A spokeswoman for Intuit, Tania Mercado, criticized the direct file project as a “half-baked solution” and a waste of taxpayer money. “The direct file scheme is a solution in search of a problem,”
That’s rich coming from a company that created a problem so they can sell their solution.
Either way, there are better software than Intuit, like FreeTaxUSA.
I liked that quote. Intuit being the biggest waste of money claiming direct filing is a waste of money. Like you said, FreeTaxUSA is at least reasonable.
Hard to argue that having a dozen companies developing IT software and systems to file taxes is more efficient them the organization that specifies the filing requirements do it once. The current system is more like a welfare program for the tax companies.
Paying for the honor of either giving the government more money, or convincing them that they took too much and to give it back. But don’t worry, they’ll double check your work sometimes to make sure you gave them enough (fuck you if you gave them too much though). Oh, thinking “if they know how much I owed them anyway, why do I have to do this shit in the first place?” Fuck you, that’s why.
Oh, thinking “if they know how much I owed them anyway, why do I have to do this shit in the first place?”
They do that in pretty much all other developed countries. Never had to worry about filing taxes when I lived overseas. Just double check their work and forget about it until next year.
Yet with Gazans facing a humanitarian catastrophe, Hamas’s stockpiles raise questions about what responsibility, if any, it has to the civilian population.
I find statements like this pretty fatuous.
Ethically all humans have a responsibility to see that these civilians won't starve or lack medicine.
Hamas is hoarding it and won't share with civilians.
Israel is also refusing to share with the hapless civilians
it's trying to prevent the rest of the world from sharing either.
It's stupid to say I'm not allowed to give a homeless guy a hot meal because there's a rich guy nearby.
Hamas is their government, and as such, has a responsibility to those it governs.
And the supplies are literally under the feet of the people who need them. Not something dependent on outside shipment.
Hamas made a decision to start a war, and now they’re choosing to let people suffer for PR points instead of moving supplies up and out of their tunnels to the people.
Eh, this is the kind of thing people say to absolve themselves.
"Sure that neighbour kid's getting starved and abused by his parents but it's his parents' responsibility to feed him, not mine".
"Sure, the Rohingya are getting genocided by the Junta but after all the Junta is technically their government who are responsible for their safety, not us".
Last time anyone voted in Hamas was 17 years ago. Meanwhile literally half the Gazans are aged 18 or younger. Far too younger to have voted for Hamas let alone for this nightmare.
If you just send in food, Hamas will take the bulk of it, same way they supplied the tunnels in the first place. Only real way to solve the problem is to get rid of Hamas.
this is just not a well founded assumption. humanitarian aid was going into Gaza, and was being distributed to the people there before Israel cut off the supply. you’re trying to engineer a false dichotomy, where the only solution to the ongoing humanitarian crisis caused in part by the denial of necessary resources is more denial of necessary resources. like, just think for like a moment. Hamas has a surplus of resources to supply their own forces. they aren’t reliant on humanitarian aid. not allowing food and other resources to get into Gaza only negatively affects the civilian population, and does very little to harm the supposed actual target of this indiscriminate violence. like, even if nearly all of it was just taken by Hamas, the quantity that remained would almost certainly still help innocent people survive this conflict, and that’s a worthwhile pursuit in and of itself.
but whatever, i bet you’ll just move the goalpost again. we cannot act based on what Hamas “should” be doing if they were acting responsibly. Hamas isn’t taking responsibility for the death and destruction being waged against the Palestinian people, they aren’t providing the resources they have, they aren’t distributing them to those who need them. and seeing that situation, we should act to prevent the suffering of these people who are not being served by the government that is supposed to represent them, instead of actively preventing aid from reaching into the region.
So let us send even more. I'd rather civillians no longer starved. Even if it means bad actors take some too.
We saw the flaws with the aid sanctions against Ethiopia earlier this year. Some corrupt officials were re-routing some of the aid intended for the famine in Tigray. But when the UN and US halted all food aid in response, starvation deaths in Ethiopia rose.
I understand that Israel don't mind starving the civilian population of Gaza as collatoral damage in their war with Hamas, but I do mind. The fact remains that starvation of civilians during war is illegal under international law. And I support that law.
