The 10% for who it is not can add or correct things that our IRS may not know correctly (i.e. foreign holdings or bitcoins).
You then digitally sign and submit it. It's quite easy to do yourself and I think most people here do (couldn't find a percentage). I could find that 97% is submitted digitally, only 3% is on paper.
We do have commercial offerings, those are used for the more complex scenario's, mostly by accountants and tax professionals
You can also go to a tax office sponsored by your city hall and have a preparer assist you at no extra charge.
Before that, there was a market for tax advisors that filled taxes for ordinary people, but it's gone. Only rich people or people who own complex business or investments need an advisor to fill their taxes now.
It immediately gives me an estimate showing how much I have overpaid or underpaid.
For people with simple tax affairs, nothing offshore and not self-employed, there is nothing at all to do.
(For those who don't want to give TurboTax or H&R money, I've been quite pleased with FreeTaxUSA, which is like $12 for federal and state. It's a bit less user friendly, but plenty good enough if you have some understanding of taxes, and there are way fewer upsells and overpriced crap.)
Never had that problem when using TaxAct, and I usually got a bigger refund too.
Can anyone else attest to this? I am going to start doing my taxes soon (for the first time in my life) and CreditKarma seems like a good solution for me.
It's a nice product from a UX/UI standpoint (so usability issues to solve still), and I look forward to trying it again next year.
Edit: the state returns were for Illinois if that makes a difference.
For others in CA, FTB's free tax filing tool works just fine.
If you wanna help on this mission, we are hiring! Feel free to reach out to matt at creditkarma.com.
Let's consider the positions of all sides:
* The professional tax preparers are worried that they're going to lose business if the government assumes the bulk of the tax preparation work.
* We as taxpayers would prefer that the government pre-fills a return for us, since they already have the information, and lets us file the pre-filled form if we detect no errors. That saves us time and also lets us see what info the government has about our income.
* But we also recognize that it's in the government's interest to maximize the tax we pay, and (ideally) it's in the tax preparers' interest to minimize the tax we pay.
Given all that, if pre-filled returns are unlikely, for political reasons, then perhaps a step up from the current Free File program might work like this:
1) You go to a Free File partner.
2) You authorize the IRS to release all of your tax information to that partner, who pre-fills the forms.
3) The partner walks you through the pre-filled forms, so you can check for accuracy.
4) The partner then does its own checks to discover errors that you might not have picked up on.
5) The partner makes money by selling optional add-ons, such as audit protection services.
This would, at the very least, speed up the Free File process and let you see what info the IRS has. It also ensures (like it or not) that the partners keep getting business (or at least eyeballs to pitch extra services to), and it ensures that your interest in paying the least amount of tax possible is reasonably protected.
I think this is already going a bit in the wrong direction. How about:
1) You download the info from the IRS in a publicly documented unencumbered format. JSON with a well-specified schema, for example.
2) You import it into your favorite tax program.
3) When you're all done, you upload the forms in a publicly documented unencumbered format back to the IRS, thus saving them lots of money compared to scanning a mailed copy.
Another major improvement would be for the IRS to publish all of the formulas backing all of the tax forms in machine-readable format. I suspect that a large fraction of the work involved in maintaining programs like TurboTax is manually importing all the forms.
Maybe our taxes are simpler, but in Canada we have many free tools even endorsed by the government for tax preparation and they're quite popular.
Some of them are even offered by Intuit and H&R Block in order to keep people using their software.
I mean that coming up with a "disruptive" competitor to the big guys that essentially does what they do, but doesn't charge you, isn't as easy as it seems.
I don't buy this at all
And of course the government wants to maximize revenue - if they were given control over this they could easily do small UI tweaks that may result in significant increases in revenue.
Oh there you go! An opportunity for someone to take advantage of people and sell products of actual dubious value. This is not a comment on your particular idea (audit protection services) as much as it is the general concept. But even with audit protections services this is a situation where the company will slant things to their benefit and take advantage of people who honestly don't know what they are buying.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duke_Cunningham#Allegations
That's guaranteed money, not just "influence." If you have enough money to play, Congressmen offer enormous returns.
