Tax Credits To Intuit Better Spent To Fund a Free Alternative To TurboTax, Lawmakers Say

Intuit is being questioned by US lawmakers who say federal tax credits the company received could have been better spent to build a free government alternative to Intuit's popular online tax preparation software, TurboTax. From a report: "For years, Intuit's corporate lobbyists have argued that the federal government should not set up a program for Americans to file their taxes online and for free because it would be too costly for taxpayers," the lawmakers, including Senators Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders, wrote in a letter to the company. "Your company's disclosure reveals that Intuit's research tax break from 2022 alone could have been enough to fund a year of a free e-File program for millions of Americans."

The lawmakers asked Intuit to provide details on its research expenses dating to 2018. Warren, a Massachusetts Democrat, and Sanders, an Independent from Vermont, were joined on the letter by Senator Richard Blumenthal, a Connecticut Democrat, and Representative Katie Porter, a Democrat from California. The Internal Revenue Service, in a report to Congress last year, estimated it would cost $64 million to $249 million annually for the agency to run a free-filing program. In the fiscal year ending in July 2023, Mountain View, California-based Intuit received $106 million in federal research and experimentation credits, which amounted to about 4% of its total R&D expenses, according to a regulatory filing.

Good idea, but

[Registered Coward v2]

having been involved in several attempts by government agencies to develop their own versions of commercial software, I'd be worried about trusting such a product to do my taxes. In theory it should easy for many taxpayer - the IRS already has your W2's, knows the brackets and standard deductions, what could go wrong. My concerns is bugs and errors would push filers into a mess of finger pointed and penalties while it gets sorted out. TurboTax and others seem to have sorted it out and likely pay them is a better and possibly cheaper alternative.

Re:Good idea, but

[Calydor]

It actually works decently well where I'm from, Denmark. Here you get your yearly calculations as our version of the IRS is aware of it, and if you have nothing to change about it - you just do nothing. It's a system that simply works.

Re: Good idea, but

[beelsebob]

To be fair, the US is especially good at screwing up government software by having half the government try to sabotage it, and everyone try to trim out all the âoenon essentialâ parts.

That said, weâ(TM)re pretty good at that in the UK too, and we still have a working PAYE tax system.

Re:

[VeryFluffyBunny]

That said, we're pretty good at that in the UK too, and we still have a working PAYE tax system.

Give it time, beelsebob. Give it time.

Re: Good idea, but

[Malc]

I hate the PAYE system. They canâ(TM)t get it fucking right. Iâ(TM)ve lived in the US and Canada too and would much prefer their systems where I, as the taxpayer, is in control of deductions. Trust me, Iâ(TM)ll get it right and wonâ(TM)t have an unexpected expense or be robbed of my earnings because they fucked up the PAYE code yet again.

Good example is where a few years ago, our pensions got switched at an acquisition from salary sacrifice to relief at source. Nobody explained the c

Re:

[arglebargle_xiv]

The US also has an incredibly awkward tax system. The first time I had to fill out a 1040 (and 201) I couldn't believe that it came with a massive instruction book telling you what to do, and even then it wasn't enough to help me fill it out, I just ended up guessing some bits. It was quite a shock coming from a place where your tax return consisted of scanning a few pages, checking some boxes, and signing at the bottom (pre-Internet), I used to do it during a TV ad break to fill in the time. In contrast

Re:Good idea, but

[Thoth Ptolemy]

The US isn't known for it's intelligent, informed electorate that would support such a thing. I mean, we have people outraged at a "death tax" that will never, ever in their, or their families' and friends' lives, impact them. People who vote for union-busting and then complain about their wages. The US is overrun with gullible idiots would be the central theme I'm going for here.

Re:Good idea, but

[toxonix]

Nothing simply works in the US because everything has to be milked for profit by multi-national corporations. And corporations are continuously merging and acquiring each other, so most of the time is spent integrating and rebranding everything. Intuit/TurboTax turns what should be a 5 minute operation into a multi-hour thing with every opportunity taken to upsell you on their "premium" product.

