FSF Calls On the IRS To Provide Libre Tax-Filing Software (fsf.org) 111
In a blog post today, the Free Software Foundation is calling on the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) to provide free/libre tax-filing software for Americans to file their taxes, citing upcoming legislation that allocates funds for the agency to explore a government-operated gratis tax return system. "Many feel they have no other option than to use nonfree software or a Service as a Software Substitute (SaaSS), giving up their freedom as well as their most private financial information to a third-party company, in order to file taxes," writes the FSF.
$15 million of the $80 billion that was approved for the IRS by the Inflation Reduction Act includes the promise to further explore an "electronic service to prepare and file tax returns directly with the IRS." To do so, the IRS intends to "study taxpayer preferences for products. The results of the study will inform if and how the IRS should design such a service." The FSF writes: Let's call on the IRS to make a website for filing your tax return which respects your freedom. This is your chance. Write to the new IRS commissioner Daniel Werfel with your message. [...] Look up the address of your state's tax filing institution and send your letter to this address. Post your letter on social media to inspire others to do the same.
$15 million of the $80 billion that was approved for the IRS by the Inflation Reduction Act includes the promise to further explore an "electronic service to prepare and file tax returns directly with the IRS." To do so, the IRS intends to "study taxpayer preferences for products. The results of the study will inform if and how the IRS should design such a service." The FSF writes: Let's call on the IRS to make a website for filing your tax return which respects your freedom. This is your chance. Write to the new IRS commissioner Daniel Werfel with your message. [...] Look up the address of your state's tax filing institution and send your letter to this address. Post your letter on social media to inspire others to do the same.
FSFLA worked on this in Brazil (Score:5, Informative)
Not sure of the current status, but I remember in 2007 that Alexandre Oliva reverse engineered the software for filing taxes in Brazil:
https://www.linux.com/news/fsf... [linux.com]
H&R-Block & Turbotax will (Score:2, Funny)
...horsehead their beds.
Most people shouldn't have to file taxes (Score:4, Interesting)
In years when I file a simple 1040 and fuck it up somehow by forgetting some interest or some data entry error or whatever, they come back to me later and either send me a bill or give me the money back on an over payment.
If they already know what the fucking numbers should be why do I have to file?
Why not let everyone just accept whatever default they already know it should be and only require filing for those who have a more complex situation?
Instead no I have to pay turbo tax 200 bucks a year or in complex years have to pay a tax attorney or cpa thousands to do my taxes.
Forget free software, why do most of us even have to file?
Re:Most people shouldn't have to file taxes (Score:5, Informative)
Most people in most developed countries do not have to file.
They get a tax proposal from the government and only if they spot errors do they file the change for that error.
Re: (Score:1)
Exactly. That's what I'm talking about. Our tax system is ridiculous.
Re: Most people shouldn't have to file taxes (Score:2)
In the UK and Ireland the majority of people don't file anything. Taxes are deducted at source and if they want to apply for reliefs, most of those can be done online. It's only the self employed, investors and businesses who need to file or have accountants. Makes life easier for everyone.
Re: (Score:2)
For 90% of wage-earners out there, you are correct. The other 10% either make too much to qualify for EZ filing, or their income structure is so complex or convoluted that they absolutely need professionals to keep it all straight. But now we are talking about stepping into someone's rice bowl (in this case, all the tax prep software packages and services out there). These folks prey on the populace who don't know about free options for filing as it stands already. They also prey on these people by "loaning
Re: (Score:2)
Assuming 10% to be accurate, most of that minority are self-employed (electricians, plumbers & other independent contractors). It's still a small fraction of taxpayers in total and for most of them they might pay a couple of hundred for an accountant to add up their receipts and submit it. Rich people will do their own thing regardless of the regime because of course they will. It's still quite obviously a better system than requiring pretty much everyone to file a submission when there really shouldn't
Re:Most people shouldn't have to file taxes (Score:5, Informative)
If you're filing a simple 1040EZ, TurboTax and others have free filing options. They don't advertise them and try to direct you to more expensive products, but they are there and required by law. They even got sued over it, and you might be (or have been) eligible for a refund for prior years.
Re: (Score:1)
Unfortunately I'm filing 1040.
And they charge for electronic filing and for extra states and blah blah blah.
Taxes shouldn't be so complicated I need to pay someone to help perform a government mandated function.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Most people shouldn't have to file taxes (Score:5, Informative)
If you can fill out a 1040+schedules, you can file for free with the IRS Free Fillable Forms website (no income limit). And my state has free online filing (kind of a wizard-based thing, still basically following the forms) for everybody. I've never paid for the scam that is tax software, been filing electronically for many years.