Obviously, a lot of business don't really care about right and wrong, and so they'll still do it. But we can condemn it.
The prime objective for a business is to make money. All the ethics, right/wrongs, etc are things that we expect from the people who run those businesses. But the business is there to make money.
It is up to the people in charge of making choices for society to make the right choices. It's not the responsibility of the business. They have every right to lobby for anything they want.
If you're saying that's right, I'd argue the point strenuously. It's also wrong when our elected officials, predictably, bend.
But when they start pouring money into campaigns it's a different thing. That's just a legalized form of bribery. It may be legal, for the moment. It may even be necessary, both because competitors are doing the same thing and because legislators demand it (or else). But it's wrong.
1) Is it wrong to lobby politicians in general?
This can be debatable, but I would say a strong democracy should decide that individuals, organizations, and corporations can only make their cases in public hearings and on the record. That way we see where everyone stands and what exactly the arguments are for or against something. So it may not be illegal for an entity to "talk" to a politician about an issue, but I would argue that it would be best if everything they say about a certain policy or bill should be on the record, not in the back stage. There are thousands of "little things" like these that could make the U.S. a better democracy.
2) How do you define "lobbying"?
Is it just talking to a politician or is it talking plus something like:
"Hey, we've just donated $50,000 to your campaign as well. No worries, we just did it because we liked you, right after our conversations on how it would be best for you to vote ;). Oh, and we're only doing the winking because it would be illegal for us to tell you that we're giving you this much money to vote how we want on that bill."
Yeah, I would say that should definitely be illegal - in the sense that no company or organization should be able to donate as much as $50,000 (or more) to a politician. I'm strictly in favor of sub-$500 donations a year to a politician.
The "money vote" that's represented by campaign donations is greatly skewing how a politician should vote, because he or she would then have to listen to those that donated the most by far, compared to the people that donated only $30. So the "money vote" should be as "equalized" and "universal" as the real vote is (as much as possible at least, but I think it should be under $1,000, because beyond $1,000 it still incetivizes politicians to hold fundraisers with rich people).
Stop using HR Block and Turbo Tax. For most people, taxes are not very complicated. The IRS publishes detailed instructions that literally explain what every box means and what should go in it for every form. Just read it, fill it out, mail it in.
Nobody at the IRS cares one way or the other. Until a few years ago that was the only way to file, and their machines handled the load just fine. If there's a lot of paper files, and it takes an extra week for somebody to get their return, it's not going to bother the IRS one bit.
I have complex multi-country taxes to file (Canadian living in Canada, but with some income the IRS says is American income). H&R Block have a guy who has handled this exact kind of tax filing hundreds of times before. If I make any mis-steps in filing, the IRS is going to demand I give them thousands of dollars.
I'm not paying H&R Block $600 (CAD) to fill out a piece of paper, I'm paying for the time and experience of someone who won't screw it up and knows how to fight back if the IRS has a problem with it.
The root cause is that our tax system is overly complex and it doesn't need to be. We need to address that rather than build software to help make the complexity continue.
The point is there are millions of people that just have 1 or 2 W-2 incomes and don't itemize, and can file a straight up 1040 which is what H&R block is fighting.
In addition to you, people like me (S-corp owner) have complicated taxes and that's fine. We'll always pay. But doesn't mean there isn't a class of people who wouldn't benefit from this.
Still, my taxes were complicated for 2014 so I was glad for the help. I agree that's ultimately what their value is, along with their promise of assistance should things really go wrong, it's just not usually top-expert help and if it can be replaced by cheap software it should be, even if overall simplification is still the best outcome.
I think to fight this, we need a good robust open source solution that could possibly be made automated. Only cost I assume would be for the user to e-file.
So in that case, I'm curious what the penalty is for not paying. Presumably the IRS doesn't have the power to garnish wages from Canadian banks…
1. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/13/us-tax-code-has-cha...
