative group.
- westurner 2y ago"Musk ally is moving to close office behind free tax filing program at IRS" (2025) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43222216 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43222216
- janeerie 2y ago18F is not the group behind Direct File, and it's very annoying that this narrative keeps getting spread. DF was created by a team of people from USDS, 18F and the IRS. It's housed within the IRS.
- jedberg 2y agoThey claim that if the government could calculate taxes for you, then it would be too easy for the left to add new taxes that you wouldn't notice. The real kicker of course is that if you don't file your taxes, they actually do calculate your taxes for you, and send you a bill. It just includes the non-payment penalty and doesn't include donations.
- superb_dev 2y agoIs non-payment cheaper than donations?
- lesuorac 2y agoNo. Taxes are in hindsight so you've already made whatever donations you did by the time you paid taxes. Donations either lower your tax bill or have no effect on it. So, by not filling taxes (_and getting caught_) you're just increasing your tax bill.
- abeyer 2y agoUnless of course you're owed a refund, in which case they'll hold your money and pay you interest on it (at least for a few years.) ...but then tax you on the interest they paid you if you claim it.
- froindt 2y agoMy understanding was they don't pay interest on tax refunds, but you pay interest on unpaid tax liabilities. Do you have a source handy? My Google-fu is failing and only bringing up interest on unpaid taxes.
- tarlinian 2y agoIf the refund is paid in less than 45 days after the tax filing deadline or the day you file your taxes, they will pay you interest. See here: https://www.irs.gov/payments/interest#pay https://www.irs.gov/payments/interest#pay
- Animats 2y agoHeavy lobbying by Intuit/TurboTax for years.[1] [1] https://www.opensecrets.org/search?q=TurboTax&type=site#gsc.tab=0&gsc.q=TurboTax&gsc.page=1 https://www.opensecrets.org/search?q=TurboTax&type=site#gsc....
- astrange 2y agoIt's not TurboTax, it's Grover Norquist. Republicans are already ideologically against easy tax filing because they're against taxes, they don't need corporate backing for that. Using OpenSecrets in particular is misleading because it shows you donations fron "employees of corporations" to political campaigns and then people pretend it's donations from "corporations", which is obviously not the same thing. (and not allowed either)
- adastra22 2y agoI mean, it's both. Intuit gives money to representatives that ideologically dislike taxes, and therefore WANT it to be a horrible experience so that you'll go along with getting rid of it (which Intuit knows will never actually happen).
- astrange 2y ago> Intuit gives money to representatives No they don't. Corporations can't give money to representatives. That's exactly why I just said OpenSecrets is misleading.
- fitsumbelay 2y agohttps://www.propublica.org/article/inside-turbotax-20-year-fight-to-stop-americans-from-filing-their-taxes-for-free https://www.propublica.org/article/inside-turbotax-20-year-f... the business of America is business, you see ...
- j_san 2y agoI don't think that far-left was primarily only written because of the tax returns. I followed some links in the article and came to this twitter thread which might explain where that notion comes from: https://x.com/lukerosiak/status/1885523747425399247 https://x.com/lukerosiak/status/1885523747425399247 (Disclaimer: I don't live in the US and don't want to take any political stance with this)
- janeerie 2y agoThis is exactly right. Direct File got thrown into the discussion, but it was not the reason that 18F was getting labelled as far-left.
- djur 2y agoI don't see any evidence that 18F was any more "far-left" than tech workers on average.
- skissane 2y agoThe tweet the GP linked – https://x.com/lukerosiak/status/1885523747425399247 https://x.com/lukerosiak/status/1885523747425399247 – mentioned they wrote a Slack bot to lecture people about using inclusive language. I don't think that is average for US tech workers. I don't believe the vast majority of US tech firms have such a thing. I wouldn't call that "far left" myself – although "far left" as used by American conservatives is a pejorative colloquialism whose meaning has shifted from its traditional definition (Trotskyists, Stalinists, Maoists, etc). Not slang I'd use myself but I can understand it. P.S. If you don't trust a tweet from a right-leaning journalist, here's a page from their own GitHub repo about their bot: https://github.com/18F/charlie/blob/main/InclusionBot.md https://github.com/18F/charlie/blob/main/InclusionBot.md
- djur 2y agoI have worked at a place with a bot like that. It's one of over a dozen bots in that repository and seems to have been created and maintained by 3 people over the years. I believe 18F peaked at 250 employees. Some of the terms are genuinely offensive or unprofessional. I'm not sure about some of them, but I'd expect a government agency to show a higher level of sensitivity and professionalism about their language than a private start-up. I also note that the bot "lectures" people as a private message.
- khazhoux 2y agoEvery time I drive by the huge shiny new Intuit building on 101 near Google, I throw up a little. Regulatory capture in action.
- aeternum 2y agoSimplify the tax code, don't add even more complex bureaucracy in a misguided attempt to make the awful tax code understandable. Citizens need to understand the tax code themselves, they shouldn't need an entire government division to write software that is the only way to understand it.
- adambatkin 2y agoThat's a great idea. Let's do that. And until that happens, helping people file their taxes for free is a benefit to everyone (except tax prep companies).
- beej71 2y agoAnd after it happens let's keep filing for free.
- rights_reminder 2y ago[flagged]
- Sabinus 2y agoMost developed countries on earth have an income tax. Do you think they're all part of the same elite deception scam?
- rights_reminder 2y agoThe point of my comment was that, in the US, the government has to create an elaborate body of law to trick people into thinking the law says something which it does not say. If we did not have limitations on the taxing power of congress, they could just write a simple law that says "There is hereby imposed on all labor of every person working in the 50 states a tax equal to..." The fact that there is no such sentence in US tax law should be a wake-up call... The reason the income tax parts of the IRC are so complex is to keep them in perfect accordance with the constitutional limits on taxation while deceiving you. Taxes on income are in their nature excises, which are taxes on privileges. Foreign persons do not have the same rights that we Americans do (I don't necessarily agree with this, it is just how the law works). Eventually this will come to an end. Tens or hundreds of thousands of people have known about what I am saying for a hundred years. Eventually a critical mass of people will be wise to the scam and HR departments will no longer subordinate perjury by pressuring clueless people to improperly sign a Form W-4, declaring themselves to be a foreign person subject to wage withholding (see Treasury Decision 8734)[0]. [0] https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-irbs/irb97-44.pdf https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-irbs/irb97-44.pdf
- verall 2y agoThis is very interesting. Do you just not pay your income taxes?
- rights_reminder 2y ago[dead]
- rcpt 2y agoEvery Republican must swear an oath to uphold Grover Norquist thought
- sizzle 2y agoBlame the lobbying efforts of Intuit