Re: (Score:2)
This. 1000x this. Free Fillable Forms really needs better publicity.
Re: (Score:1)
https://www.irs.gov/filing/free-file-do-your-federal-taxes-for-free [irs.gov]
Re: (Score:2)
If you're an honest taxpayer, like most of us, that would work fine. But if you're taking money under the table, your signature (real or electronic) that the return is correct and has everything reported is the basis for criminal proceedings.
Re: (Score:2)
With the convoluted mess that the tax code is in, and the reality that even so called tax professionals can't get it right all the time I wholeheartedly agree. That doesn't change the reality that bartering for services or paying in cash for services doesn't happen. Having to file yourself rather than letting the IRS just send you a refund or ask for a check based on what they think they know does however, give each individual the opportunity to be as honest as their understanding of the tax code is.
I thin
Re: (Score:3)
They should go to prison based on their actual real crimes not something silly like lying on their taxes about their criminal income.
Why? Because it could be abused? Seems there are much easier laws to abuse and much easier ways to set someone up. Framing someone for a financial crime can already happen, there's no need to frame anyone for illicit income.
The thing about the financial crimes is that they're really easy to prove and a lot of the famous cases like Al Capone were so easy there's honestly no way you couldn't
During this time, the feds were quietly building a case against Capone. Despite his public and extravagant lifestyle, Capone never filed a federal income tax return, claiming that he had no taxable income. IRS Special Agent Frank Wilson and the “T-Men” followed the money, gathering evidence that Capone had made millions of dollars on income that was never taxed.
People get really good at hiding their crimes but what's the point of being a criminal enterprise if you can't live l
They're not going to get it (Score:5, Insightful)
If the IRS eventually offers such a service, it will be online and not local. Having it online allows them to fix software issues as they go, whereas problems in local software are going to be much more difficult to reliably fix and lead to arguments over who is responsible for discrepancies if the local software goes unpatched.
It's also highly unlikely to meet the FSF's requirements, which usually prohibits minification. We're likely to see jQuery and other libraries to save on developing at least some of the JS libraries, and we won't get any code running on the backend. They may set up a bug bounty program, but not on the live servers.
By all means, send in the messages. Petition the government for a desired outcome. Just don't be surprised when it doesn't come anywhere close.
Re:They're not going to get it (Score:4, Informative)
If the IRS eventually offers such a service, it will be online and not local. Having it online allows them to fix software issues as they go,
This is all nonsense, they just need to make their repository public.
Having an online service is orthogonal to "open and free." And if they make it free for distribution, the code quality will be better.
Re: They're not going to get it (Score:2)
Code quality? This is tax software we're talking about. The complexity is in the business rules, which absolutely won't be editable by just anyone. This is one of those situations where liability comes heavily into play.
Re: (Score:1)
The complexity is in the business rules, which absolutely won't be editable by just anyone. This is one of those situations where liability comes heavily into play.
This situation is not helped by making the code closed-source. Public audits will make the code better.
Re: (Score:2)
If the code quality is bad, the business logic will be guaranteed to be wrong.
Re: (Score:1)
It's also highly unlikely to meet the FSF's requirements
It's not asking them to meet the FSF requirements. It's not even asking them to release it under the FSF umbrella. It's just asking them to put the source under a open source licence.
Re: (Score:2)
No, the letter is clearly asking to put the software up under a free/libre license, which the FSF has several requirements for free software, a necessary but not sufficient one being it is open source. It's not sufficient to have the source code, but it's necessary for freedom to make it available under a free license. It would
Do Away With Taxes (Score:2)
Make it The U.S.A. inc. They can make their own money. O wait, they already do!
I'm really tired of Richard Stallman (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:I'm really tired of Richard Stallman (Score:4, Insightful)
He developed a definition for free software, the concept of copyleft, a set of licences to implement copyleft, he travelled the world for decades building support for this, he wrote code for GCC and GNU Emacs and a lot of other software projects that enabled others to make the packages we use today, he inspired campaigns against software patents, against DRM, against bad copyright laws.
And he persevered despite decades of insults and other people trying to ensure no one heard of his work.
I'm really tired of people thinking GPL relevant (Score:3)
He developed a definition for free software, the concept of copyleft, a set of licences to implement copyleft, he travelled the world for decades building support for this, ...
And failed in the long term as superior licenses emerged. Face it, GPL is a legacy license, an early flawed attempt the development world has largely move beyond. By far new projects are selecting other licenses, more permissive licenses.