You are searching morality in something, where there is none. This is urban warfare - WAR - and quite frankly - not letting Resources through Israeli border crossings - is nothing compared to things done in other wars. Especially as Egypt could deliver aid into Gaza from their border - But they chose not to.
@dumdum666 that's a hard disagree from me. I think you fundamentally misunderstand what ethics and morals are. Either you believe something or you don't.
If you come upon some people raping some kid in an alley that doesn't mean it's somehow okay for you stand there and just watch because "this is rape and quite frankly worse things were done in other rapes".
The argument "other people could have chosen to help and didn't, therefore it's fine for me to not help either" doesn't cut it.
If you, personally, think it's morally fine to starve civilians and children that's one thing - luckily many disagree which is why it's deemed a war crime.
But you should own your views on that. Don't try to argue that there's some special ☆magical place☆ where there's no such thing as right or wrong and ethics suddenly don't exist.
If you come upon some people raping some kid in an alley that doesn't mean it's somehow okay for you stand there and just watch because "this is rape and quite frankly worse things were done in other rapes".
The argument "other people could have chosen to help and didn't, therefore it's fine for me to not help either" doesn't cut it.
All right, then take a plane to Egypt and start to personally deliver that aid, if you just can’t stand by as the moral and ethical pure person you are. No? Took your mouth too full? Maybe you are a Keyboard Warrior after all?
If you, personally, think it's morally fine to starve civilians and children that's one thing - luckily many disagree which is why it's deemed a war crime.
It is a war crime if it is actually done to starve the civilians, yes. And you love to throw around accusations, don’t you?
Why aren’t you fighting that the women and young children can flee - to Egypt or maybe even into Israel? That would actually be useful, don’t you think?
If you think physically being in a situation is a prerequisite for caring about it, I don't know where this conversation can go. You seem to be veering into personal attacks.
None of this is a valid criticism of my point. I think it might be time for us to stop, since we are clearly talking past one another.
Everything you said is wrong. Egypt is trying to let aid through, Israel has repeatedly bombed the roads in each time they’re fixed; preventing aid. Also, as you so aptly pointed out, it’s war. The first thing a functioning country does in war is ration food so the soldiers can stay fed; even if it costs civilian lives. This has happened many times. That Israel is purposely starving civilians knowing full well it won’t affect the soldiers, just for propaganda, is frankly evil.
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
Arizona, California, Florida, Massachusetts, Nevada, New Hampshire, New York, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Washington State and Wyoming are participating.
It’s a shame more aren’t participating but I can see the reasoning behind staged access and iterative improvement. The real pity is that data they’ve already got won’t be preloaded in this stage. It would have been the nail in the coffin for Intuit and other companies’ predatory practices on lower income folks, at least as they exist currently.
Just New York and California alone. If the expected turnout is in the millions, one can only hope IBM isn’t behind the cloud infrastructure - word to Obama care.
After the ACA had such a bad start, the obama admin actually opened up "innovation" departments to invite technical experts to modernize goverment infastructure. Those teams have likely done a lot over the decade or so to prevent haphazard rollouts.
EDIT: looks like they work under the title of the “US digital corps” banner and are looking for people.
My understanding is that this program only applies to federal taxes, so I’m not sure that the particular state’s income tax laws will have much bearing on selection for participation or which stage of rollout they’re added with.
I’m really glad this article exists, but i wish it went bit further. Nobody of any gender should be pressured to participate in a sexual and romantic and legal entanglement. Conditions for dating are awful and misogyny is way too prevalent, but there is simply no world in which it is normal or fine to say “people need to be married for their own good and the good of their children”. How extremely regressive and gross. Single people are not responsible for the failings of the society they live in. If single people truly do have worse outcomes, then the solution is to change systems of financial oppression and create better social safety nets and offer more services, not tell people that they have to get into long term romantic relationships and create little nuclear families for socioeconomic reasons. We have already seen the outcomes of forcing people to get married and have babies or else. It wasn’t good back then, and it’s not going to help now either.