Re:Good idea, but

[e3m4n]

To be frank, I dont think your taxes are anywhere nearly as complicated as ours. All these questions that could trigger rabbit holes of policies like - Did you work for a train company during 2023. Is anyone in your household blind? Did you buy a EcoSmart appliance while driving backwards on a unicycle while wearing hotpants and a pink cutoff t-shirt? Thats the costly part of the tax software. Anyone can file a basic standard deduction and pay at the highest tier of tax code. Getting every overly complex break youre entitled to is a wee but more complicated. Even for the free 1099 filings there are things like earned income credit (EIC). This also does nothing for state filings. With turbotax it automatically transfers my federal shit to my state taxes and then goes from there. Some states are as simple as running an error check after import and youre done. I dont have to file local taxes, they just keep 100% but I have heard some places they have to file a local form also.

Re:

[F.Ultra]

If you have such special deductions you simply file them online in an addendum, this is how it works in Sweden and I'm 100% certain that it works that in Denmark as well. Just stop with the American exceptionalism, that you need turbo tax is only down to the work of lobbyist, nothing more.

Re:Good idea, but

[Njovich]

None of those sound complicated at all though? A checkbox with a standard deduction if you are under a certain age?

If you think European taxes don't have this kind of things... of course we do. The complication from the US system is from the different tax layers (federal, state and local), where European countries also generally have those but they tend to be more neatly segmented. However at the end of the day each of those tax rules is just a simple rule that boils down to a checkbox, a couple of conditions and some deduction or addition. It's a lot of rules but it isn't all that complicated.

Like what tax rule would be complicated to implement?

Re: Good idea, but

[dpille]

Well, for instance, imagine you're enrolled in the SAVE income-driven student loan payment plan. Are your family's net payments to the government lowest when you're married filing jointly or separately? Or is it best to divorce for a few days around December 31? You'll only have to run 5 different entire tax returns to answer that question.

Re:

[Njovich]

Or is it best to divorce for a few days around December 31?

Intuit does this? I mean if they include tax evasion schemes like setting up sandwiches through ireland then yes this would be pretty complicated.

Re:

[kaatochacha]

Taxes should be separate from our current reward/punishment systems. Which is why our system should be reformed in favor of a graduated flat tax: each dollar extra you make is taxed at an incrementally small larger amount. So the rate on your first dollar will be X Percentage+(1(tiny amount)), second dollar X percentage+(2(tiny amount)) etc.
No deductions. Just what you earned and what you pay. We can debate what earning is about, but once that's know it should be simple to calculate. Everyone pays. Higher e

Re: Good idea, but

[Malc]

We already have a progressive tax system like that. The level of granularity seems to be a bit coarser than youâ(TM)re suggesting though. Tax policy can be used to encourage behaviour though, such as reducing your total income when you spend on something beneficial like education.

Re:

[nmb3000]

To be frank, I dont think your taxes are anywhere nearly as complicated as ours.

Maybe, but _who_ do you think lobbies for the convoluted tax laws? Who benefits from citizens feeling like taxes are "too complicated" to do without some expensive software holding their hand?

But even with the absurd deductions, credits, loopholes, and other tax nonsense, it's the IRS that is responsible for navigating, implementing, and enforcing all of these rules. They have thousands of pages of detailed explanations for how to calculate taxes already available. If anyone was in a good position to bui

Re:

[cayenne8]

It actually works decently well where I'm from, Denmark. Here you get your yearly calculations as our version of the IRS is aware of it, and if you have nothing to change about it - you just do nothing. It's a system that simply works.

My guess is...it would not be simple to implement anything like that with the US IRS.

I'm willing to bet good money that at the IRS, there is no "one" system that does it all.