"Permissive Open Source Licenses Continue to Trend
It’s no surprise that permissive open source licenses continue to dominate. The Apache 2.0 license and the MIT License are far more popular than the GPL family, together comprising over 50% of the top open source l
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Linus Torvalds has gone on record saying GPLv2 is the best licence for open source projects that matter. GPLv2 code, like Linux or Git, has not put off commercial use or contribution.
You sort of prove the point of GPL being a legacy license. Note that Linus refers to GPL v2, not v3. Stallman took things in the wrong direction. More recent FOSS developers have more options than Linus did, and they are preferring Apache and MIT to GPL v2 or v3.
Re: (Score:2)
Slashdot is representative: nerds don't like reading. They could read the GPL itself. They could read the FSF FAQ on the GPL. They could actually work through the claims of the "permissive" camp against the GPL and think about how things play out in the long term.
But they don't, because they're too clever to do all that reading and thinking.
Re: (Score:2)
Recent FOSS developers are preferring Apache and MIT because they fall for the FUD surrounding GPL.
Not really, they are moving away from the idea of revenue by providing support and customization.
They could read the GPL itself. They could read the FSF FAQ on the GPL. They could actually work through the claims of the "permissive" camp against the GPL and think about how things play out in the long term.
Reading the GPL confirms the viral nature of the license. The FOSS community has decades of experience with the GPL and has found it a poor fit for many things they want to do today.
Re: (Score:2)
they are moving away from the idea of revenue by providing support and customization.
You must be joking.
The industry, if anything, is now all about support. Actual software doesn't sell as well as ongoing support.
Reading the GPL confirms the viral nature
Nope. Any use of the concept "viral" to describe the GPL already shows you have fallen for the FUD.
The FOSS community has decades of experience with the GPL and has found it a poor fit for many things they want to do today.
No. You're confusing corporates who use open source code with "the FOSS community".
The actual FOSS community has found out that giving corporates the power to take their code, that developed at their own cost, and close it off isn't actually a viable long-term solution.
Re: (Score:2)
they are moving away from the idea of revenue by providing support and customization.
You must be joking.
Phrased poorly, "as their sole source of revenue". They want options that GPL is incompatible with.
Reading the GPL confirms the viral nature
Nope. Any use of the concept "viral" to describe the GPL already shows you have fallen for the FUD.
Nope, the "viral" metaphors is certainly more accurate than the "spider plant" of Stallman. Stallman metaphor is actually more like BSD, co-existence, where the GPL does impose its will on a larger body, like a virus. You can not dispute the ability of GPL to impose its will..
"The GPL license is 'viral,' meaning any derivative work you create containing even the smallest portion of the previously GPL licensed
Re: (Score:2)
The Apache 2.0 license and the MIT License are far more popular than the GPL family, together comprising over 50% of the top open source licenses currently in use.
Ah yes, we all know popularity and superiority go hand in hand...
However, itâ(TM)s clear at this point that business-wise, the preference is for licenses with fewer restrictions and limitations.
It's almost, alllllmost like RMS wasn't butting the needs of businesses first.
Re: (Score:2)
It's almost, alllllmost like RMS wasn't butting the needs of businesses first.
It's almost like he considered them the enemy, hence the eventual slide to irrelevance. Apache and MIT decided to take the lets try to work together approach and have become the preferred FOSS choices.
Re: (Score:2)
It's almost like he considered them the enemy, hence the eventual slide to irrelevance.
Slide into irrelevance from what? It's not like his stance has ever changed.
Apache and MIT decided to take the lets try to work together approach
Hardly.
and have become the preferred FOSS choices.
Preferred by whom? Freeloaders for sure!
Re: (Score:2)
It's almost like he considered them the enemy, hence the eventual slide to irrelevance.
Slide into irrelevance from what? It's not like his stance has ever changed.
The relevance of his stance. Once 50% of new FOSS projects agreed with him, now only low 20-something% of new FOSS projects agree. Hence becoming a legacy licensee , less relevant to current developers.
Apache and MIT decided to take the lets try to work together approach
Hardly.
and have become the preferred FOSS choices.
Preferred by whom? Freeloaders for sure!
Preferred by the majority of new FOSS projects.
Re: (Score:2)
The relevance of his stance. Once 50% of new FOSS projects agreed with him, now only low 20-something% of new FOSS projects agree.
1 GCC is worth a million leftpads.
Re: (Score:2)
The relevance of his stance. Once 50% of new FOSS projects agreed with him, now only low 20-something% of new FOSS projects agree.