There are a lot of complications in the tax code because with 300 million people there are a lot of special cases to account for. Adding additional complexity just for the sake of complexity seems like a non-starter.
As soon as that non profit hit's critical mass the for profits are going to be stuck and thus stop lobbying for more complex rules. At which point the IRS can just automate the process for 95% of people.
The IRS has tons of great resources, and you can even call them up. Each form has a companion instruction booklet (online PDF), and sometimes those instructions refer to an IRS publication with additional clarification. If you can read a technical blog post and follow a clear procedure, you can file your own taxes.
I've been filing taxes the (new) old-fashioned way for my wife and I for the last 3 years. That includes 330+ days abroad (Federal Earned Income Exclusion), a sole proprietorship, an LLC, an ISO exercise (AMT), 3 separate states, and 5 separate cities.
Each time, it has taken me a full 12-16 hours (a solid day or two on a weekend) for federal, multiple states, and multiple cities. It's not the most fun, but by the end of it, I understand our taxes and finances a lot better. We can arrange our situation better going forward. We can keep more appropriate records to make the next year's filings easier. And most of all, I have the satisfaction of not funding an industry that lobbies against my interests.
> Each time, it has taken me a full 12-16 hours
You have a strange definition of "not that hard".
This is exactly my experience trying to do it the old fashioned way. The IRS's documentation is written in accountant speak so deciphering what each means is an effort and all of the time it takes adds up. Who else uses the word "schedule" to mean "form"? And then there are so many places where it talks about "qualifying" this or that without telling you how you know if something qualifies.
And that's before you get to the nightmare if you own stocks. My wife inherited some telecom stocks from her grandmother. Her grandmother got them as part of her paycheck when she worked at AT&T. Unfortunately she didn't keep any of the original documentation for them (my wife had to track down the stock management companies and get them to reprint the certificates). These stocks were then of course split across all of the baby bells and merged and split a ton of different ways over the years. Then one of the companies merges and we get a payout for a fractional amount of a share and have to calculate the strike price of the stock for the sale.
As an average person this seems like an impossible task. We just enter 0 and pay a ton of extra tax because how in the hell are we supposed to do that calculation? As far as I can tell we can never sell these stocks.
That's fair, but by-far the hardest thing about filing taxes for us has been prorating our income based on how long we lived in each part-year municipality. Adding to that, some cities/states give you a credit on the taxes, some deduct from the income, and yet others multiply by the number of business days you were a resident. If it was just a matter of filing a 1040, itemizing deductions, and transferring that same info to state/city taxes, it would probably take me 3-4 hours.
I agree that your situation sounds difficult, but I doubt that TurboTax is really making that easier. You likely need to seek out a true tax preparer/accountant. My comment was specifically targeted at those who are using DIY online software... It's just honestly not that much harder to use forms. (I could have been clearer about who my comment applied to.)
I would say so, considering it's not their first time doing this:
https://techcrunch.com/2013/03/27/turbotax-maker-funnels-mil...
https://www.boston.com/news/politics/2016/04/13/elizabeth-wa...
The only other hope is probably tax reform but good luck getting agreement on where the tax rate(s) should be if deductions and credits were eliminated.
I also never liked really to use accountants, as they basically ask the same questions that I have to collect myself. Might as well use an online tool. Especially if most of the "W"s are already at IRS/FRB why do I even have to send the copies of them again. Why don't they just give me the partially filed XML/JSON to me to finish it off.
But, I still prefer this to supporting Intuit & Co.
A basic problem particular to the United States, in my view, if that while the Constitution treats of both law and equity, law has gained primacy and some parties are heavily invested in keeping it that way, arguing that the courts should be no more than mechanistic deciders rather than moral agents in their own right, most often summarized as 'we're a nation of laws!' - a curious statement from people who pledge allegiance to the idea of a Republic with liberty and justice for all, as if there could never be any such thing as unjust laws.
It would be interesting to see which members of Congress are most heavily influenced by lobbyists, and examine their public statements to see whether this correlates with hostility towards the judicial branch that checks their 'work.'
