The article “conveniently” omits the names of pilot states and the eligibility criteria, so I dug them up:
The Direct File pilot is available to eligible taxpayers residing in Arizona, California, Florida, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, Nevada, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Washington, and Wyoming.
You may be eligible to join the pilot if you live in a pilot state and report these items on your 2023 federal tax return:
Income
W-2 wage income
SSA-1099 Social Security and RRB -1099 railroad retirement income
1099-G Unemployment compensation
1099- INT Interest income of $1,500 or less
Credits
Earned Income Tax Credit
Child Tax Credit
Credit for Other Dependents
Deductions
Standard deduction
Student loan interest
Educator expenses
The pilot is not an option for if you:
Have other types of income, such as gig economy or business income
Itemize deductions
Claim other credits like the Child and Dependent Care Credit, Saver’s Credit or the Premium Tax Credit
Derrick Plummer, a spokesman for Intuit, said taxpayers can already file their taxes for free and there are online free-file programs available to some people. Individuals of all income levels can submit their returns for free via the mail.
A “direct-to-IRS e-file system is a solution in search of a problem, and that solution will unnecessarily cost taxpayers billions of dollars,” he said. “We will continue unapologetically advocating for American taxpayers and against a direct-to-IRS e-file system because it’s a bad idea.”
And who believes that crap anyway? Intuit markets their solution due to the complicated nature of anything outside of standard deductions and figuring out if you should itemize and how to do that.
Intuit has spent $25.6 million since 2006 on lobbying, H&R Block about $9.6 million and the conservative Americans for Tax Reform roughly $3 million.
Now if the states get on board for easy filing online, it'll be great.
There’s a pretty sizeable body of work examining the various physiological effects of interacting with animals. Even just petting one lowers blood pressure if I remember correctly.
"Under the law, it is a doctor who must decide that a woman is suffering from a life-threatening condition during a pregnancy, raising the necessity for an abortion to save her life or to prevent impairment of a major bodily function,” the opinion read. “The law leaves to physicians—not judges—both the discretion and the responsibility to exercise their reasonable medical judgment, given the unique facts and circumstances of each patient.”
What a ridiculous acknowledgement in a decision that overturned a doctor’s judgment. Just appalling across the board.
It’s not really an acknowledgement, it’s more of a threat. With how the ruling went, it’s implicit understanding that says “We honestly don’t care, don’t try because if you do, we’ll make sure you get the chair.” Doctors can’t do jack and I bet you that if this ruling is used as precedent, they are going to use to start justifying why people who need healthcare the most should just die…
Huh, that sounds little familiar. Kind of like a life decider… no, that’s not quite it. I’m sure it will come to me later.
It’s so they can maintain the chilling effect of the catch-22. The doctor doesn’t want to make the call because they’re not in a position to parse such vague legal language that can’tjust be overruled by a malicious judge, but then the lawyers and judges are like “Oh, well I’m not a doctor, don’t ask me.”
It’s bullshit, but it’s working exactly as intended.
I did that spontaneously almost a decade ago. Alcohol is overrated and I do not regret the decision. If one misses the flavor or other aspects, be advised there are now many excellent non-alcoholic drinks available (beer, wine, and even liquor approximations). Increasingly, I’m finding them available at restaurants and bars.
Interesting read, thanks for posting. Though the “maybe it was homicide” angle feels like a tease to create a better story. The climbers committed basic mountaineering sins: continuing when team members were sick or exhausted, splitting up the team (and letting some people go off alone!), overnighting on the glacier without appropriate gear, etc. These are common ways people die in such conditions.
Yes, but do they typically die by being impaled through 8 layers of clothing by a mysteriously missing weapon, or having their faces bashed in?
The article equivocates a bit, but suspecting foul play based on the state of the bodies is not unreasonable IMO. The only real thing missing was a viable motive. Reading between the lines, it almost sounds like someone hallucinating from altitude sickness could have decided to “put them out of misery,” fearing that they’d be accused of cowardice for abandoning them on the mountain to freeze to death? Idk, either way it’s a super interesting read.
The Dominicans are certainly reinforcing stereotypes about ignorant religious zealots. Worried about losing the church they built literally on the ruins and corpses of the Zapotecs.
nytimes.com
Active