1 GCC is worth a million leftpads.
GCC is nothing more than yet another legacy GPL user. GCC is also eminently replaceable, for example llvm, which is Apache.
Re: (Score:2)
GCC is nothing more than yet another legacy GPL user. GCC is also eminently replaceable, for example llvm, which is Apache.
Right so you concede that a million worthless projects not using the GPL is just noise and not worth considering seriously. So now your argument is that the GPL is "legacy" because some of the major projects using the GPL could be replaced with an inferior alternative.
Measurably inferior. GCC is doing somewhat better than clang in C++23 support and clang is still a way off on even C++20
Re: (Score:2)
GCC is nothing more than yet another legacy GPL user. GCC is also eminently replaceable, for example llvm, which is Apache.
Right so you concede that a million worthless projects not using the GPL ...
No, I point out you are attempting a goal post move. GPL once having 50% required all those small projects, they counted then, they count now. The fact remains that GPL is infrequently chosen for newer projects. GCC vs LLVM is also an example of that, similarly projects, LLVM being newer and going Apache.
As I said, GPL is largely a legacy license at this point, the GCC proves nothing other than that.
So now your argument is that the GPL is "legacy" because some of the major projects using the GPL could be replaced with an inferior alternative.
No, the newer alternatives undermine your claim of the importance for the legacy software. For example LLV
Re: (Score:2)
No, I point out you are attempting a goal post move.
Yeah because you put the goalposts in a daft place.
GPL once having 50% required all those small projects, they counted then, they count now. The fact remains that GPL is infrequently chosen for newer projects. GCC vs LLVM is also an example of that, similarly projects, LLVM being newer and going Apache.
Irrelevant. A million leftpads is still not worth one GCC. The question isn't about new projects it's about long term, successful projects. A tiny, disposab
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah because you put the goalposts in a daft place.
I simply point out reality. GPL is a legacy license, IIRC 22% of new project select it. More permissive licenses like Apache and MIT are far more popular for new FOSS projects.
A million leftpads is still not worth one GCC. The question isn't about new projects it's about long term, successful projects.
That is your goal post move. Amusingly you are effective stating GPL is a legacy OS by noting its popularity among old projects rather than new.
Also, GPL and GCC are two different things. Had GCC used a different license the world would not care. GCC's choice of GPL was also political, whereas outside of GNU and in more modern FOSS
Re: (Score:2)
I simply point out reality. GPL is a legacy license,
You need to accept that your opinion is not a fact.
IIRC 22% of new project select it. More permissive licenses like Apache and MIT are far more popular for new FOSS projects.
Yes, and? That doesn't make it "legacy". Whatever the fuck you mean by "legacy".
Had GCC used a different license the world would not care. GCC's choice of GPL was also political, whereas outside of GNU and in more modern FOSS they are more practical.
You misspelled "less practical". The
Re: (Score:2)
I simply point out reality. GPL is a legacy license,
You need to accept that your opinion is not a fact.
From over 50% of new projects to 22% is not an opinion.
IIRC 22% of new project select it. More permissive licenses like Apache and MIT are far more popular for new FOSS projects.
Yes, and? That doesn't make it "legacy". Whatever the fuck you mean by "legacy".
From the dictionary: "of, relating to, associated with, or carried over from an earlier time, technology, business, etc"
In other words it is past its prime and rarely selected by new projects. Ie 50% to 22% of new FOSS projects.
Had GCC used a different license the world would not care. GCC's choice of GPL was also political, whereas outside of GNU and in more modern FOSS they are more practical.
You misspelled "less practical". The GPL was born out of practicality.
No it was born out of ideology. Hence its viral nature. The more practical licenses are more permissive, acceptable to a wider audience.
Not many people actually know the history there. Not being in control of your own stuff is not a practical choice in many cases.
You are always in control of your own stuff. The more permissive licenses take nothing away
Re: (Score:2)
No it was born out of ideology.
Don't just make shit up because you think it sounds good.
Hence its viral nature.
The practicalities don't work if it doesn't use the viral clauses of copyright law.
You are always in control of your own stuff.
That's 100% pure, unmitigated, wrongness. Phones being a prime example...
GPL would block some path with its restrictions.
The only restriction you have is to not place restrictions on anyone else.
Re: (Score:2)
No it was born out of ideology.
Don't just make shit up because you think it sounds good.
LOL. So the "four freedoms" and "copyleft" are not ideologies.
Hence its viral nature.