More than likely the IRS still works with a number of very old, ancient stovepipe systems that do no

Re:

[VeryFluffyBunny]

Works fine here in Spain too. In fact almost all public services are online. Very easy & convenient.

Re:Good idea, but

[larryjoe]

It actually works decently well where I'm from, Denmark. Here you get your yearly calculations as our version of the IRS is aware of it, and if you have nothing to change about it - you just do nothing. It's a system that simply works.

Its seems that many other countries have similar ways of doing tax returns. Why is the US different?

Is the problem that there are so many rules and regulations that any computer tax return program must necessary be complex to handle all those rules and regulations and inherent conflicts and ambiguities? The US will never get rid of its complex tax rules and regulations. Its existence is demanded by rich people as a means to reduce their tax burden and is guaranteed by the lobbyist money directed at the Congress that both criticizes and protects that complexity.

Is the problem that the current commercial tax return companies have been too successful with lobbying Congress to keep the government out of their market? In fairness to the companies, I can see why they would do this, as the alternative means that their business disappears.

Is the problem that many Americans inherently believe that private companies will always perform better than government agencies? In fairness to Americans with this viewpoint, there are historical examples to support this viewpoint, such as SpaceX vs. NASA, FedEx vs. USPS. But in fairness to the counterpoint, many of those underperforming government agencies were directly (and arguably intentionally) hobbled by the same Congressional critics via budget cuts and rules, sometimes on a ridiculous scale. Looking at bang for the buck when comparing government agency performance for the US versus European and other countries, the performance of many of the international agencies look enticing.

Re: Good idea, but

[pitch2cv]

Re: Denmark - also in EU, and except for folks with more complex tax sheets, like self-employed or business owners, most folks just go to govt tax site instead of through an accountant. Stuff is often filled out beforehand as it has been for over a decade, boxes to pay attention to get hilighted (say, you bought a house, got a new kid or divorced) for review, sign with the electronic ID, and be done with it. Takes 5 minutes. Not happy once the verdict comes afterwards? We got until next tax sheet to complai

Re:

[arglebargle_xiv]

Same here, for most wage earners at the end of the tax year they get notified of the state of affairs and that's about it. Even for somewhat nonstandard earners that need a few special-snowflake add-ons the filing process is pretty much a no-brainer, fill in the appropriate bit on the tax department web site and you're done.

I suspect lots of other countries also have systems like this that just work, it's the simplest and least effort for everyone (taxpayers and IRD) involved.

Re:

[F.Ultra]

ofc it scales, if your country is X times larger then you also have X times the number of taxpayers and therefore the IRS is X times more funded. Things like this scales 1:1, then we have your unsubstantiated claim that LA somehow have a larger economic diversity than Denmark which probably isn't true at all. To make matters ever worse for your position this is not only how it's done in Denmark but in Europe in general where we have a total population that is greater than that of the US so there goes that t

Re:

[Xenx]

Things like this scales 1:1

If anything, it should actually scale in favor of a larger population. I don't agree with any of their point. I do, however, believe it would be harder to initially implement. However, that has nothing to do with their BS reasoning. We've just overcomplicated it all.

Re:

[Vancorps]

It's a false choice though, its not all or nothing. The government can provide an option and Turbotax is free to still exist. It then promotes competition. If the government solution actually does a better job then fewer and fewer people will use Turbotax and H&R Block except likely for more complicated filings.

Re:Good idea, but

[bartle]

Personally, I think the IRS should simply send everyone a pre-filled out 1014 or 1014EZ every year at tax time. If the numbers match, sign it and send it back. If they don't, fix them and send it back. If you think that a CPA or a software package could do a better job, use them and send in their forms.

As I understand it, the majority of Americans just don't have very complicated taxes. There's no reason to make tax time difficult for them.

Re: Good idea, but

[beelsebob]

In the UK (and most of Europe) we donâ(TM)t even do that. If your taxes are just normal income (plus a bunch of other things like buying a home) you just donâ(TM)t file your taxes. If you suspect something is wrong, or you have a more complex situation, then you fill out a tax return.