Is this a problem with capitalism or government? If a company tries to get the gov't to block competition, the correct response is "piss off".
From business and legal aspects through to recent news on scientific "protectionism", no matter the "professionalism" and "objectivity" attached to the domain, they remain run by humans. With all their human traits and foibles -- which tend to come before the "objective."
One reason -- a primary one -- I see for guaranteeing people a basic quality of life, e.g. health care and an at least tolerable retirement. So that they -- maybe -- don't fear change so much. Feel, even, that they get to take part in the change, even when it is not at their own initiative and patent.
That's what happens when companies are legally obliged to provide profit for shareholders.
That's why I highly respect Kickstarter (among many others) who decided to reincorporate at Public Benefit Company.
Why should we as citizens of this great country be forced to give up the right to form a public option? Not quite 1:1 but the analogies to health care do come to mind.
Jobs will disappear and some industry will go away if we had a unified federal run tax system. Most likely though, these two companies will turn into contractors for the government to make an maintain one standardized system. They'll earn less money, but the entire system overall would be better.
This is a good place where we can see capitalism break down; where the public good is done a disservice by those who would seek to retain their earnings from an inefficient system.
Republicans oppose having the IRS automate taxes for most citizens. Remember to vote very year.
[1] https://www.irs.gov/uac/before-starting-free-file-fillable-f...
Should they go become used car salespeople and McDonald's fry cooks?
FYI I'm not saying ban private tax preparation (though I do think it's unnecessary for 90+% of people as they're just filing a 1040EZ). Just that we shouldn't be restricted from allowing the Feds to provide a default option.
Maybe the US is different but in Canada at least this is well supported - even endorsed by government.
Seems to me the first step should be to simplify the tax code. AMT and deductions seem like a good first pass.
What many people don't like to talk about is that yes, places like Sweden have much simpler tax code. But they also removed most ways to actually reduce your tax burden and grow your business (this applies to personal taxes too). You are also required to have a special black box on any credit card transactions, which sends everything straight to the government. This smacks of authoritarianism.
Simplicity might seem better, but it gives us less control over our own taxes.
It's also not really that difficult now. Everyone I know has been doing their own 1040-EZ form since they started to work. It's usually only one or two forms to fill out. If this is too complicated for our society, we truly have problems.
The government has all the information about me. Why do I have to gather it all up and tell them again?
A friend in Finland tells me it takes him 10 minutes to approve the tax documents prepared for him on a Finnish government website. Why can't we do the same here?
Edit: the IRS now says it takes 3 hours to fill out and submit the form, and 2 hours to collect the relevant paperwork, for 5 total. https://www.irs.gov/instructions/i1040gi/ar03.html
I can believe 7 hours for a 1040, because leafing through the 200 page instruction book is hugely time consuming and there is a lot of confusing stuff in there.
Huh?
I've had my business for a few years, but I did my 1040EZ by hand many times. It took at most, 3 hours. Most people have one job and you basically just copy all of the info you have from your W2 (which is provided by your employer).
"The government has all the information about me. Why do I have to gather it all up and tell them again?"
So does the government also have all of the info about the gas you write off or anything else specific about your life? If so, the surveillance state is getting pretty bad.
If not, then I will have to fill out the longer forms anyway.
If they don't and you just fill out a form and send it in, you are giving them more money than you should. The end result will be that poor and uneducated people will give more money to the government and the people that actually pay attention will be giving less.
I'm only looking out for the best interest of everyone. You seem to be fighting for the right to be lazy because you don't want to have to think about it, which never leads to anything good.
In practice, I don't know whether there ends up being a net benefit to taxpayers or not in the current setup.
So we can do both. Simplify the tax code and send a lot of people a post card summarizing their tax year. If the summary is wrong or not advantageous, they can file an amended return.
Making the forms easier is certainly an important consideration.
When you consider that your argument seems to be that we should ignore the efficiencies of scale and the removal of a pointless profit margin, because it won't be absolutely free.
https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&prefix=false&page=0&date...