The practicalities don't work if it doesn't use the viral clauses of copyright law.
Copyright is not viral, copyleft is. Copyright does not force a license upon others.
You are always in control of your own stuff.
That's 100% pure, unmitigated, wrongness.
Wrong. If you write software, use a permissive license, you have lost nothing that you wrote.
Phones being a prime example...
Phones being a bad analogy. Regular users don't write code for the phone's system software, they write applications for the phone.
GPL would block some path with its restrictions.
Thank you for proving my earlier point, more restrictive, but "benevolent" from the perspective of advocates.
The only restriction you have is to not place restrictions on anyone else.
Actually, restricting others is an
Re: (Score:2)
LOL. So the "four freedoms" and "copyleft" are not ideologies.
From making shit up to now vociferously arguing a different point. God job.
Phones being a bad analogy. Regular users[...]
Right... so I'm not a "regular user" so I don't count. That's a weird stretch.
Copyright is not viral, copyleft is. Copyright does not force a license upon others.
You don't understand copyright very well do you? It is absolutely viral. If it wasn't then the GPL couldn't work because copyright licenses cannot be stronger than cop
Re: (Score:2)
Copyright does not force a license upon others
You don't understand copyright very well do you?
Copyright defines ownership, nothing else. Copyleft forces a license.
It is absolutely viral.
I'm not sure you understand the meaning of that word.
If it wasn't then the GPL couldn't work because copyright licenses cannot be stronger than copyright law allows for.
Nonsense. Copyright does nothing more than establish ownership. I separate license allows a 3rd party access to someone else's copyrighted material. In particular the GPL license forces a copyright holder to license their source code under the GPL if they wish to incorporate any other GPL source code at all.
Actually, restricting others is an inherent part of copyleft.
Actually no it's not. It's about ensuring everyone with your software has the freedom to use and modify it as they see fit.
Again, you seem under the illusion that imposing restrictions with benevolent int
Re: (Score:2)
Copyright defines ownership, nothing else.
And that is viral. If you use anything, anything at all of a copyrighted work, your thing becomes a derived work and is partly owned by the owner of the copyright work. You are now at the whims of the original owner. copyright is inherently viral: every time you touch someone else's work you are infected with ownership.
Again, you seem under the illusion that imposing restrictions with benevolent intentions is somehow not imposing restrictions.
Like how the laws again
Re: (Score:2)
Copyright defines ownership, nothing else.
And that is viral. If you use anything, anything at all of a copyrighted work, your thing becomes a derived work and is partly owned by the owner of the copyright work.
OMFG - Has your educational experience not introduced you to quotes, citations, footnotes, endnotes, etc. You might want to google "copyright fair use doctrine". Also copyrights can expire and the work enter the public domain.
Again, you seem under the illusion that imposing restrictions with benevolent intentions is somehow not imposing restrictions.
Like how the laws against slavery are restrictions? Would you be more or less restricted if you were captured and enslaved?
Uh, no, it's not like that at all. But thank you for outing yourself as a completely ideological idiot who can do little more than regurgitate false dogma. Permissive licensing takes nothing from you, not one line of source code, you always have it.
Re: (Score:2)
OMFG - Has your educational experience not introduced you to quotes, citations, footnotes, endnotes, etc. You might want to google "copyright fair use doctrine".
OMFG do you not know what fair use is?
Let me let you in on a little clue: if you use a bit of code I wrote in your software, that is not fair use.
Its 100% clear we are talking about software and code, so why drag this irrelevance into it, unless you're more interested in scoring internet points than anything else? HAHA I can read your post out of th
Re: (Score:2)
OMFG - Has your educational experience not introduced you to quotes, citations, footnotes, endnotes, etc. You might want to google "copyright fair use doctrine".
OMFG do you not know what fair use is?
Given the above starts with a fair use example, I'd say yes. Again, get back to us when you have learned is meaning.
Let me let you in on a little clue: if you use a bit of code I wrote in your software, that is not fair use.
You might notice that is NOT an example I used with respect to fair use. It is however the sort of example I used with respect to the viral nature of the GPL.
Its 100% clear we are talking about software and code, so why drag this irrelevance into it, unless you're more interested in scoring internet points than anything else?
At this point you may want to remind yourself that the conversation took a little detour when you falsely claimed that copyright is viral, and I corrected you saying that copyright itself does nothing than determine ownership.
HAHA I can read your post out of the clear context of the discussion to "prove" your[sic] wrong!!11one
Also copyrights can expire and the work enter the public domain.
Also irrelevant bullshit.