Re:

[e3m4n]

Underpayment is also a possibility here. We have a form called a W-4 that your employer uses to withold amounts from your paycheck. Technically you can claim married with 9 kids even when you are single just to have newrly nothing taken out. Of course youll end up owing a bunch come April when you file. Illegal immigrants do this trick all the time, since they are using a stolen SSN. They dont file anyway so they make sure they arent paying a dime toward their taxes. I have suggested capping the w-4 to marr

Re:

[stabiesoft]

Obviously doesn't apply to the immigrant who doesn't file, but if you do file and have a serious underpayment (and you did not pay at least 100% of the previous year's tax liability in tax withholding for the current year, also called safe harbor), you'll owe a penalty. If you have investment income and file quarterly's you watch these numbers carefully.

Re:

[sheph]

There are penalties if you are off by more than 10% of your withholding. You don't want to be stupid about it, but within 5%? Why give the government an interest free loan for a year?

Re:

[e3m4n]

if youre an illegal they dont care about the penalties.. they use stolen SSN anyway

Re:

[samwichse]

You mean 1040?

Re:

[bartle]

You mean 1040?

Yes, my fingers are faster than my brain sometimes, but not as accurate.

Re:

[techno-vampire]

My taxes are as simple as simple can be. I'm retired and my Social Security isn't high enough to tax. My only other income is Federal Disability (30% disabled, Service Connected.) and that's tax exempt. Because of this, it's been years since I even needed to file. I do, however, remember what it was like to file when I was working, and I hope it's easier now than it was then, but I doubt it.

Re:

[strikethree]

Personally, I think the IRS should simply send everyone a pre-filled out 1014 or 1014EZ every year at tax time.

As long as we are giving out personal opinions, I think their shouldn't even BE an income tax on individual incomes that are less than the top 10% of earners. What even is the point? Create another consumption tax that makes up for any lost revenue if the money is that important.

Re:

[ceoyoyo]

Lots of countries already do it. You've got one reply from Denmark already. In Canada the revenue agency does their calculations and you can download them, add anything they don't know about, and send it back.

If US government software sourcing is so bad, maybe you want to take a look at that.

Re:Good idea, but

[Pascoea]

If US government software sourcing is so bad, maybe you want to take a look at that.

That's the crux of the argument. We don't have a "government software" for filing taxes. Why? Because we passed a law saying the government wasn't allowed to provide one. You get one guess who pushed such a law.

Re:

[guruevi]

The US is really a patchwork of different 'countries' like the EU has different 'country-states' as well but doesn't have a federal tax system (yet), they just take your money.

The Federal Tax system should be completely abolished, the government started out without a federal tax, the IRS was a temporary agency to fund the Civil War.

Re:

[ceoyoyo]

Lots of countries are federations or have other types of subunits with varying tax laws. Canadian provinces collect income tax and they range from a simple percentage of the federal tax paid to the feds and redistributed to Quebec that has to be different and have an entirely separate system.

The US government originally didn't have any way to raise funds and it was a disaster, triggering a constitutional crisis and rewrite. You might think you want to go back to only foreign trade federal taxation, but I do

Re:

[guruevi]

How was it a disaster? It worked as expected, states were supposed to be more independent than they are now, the US government rented guns, boats and cannons from private entities if it needed them, which allowed private entities a lot more influences on what their 'taxes' were spent on.

At that point, the US wasn't the greatest trade empire, it only became that way after WW1 and likely would've happened regardless through private trade because Europe had killed the majority of its economy.

Re:

[ceoyoyo]

The states didn't contribute, Colorado in particular said "lol, we don't have to so fuck you" and the constitution got rewritten. I realize in American history that's a grand success, but then everything is.