Not reall
Re: (Score:2)
Given the above starts with a fair use example, I'd say yes.
Right so you're intentionally dragging in a red herring. Being obnoxious is worse than being stupid.
You might notice that is NOT an example I used with respect to fair use. It is however the sort of example I used with respect to the viral nature of the GPL.
GPL does not somehow do an end run around fair use. Fair use is fair use regardless of the GPL. Copyright virally establish ownership. If you use someone else's copyright code (drop it with the
Re: (Score:2)
Given the above starts with a fair use example, I'd say yes.
Right so you're intentionally dragging in a red herring.
No, you made a false claim that copyright was viral. I corrected you in pointing out that copyright was only about ownership.
GPL does not somehow do an end run around fair use. Fair use is fair use regardless of the GPL.
Fair use as in showing a code snipped in an article or book with citation. There is no fair use for it appearing in your source code.
Copyright virally establish ownership.
Again, wrong. I can include an excerpt of someone else's copyrighted work. Cite the source/ownership and I am not affected. Again, have you not yet done footnotes, endnotes, etc in school?
If you use someone else's copyright code (drop it with the fair use wankery, we both know it's clear I'm talking specifically about not that context) ...
No such thing was clear, especially given the erroneous beliefs ne
Re: (Score:2)
No, you made a false claim that copyright was viral.
My claim is true.
I corrected you in pointing out that copyright was only about ownership.
No, that's not a correction. It's true, but yet still not a correction. Copyright is about ownership, and the ownership semantics are viral. If you use someone's copyright work (in a way not covered fair use), your work is infected with their ownership. If someone uses your work, their work is infected with the original ownership via your work.
That's literally how the
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
20% is a huge amount, especially considering the amount of FOSS that's either throwaway or corporate.
Yes buy declining 50% to 20% remains a massive decline, evidence that it has lost the preference of the FOSS community. At 50% GPL also had many throwaway and corporate projects. Linux is now a corporate project. Its direction, its implementation, is basically corporate controlled. We are long past the days of hobbyist developers.
Regardless, claiming that the license that the largest, most successful, free software/open source project in the history of humanity uses is "irrelevant" is a bit of a stretch, right?
I said it was a legacy license, clinging on due to past success, that it is largely irrelevant to new FOSS projects where the developers have more options. In short you are referri
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Frankly unless there's a national security concern or something that falls under the purview of state secrets, anything the government produces or funds the production of should be open source or similarly available to the public.
And those national security concerns should be rare, and become rarer over time.
Won't happen (Score:2)
Great that FSF is officially joining the fight for unfucking tax filing in the US.
Also, this fight is very very far from new.
Everyone here already hates it, and has for their entire employed lifetime.
Every other modern country points and laughs at our shit tax filing process.
Despite coming up for "public debate" every single year for at least the last decade, it remains unchanged.
The "S.4508 - Tax Filing Simplification Act of 2022" actually did the INVERSE and made it simpler for my employer while making it
Re: (Score:2)
There are entire lobbying groups dedicated to "not unfucking" taxes. The more complicated tax codes are, the more chances someone needs to hire TurboTax or H&R Block or the like to do their taxes and they get to skim off the entire operation. They aren't going to give that up without a fight.
Every other modern country points and laughs at our shit tax filing process.
I think that could be either shortened or expanded. Things other countries point and laugh at the US for:
Long-lived organisms accumulate parasites (Score:2)
And, sadly, the USA is increasingly becoming a poster child for parasitism as your list reflects. In every example you cite, one can easily find some group who is privatizing gains while socializing costs and risks. And the institutions that should help prevent such parasitism (e.g. Congress, executive regulatory bodies) are increasingly dysfunctional and often corrupted by regulator capture. One thing parasites become very good at through evolution is evading the immune system or co-opting it.
Ultimately, c
Re: (Score:2)
Interesting post. Thank you for being cohesive in your response.
The one thing I'd like to add is the "possible fixes" in the United States specifically would require congress, a body that is wholly owned by the uber-rich at this point, to enact laws that help the common man. And, unfortunately, with our current wealth distributed mostly at the top, that would mean hurting those same uber-rich (in their view) by lowering their net worth to something more reasonable. I don't see that happening without bloodsh
Walking away & problems of affluence (Score:2)
Thanks for your reply. One key point from Daniel Quinn's "Beyond Civilization" on just walking away instead of pursuing violent revolution:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
"Part 4: Toward the New Tribalism
Quinn states that abandonment is a more workable technique to be rid of hierarchy when compared with violent upheaval; this is because, unlike with upheaval, the people in power have no way to defend themselves against abandonment. He also claims that people do not (and cannot) transform our culture toward
Re: (Score:2)
Sounds like a very interesting read. I may have to pick it up. Thanks for the info and the links.
Web forms. Done. (Score:4)
>"provide free/libre tax-filing software for Americans to file their taxes"
I don't even want "software". I just want to be able to freaking fill out a few web forms versions of 1040/etc on a secure website THEY manage and submit and be done. I don't want to load anything. I don't want to "share" my data with a third party.
Re: (Score:1)
I don't want to "share" my data with a third party.
Did you even bother reading past the first few sentences of the summary?
Because he makes ENTIRELY this point. If you have online-only forms, then you may as well concede that at some time in the future, your data WILL be shared by a third party. That's why the letter is arguing for open source software that's not just a "service", so you are also in control of whether your data is shared with a third party, now and into the future.
You do NOT get this guarantee from web forms. THAT'S THE POINT. No one
Re: (Score:2)
If you have online-only forms, then you may as well concede that at some time in the future, your data WILL be shared by a third party. That's why the letter is arguing for open source software that's not just a "service", so you are also in control of whether your data is shared with a third party, now and into the future.
That doesn't make any sense. Whether the IRS provides an online-only application or open source that you compile yourself, in the end you are giving that information to the IRS. How, exactly, does how the application is provided ensure that "your data WILL be shared by a third party?" They could share whatever data your fat open source app generates once your send it to them just as easily as they could if you typed it into a web form.
Re: (Score:2)
Have you been living under a rock?
Re: (Score:2)
No, I'm completely aware of all of that, but you summed this up with "half-arsed developer." Your web app doesn't have to be written in such a shitty manner. Now, to be fair, if history teaches us anything, this would be outsourced to someone who would staff with the shittiest developers they could find and charge 100x what the finished product is worth (which would be delivered 20 years past the proposed 6 month schedule) but the point remains--the delivery does not have to dictate security.
Re: (Score:2)
Your web app doesn't have to be
You want to make a bet that it wouldn't?
You want to make a bet that the web app will be continually updated and tested to mitigate against all sorts of cross-site tracking into the future?
Re: (Score:2)
But apparently, I'm wrong because I hurt your feelings.
Why software? (Score:4, Insightful)
Why are we talking about tax software at all? Let's do it the way all the civilized countries do:
Just send us a tax form already filled out perfectly, which 95% of us will just double check for obvious mistakes and return with our payment (if applicable).
If you're one of the small percentage of people that have additional tax considerations the government doesn't already know about, then you make the corrections and send that in. Or probably hire a crooked accountant to do it properly because, let's be honest, if you're a special tax case you're probably rich, and will be better off hiring an expert to twist through loopholes and cook your books in ways that are technically legal, or at least unlikely to get you caught.
The one thing you're definitely NOT going to do is trust some piece-of-junk software provided by the government to game the system as hard as possible in your favor without screwing up.
Re: (Score:2)
That would make the most sense, but there are choices to be made that the govt can't make for you, even for a lot of taxpayers. For example, whether to file married or separately, how many dependents you actually have, how to amortize bonds if you own them, how to estimate next year's taxes, what deductions you have, and on and on due to the complexity of the tax code in the US.
Hire carefully! (Score:1)
They need to make certain they don't hire the same software development firm that built the Obamacare enrollment website!
holy shit get with the times USA (Score:2)
Alternatives (Score:2)
Best Solution (Score:1)
Pass the FairTax, abolish the IRS. No filing at all by the public, only retailers.
In civilized countries... (Score:2)
It's nice to live in a civilized country such as the UK, where you either:
A) Don't do a tax return at all, as your income is taxed at source.
B) Can do it simply via a website provided by the tax department, which helps and guides you. They also have free phone support if you get stuck. (HMRC)
C) If you have very complex tax affairs, get an accountant to do it for you.
At no point is a normal person ever required to engage with a 3rd party to file their taxes... the US system is a joke!
$15 million to just "study" the problem? (Score:2)
Government at its finest. (Score:2)
Hell, they could just start the bidding to see who wants to write it for $10 mill.
One of the sad parts about this example of government idiocy is that Congress, the people who allocated these funds, already know that their constituents want this. That's part of their job. They could tell the IRS that all of their constituents (
Free Tax filing (Score:2)
govt software (Score:2)
Be careful what you wish for. If you think Turbotax is clunky and has a bad user interface, just wait until you try Uncle Sam's version.