Re:

[guruevi]

Again, that was as designed. Power hungry people in central power didn't like it and rewrote the constitution. If Colorado didn't want to participate, it wouldn't have to and would've remained Colorado, with slightly less government services, now it's just a "province" of the Federal government at best.

Re:

[ceoyoyo]

You can absolutely argue that the US should be a looser confederation, more similar to the EU. It has costs and benefits.

I don't think most Americans would like it.

Re:

[ThurstonMoore]

Maybe they should hire better people than you to write their software.

Re:

[Registered Coward v2]

Maybe they should hire better people than you to write their software.

Fortunately I don’t write software.

Re:

[toxonix]

If those projects had only adopted Agile(TM) methodologies, they'd all have gone perfectly /s

Re:Good idea, but

[Robert Goatse]

Since the IRS has all of the relevant data, why do US folks have to 'do' taxes at all?

Re:

[aaarrrgggh]

They don't have "everything," and don't really want you to know what they do not know. They also think they know some things that might not be 100% correct.

Re:

[Koreantoast]

Since the IRS has all of the relevant data, why do US folks have to 'do' taxes at all?

Two forces, Grover Norquist and the American tax prep industry led by Intuit and H&R Block. Grover Norquist lobbies Congress to intentionally make paying taxes as complicated and as painful as possible so that Americans resent paying taxes and thus become more anti-tax. Meanwhile, tax prep folks want to make it complicated so that you need to pay for their services to file it. A quote from a past news article [politico.com] on this very topic:

H&R Block and Intuit want to make it difficult for you to file on your own. The anti-tax activists think that if taxpaying is too easy, voters will be less likely to resist the federal government’s growth. Both want to make it as painful as possible for you to do your taxes yourself.

Norquist isn't even shy or secretive about it - he openly talks about this p

Re: Good idea, but

[cyber-vandal]

Other countries have managed, I'm sure the world's largest economy can figure it out.

Re:

[aaarrrgggh]

Ultimately the problem is tax code complexity. Once you get beyond the basics that cover ~80% of individual income tax returns it can actually get complicated and more importantly, grey. If you could simplify returns for ~99% of people you might be able to make something that works easily and can be government run.

Re:

[stabiesoft]

Unless it has changed, the IRS does not have your W2 believe it or not. SSA has your W2, and it is not shared with the IRS until around June or July. Hence the reason you need to include it. 1099's are sent to the IRS, so that they have. Although again, the data is not correlated until somewhat after the initial scan. Basically the IRS believes your filing until they find out otherwise. What I think would be easy is to just automate the forms that you can already download. Not sure if pdf's can have calcula

no...

[Kludge]

My concerns is bugs and errors would push filers into a mess of finger pointed and penalties while it gets sorted out.

While the first version or two may have bugs and errors, the IRS is not going to penalize those who tried to use the software and failed. In fact I would be more concerned about using 3rd party software that works incorrectly. I think the IRS would be much less forgiving about that.
Do you work for Intuit?

Re:

[Registered Coward v2]

My concerns is bugs and errors would push filers into a mess of finger pointed and penalties while it gets sorted out.

While the first version or two may have bugs and errors, the IRS is not going to penalize those who tried to use the software and failed. In fact I would be more concerned about using 3rd party software that works incorrectly. I think the IRS would be much less forgiving about that. Do you work for Intuit?

No

Re:

[Local ID10T]

My concerns is bugs and errors would push filers into a mess of finger pointed and penalties while it gets sorted out. TurboTax and others seem to have sorted it out and likely pay them is a better and possibly cheaper alternative.

You are presuming a difficulty, while pointing to examples of it being solved.

That is not persuasive.

Re:

[whitroth]

Having worked for a Baby Bell (Ameritech, '95-'97) in what was a startup division that was going to be their long-distance service, you want to trust giant corporations to do it right, every year?

great idea

[laktech]

Lets not forget that Intuit is in the business that benefits from tax complexity so that their software can "fix it".