There's also the small problem of how to bundle state tax software.
Re:Flat tax, consumption tax... (Score:4, Insightful)
Flat tax is kind of regressive, and consumption tax even more regressive. Europe gets away with it because they compensate with a lot of social services. A consumption tax in the USA without free health care for all and more unionization would widen the already dangerous wealth gap.
Flat tax proposals usually have tiers (Score:1)
Flat tax is kind of regressive, ...
"Flat" is often a bit of a misnomer. Most flat tax proposals are tiered and have different tax rates at each income tier. It's really only flat within the tier. No deductions, no credits. Whatever the % your tier pays is what you pay. Your tax return could fit on a post card. Income -> Tax tier table -> % -> Taxes Due -> Amount Already Paid -> Amount Due/Refunded.
Hell your last paycheck of the year could contain the postcard prefilled with the numbers and just needing your signature.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Then that's a progressive tax system.
A flat one. Progress taxes are not necessarily flat, again deductions and credits.
Re: (Score:2)
Progress taxes are not necessarily flat
That's right. That's why they're called progressive taxes.
Re: (Score:2)
Progress taxes are not necessarily flat
That's right. That's why they're called progressive taxes.
Not necessarily flat within their brackets. "Flat", without deductions, etc within a bracket is really the dominating characteristic when comparing various proposals.
Re: (Score:2)
The progressive system refers to having the different bracket rates at increasing levels.
Whether or not there are other taxes or deduction comes into play are a separate issue.
When people use a name, they are talking about that very thing, and not other things.
When I say "the city I'm living in has a public transport system", I'm not saying "there are no cars or bikes or footpaths".
Re: (Score:2)
You don't seem to understand how names work.
You don't seem to understand the point that reality does not always follow dictionary definitions. The fact remains that real world flat tax proposals tend to have tiers. Yes they are hybrids, but the "flat" nature within a tier, a bracket, no deductions, is the most important characteristic. Having tiers/brackets is a relatively minor thing.
The fact remains, if you assume a "flat tax" proposal in the real world does not have tiers/brackets you will be wrong.
Re: (Score:3)
That's not a flat tax at all. A flat tax has a single percentage (18% is a common number) paid by everyone regardless of their income level. Deductions and refunds, often to offset the comparative hit to cashflow at low income levels, are frequently part of the proposals.
Re: (Score:2)
That's not a flat tax at all. A flat tax has a single percentage (18% is a common number) paid by everyone regardless of their income level. Deductions and refunds, often to offset the comparative hit to cashflow at low income levels, are frequently part of the proposals.
You are confusing textbook nomenclature with reality. Various "flat tax" proposals in the real world are actually tiered. Their dominating characteristic is the lack of deductions or credits. The number of tiers can vary with the proposal. Some have only two, 0% for the poor and some non-zero for everyone else. Others may have three, poor, middle class and wealthy. Again the key here is no deductions, no credits.
Re: (Score:2)
If someone wants to misuse the term, that's their problem. If you say "flat tax" to most people, they're not thinking "multiple tiers of tax levels." They think "single tax rate for everyone." You can look around and see that others think the same thing. Here are a few examples:
Investopedia: "A flat tax refers to a single tax rate being applied to every taxpayer regardless of income. Typically, a flat tax involves no deductions or exemptions. However, some politicians have proposed flat tax systems that kee
Re: (Score:2)
If someone wants to misuse the term, that's their problem. If you say "flat tax" to most people, they're not thinking "multiple tiers of tax levels."
I am not redefining "flat tax". I am noting dictionary definition vs common use. I am pointing out that many actual proposals referred to as "flat tax" proposals actually are tiered, flat only within a tier. That's reality. So to say flat tax proposal are inherently regressive is erroneous. Various real world proposals are not regressive. You have to look at them to tell, you can't rely on nomenclature.
Investopedia: "A flat tax refers to a single tax rate being applied to every taxpayer regardless of income. Typically, a flat tax involves no deductions or exemptions. However, some politicians have proposed flat tax systems that keep certain deductions in place."
As some have proposed flat tax systems with brackets, and percentages flat within that bracket. Either way
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What you're describing isn't progressive tax either. It's means testing. I wouldn't go so far as to describe it as idiotic; but I've read some documents in which policy makers have concluded that it's not always cost effective. It imposes an administrative cost, and in some cases that cost offsets the increased revenue brought in from wealthier benefits recipients. This is why it costs me the same amount of money to get my driver's license as it does Warren Buffet. Can you imagine how long the wait at t