Re: great idea

[beelsebob]

But the money people spend on Intitâ(TM)s software would still get spent in the economy, so the government would still earn those sales taxes. Just people would be getting something useful for their money.

Re:

[Ksevio]

The government doesn't benefit from it being complex in itself though, that's just a symptom of using tax code to encourage or discourage things

Re:

[CAIMLAS]

How do you figure?

By making it complex, people are more likely to just go the easy route - either not filing (very bad for them), filing incorrectly (also bad), or paying someone to do it (in which case it might be done wrong). In all those cases, it's good for the government: the IRS can audit people (and do audit people, primarily poor people who can't do shit about it but pay the difference).

I've personally been audited twice. In one case it was a mistake by the IRS, and in the other it was my employer.

Re:

[Ksevio]

That's not the goal for the government. It costs the IRS money to audit people, it's much easier for them if they just get the money they need

Re:

[kaatochacha]

Totally this. Tax code shouldn't be encouraging or discouraging anything. It should be simple income for the government, and any encouraging/discouraging should be a completely separate program.

Just buy them...

[spudnic]

Why doesn't the federal government just buy Intuit? From what we spend on the IRS, I'm sure a deal could be reached that would be hard to turn down.

Re:

[nightflameauto]

Why doesn't the federal government just buy Intuit? From what we spend on the IRS, I'm sure a deal could be reached that would be hard to turn down.

This is my thought every time it comes up. Intuit can't be worth more than our government is willing to sneeze accidentally in a single day. Toss 'em a few bills an let 'em ride off into the sunset. Isn't that the dream of all software companies? To be bought out by a larger entity?

Re:

[laktech]

The issue is that Intuit adds more value than just filing of the taxes. They collect plenty of PII data that they sell which the government is not interested in but would have to pay for it. Building the tax filing software platform isn't difficult and it's not the value of Intuit, it's the market share. The governments version of the software can gain the market share with little troubles. There is no reason that it has to pay for it.

Re:

[nightflameauto]

The issue is that Intuit adds more value than just filing of the taxes. They collect plenty of PII data that they sell which the government is not interested in but would have to pay for it. Building the tax filing software platform isn't difficult and it's not the value of Intuit, it's the market share. The governments version of the software can gain the market share with little troubles. There is no reason that it has to pay for it.

Except for one minor little detail: Every time our government attempts to spin up a new form of software to help the general population, it comes across like they hired random people off the street that may have answered "do you know what a computer is\' with 'yes' or 'maybe' but really had no other qualifications for software development or testing. That's why buying something may be a better option. I'd hate to see tax-time if they botched it as horribly as the original ACA site. Oi.

Re:

[Pascoea]

I'd rather see them buy one of Intuit's competitors. There's hundreds of them, many of them without other "parts", like QuickBooks, involved. They could be had for much cheaper and still accomplish the same thing.

Re:

[cayenne8]

Why doesn't the federal government just buy Intuit? From what we spend on the IRS, I'm sure a deal could be reached that would be hard to turn down.

I'm pretty sure that is illegal for the US Federal Govt. to do....

Re:

[stabiesoft]

What are you talking about. The IRS cost 29 cents/hundred in 2022. https://www.irs.gov/newsroom/i... [irs.gov] Pretty efficient accounts receivables dept running at .29% of revenue. The IRS has been woefully underfunded for a very long time. And as soon as it got some funding, the republicans took some back. Many lobbyists like a very underfunded IRS to keep big donors happy.

IRS Already Has a System

[organgtool]

The IRS regularly finds issues with people's returns and corrects them, often before paying the refund. That means that they likely have an internal system that calculates the expected tax. Why not just expand that system to allow taxpayers a read-only view in which they can contest errors in the IRS system and add missing values (cash tips, cash sales, medical expenses, etc)? If all of the values are correct, you just pay that amount and you're done. If any values are missing, you can add them and then pay the total amount calculated by the IRS system. If values are incorrect, you can flag them and dispute the amount. Disputes can be reviewed by the IRS and once cleared, you pay the total amount calculated by the IRS system. While I imagine this is an oversimplification of what would need to be done, I can't imagine why we'd have to write a system from the ground up. In theory, this would cost less and streamline the process since the IRS could do all private filings with one system. We're the most technically advanced country in the world - how is it that everyone else already seems to have a solution and we're in the corner licking toads?

Re:

[Pascoea]

Why not just expand that system

Intuit's "lobbying" money is pretty much the reason "why not". (Not isolated to just Intuit, there are plenty of established players paying to keep the government from eating their lunch.)

Re:

[F.Ultra]

you just explained how it works in basically the rest of the world (i guess that there are still some countries like the US), this is simply the work of lobbyists managing top keep their lucrative business in play by making it complex for the public.

Re:

[samwichse]

That's starting soon. Currently in trials: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/i... [cbsnews.com]

Complexity breeds jobs

[Virtucon]

We'd put 10s of thousands of accountants, auditors, and IRS agents out of business if we fixed this thing called a tax code. Instead of
We try to find some technical solution to the issue that becomes another set of logic driven by rules sometimes in conflict.

Wasn't Intuit sued for deceptive practices over their "free filing" [npr.org]?
Yet here we are wanting to give them more taxpayer funds?

Shame on us for voting for these idiots.

Re:

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Better idea

[backslashdot]

Fund a non-profit foundation to do it. There are plenty of organizations already that help people to file taxes. Just allocation public (and private donation) funds to one or two of those to build the software.There are probably a lot of charitable foundations that would help out.

Re:

[guruevi]

There's already true free tax software, there are online sites, open source software, hell, you can use Adobe Reader to file your taxes.

Intuit doesn't just file your taxes though, their value is that they encode the tax code in software to find you ways to pay less taxes, which for most people is a really good deal. They advertise free and then up-sell you a $50 service to file the paperwork necessary to get an additional $500 refund.

Oh, I wouldn't trust the IRS to do it

[magzteel]

Years ago I was on an IRS modernization project. They spent billions and had nothing to show for it.
It was years late, way over budget, and the backlog of return processing was huge.

The IRS Response

[kaatochacha]

Years ago--around 2010 to 2015 ish-- I actually contacted the IRS complaining about having to buy Tax Software and suggesting that the IRS fund their own system.
I was surprised to receive a boilerplate reply that was essentially a version of "We support business, and 3rd party software is good for the economy and keeps people working."

4% of their R&D budget? WTF?

[DaveyJJ]

Are you seriously suggesting that Intuit spends roughly $2.6 *BILLION* a year on R&D? Researching what? That is a lot of corporate hookers and blow.

no no no

[groobly]

Ever tried to use any government website? I have been battling with EFTPS, the Treasury website for paying your taxes. It will lock you out if you sneeze. Need a new password? They will send you one in the mail in 2 weeks. Does it work? No, and you're locked out again. Can you change which bank the money comes from? Yes, but actually, nope, it's easier just to open a new EFTPS account, and they will send you a password in 2 weeks.

Hello from Portugal

[cloud.pt]

We have automatic and semi-assisted, ONLINE-ONLY tax preparation software, fully-funded by the government. And is is incredibly efficient for most people. I am betting it didn't cost more to do than what it cost in a single state of the US to pick up the trash for a single day.

Tax returns are a waste and joke

[djp2204]

Abolish all tax code spending and implement a flat tax and a minimum tax, eliminating refunds and tax returns for everyone under all circumstances. Or, abolish the income tax for everyone earning less than $500k per year and implement a national sales tax on non food items.

Always the way

[DrXym]

I have a similar issue to TurboTax but to do with education.

The Irish government sets a national education curriculum but different schools choose what books to use for each subject and every single parent in the country has to go off and buy the books their school says. But we're all getting them from a handful of booksellers who profit enormously from this arrangement. And because book companies like repeat business they sell these books as work copies, so they profit enormously too. i.e. kids write into

Re:

[whitroth]

Jesus Fucking Shit, are you that ignorant? Appointments need to be approved.

And don't you mean "daughter, son in law, or stupid son, or stupider son"?

You want to pay a corporate tax on top of your federal tax, right?

Re:

[OrangeTide]

society pays every time we elect clowns

Re: big government

[beelsebob]

So instead weâ(TM)ll just appoint whatever rich guy happens to own TurboTax. Itâ(TM)s much better to have a random capitalist hold the reins than a government official we can at least in theory hold accountable (though I agree that the accountability bit needs vast improvement).

Re:

[OrangeTide]

I cringe every time we have some industry insider running an agency. Seems to happen often in the pharmaceutical and military industry. Either bringing private CEOs into the public sector. Or bringing government employees to work as lobbyists for said industries. It's greasy

Re:

[ArchieBunker]

Well that settles it. I'm definitely not voting for Hunter Biden in the next election.

Re:

[Ksevio]

Would you get rid of local taxes, property taxes, and sales taxes? How would you allocate funding to municipalities? Seems like it's going to get a lot more complicated

Re:

[DaveyJJ]

Based on demographics like population, age ranges of people living in that municipality, overall distribution of wealth (including wealth and not just reported income), etc. More towards school aged, or districts with seniors or systemically disadvantaged regions, less for wealthier enclaves? Property taxes are perhaps another opportunity for fast taxation as well.

Re:

[kackle]

No, those taxes stay. Just simpler, less-cheatable income tax.

Re:

[kackle]

Clarity: All other taxes remain the same. (And somebody send in my court jester.)

Can someone explain why the idea is so distasteful on Slashdot? And, why, specifically the "troll" moderation versus "overrated"? Hmm...off with their heads!

Re:

[Ksevio]

So then lower income people would be paying a significantly higher effective tax rate than higher income people.

Re:

[kackle]

I don't understand these words. Those on welfare earn no money and therefore pay no taxes. Those who earn little, also pay little; and everyone would know the national tax rate, always, versus guessing at the end of the year whether one will get a refund. They use the schools, fire department and police just as much as higher earners do, probably more so. There's nothing more fair than a percentage across the board and I think it's critical we face the same taxation so we end the class fighting when vot

Re:

[Ksevio]

If you earn $100, pay 30% tax on the income, then buy $50 of stuff at 10% tax, then your effective tax rate is 35%
If you earn $1000, pay 30% tax on the income, then buy $50 of stuff at 10% tax, then your effective tax rate is 30.5%

Re:

[kackle]

It seems that kind of argument could go on and on, even beyond taxation. It even follows that if they buy little, then they are better off than someone who buys much. And I'm hopeful the tax rate would be lower because, again, the vast majority would be focused on lowering the national income tax rate.

Re:

[Ksevio]

There are a certain amount of essentials you have to pay for like food, housing, and clothing. The national tax rates would of course go for the majority of the population as tax burden would be shifted from upper incomes to lower

Re:

[kackle]

"rate", singular. And taxation wouldn't be an annually-hire-an-accountant mystery anymore; everyone would pay attention, understand it and how it affects them, especially come voting time when there SHOULD be a feedback loop in play.

And what shift are you talking about? The fancy accountants can write off everything now. Amazon didn't pay "income" taxes for decades--how is that better?

Again, I think it's worth a try. Don't worry, I won't be king any time soon.

Re:

[Ksevio]

Right, the "rate". Currently tax rates are "progressive" so you have to pay more on higher incomes than lower. If you made it flat you would lose that income

Re:

[kackle]

I agree; but I am willing to gamble. I think all companies paying on their intake versus deducting until the cows come home is a better system: cleaner, easier to follow, less cheating. As I said, I have high hopes that the tax rate on individuals would be much lower than today as we'd all be voting for it to be so.