That is a great point and I wish they went further on the better social safety nets. If you really want healthy children that should be the focus regardless of gender of the parent. I think its odd when people talk about how marriage is only for children or you need to be married to have children its gross and so old fashioined.
yeah like why can’t people just get married if they want to get married, or not get married if they don’t want to get married? has never made sense to me
There have been scientific studies to determine if humans are monogamous or not … it was inconclusive … we like to think that we can or should be paired together for life and live happily ever after but in reality, most of us are not.
The majority of my friends get together for a few years and then divorce, separate or live together in a personal hell because they feel they have to.
I have friends in Quebec in Montreal that have been together for 50 years now. They never had children worked as artists and writers their whole lives and pretty much had a free life between themselves. They made an agreement with each other when they started living together that every five years, they would sit down and discuss if they wanted to continue their relationship. They’ve been doing that ever since.
I do that in a way with my wife every few years … we also don’t have kids … we just sit down and talk about whether or not we want to continue. It’s not done during a crisis, a falling out or when we’re angry or out of sorts … we try to have it when we’re clearly thinking of things but it’s not easy … it’s not an easy topic to discuss … which is also why it’s important to have. After 28 years, we still choose to be together.
Yup, been with my partner for over a decade. Live together, not married, no kids. Originally there was some talk of marriage, but I’ve always said that there’s no reason to insert the state or the church into our relationship. There’s nothing stopping either of us from leaving the relationship if we’re not into it any more. It keeps us treating each other with respect, knowing that there’s no higher authority telling us we have to stay together until we spend thousands of dollars in paperwork and waiting periods.
The current assumptions and expectations that society has about monogamy and commitment are insane. The idea that one person should meet all of your social, relationship and sexual needs is insane. Especially for those people who consider being attracted / look at other people / looking at porn to someone else as cheating. Like you don't stop feeling physical attraction or even get crushes if you are committed. You just don't do anything that violate other peoples trust.
The queer communities take on monogamy and commitment that does have any assumptions is really the best method going forward. Not to mention the removal of gender expectations for house work etc. Its exactly like you described it. An on-going discussion about what your commitment means and what is and isn't allowed. It priories the relationship over everything else.
I think one of the biggest issues everyone glosses over is … we change during our lifetimes.
We are not the same person in our 20s, our 30s, our 40s for all kinds of reasons … our work, our situations, events in our lives, trauma, biological changes, genetics or just psychological changes. Some people stay the same sexually and stay the same throughout their lives, whether its being straight, bi, gay or anything else … I know some people who changed over time from being straight, to bi, to gay or to just asexual … in one way to another. I’m sure everyone know people like this. It’s human nature, most people are not born a simple being that stays the same forever, we evolve and change sometimes because we want to, we have to and other times against our will and biology.
So to have an ever changing pair of people living together … we should not expect them to stay the same forever and want to be together indefinitely.
But the inverse is also true too … maybe the two 20 year olds accept one another but change when they’re 30 … and now the 30 year olds now accept each other at this age … and on and on.
Exactly. People and relationships should change and mature. We should also look at different measures of success. A couple of was married for 15 years and then got a divorce but don't hate each other. That is a successful relationship but it didn't last an entire lifetime
Here in Australia, you can literally file your tax now for free in a few clicks using the government website. If you wait a few weeks, everything for most people is prefilled except deductions
Pretty much the same in the UK. Most people don’t have to file their tax at all (it’s automatically deducted from wages for most people), but for those that do, you can do it for free on the government’s website, which is largely a matter of saying how much you earned, and any relevant deductions. The government then calculates what tax you have to pay. If your tax affairs are more complicated than that, you’re earning enough that you’re in the “having an accountant is mandatory” territory anyway.
Yeah, it’s not flawless, but it’s straightforward to use, which really is the thing you need for this kind of service, since it’s intended to be used by normal people rather than experts. The one and only thing that our glorious Conservative overlords have done well in the last 13 years is modernising a lot of official administrative processes like this so they can be done digitally and without a load of needless complexity.
I like the suggestion that we concern ourselvrs more with the quality of men’s internal lives, but I do worry we’re still objectifying men as ‘the problem’.
Navigating interpersonal relationships in a time of evolving gender norms and expectations “requires a level of emotional sensitivity that I think some men probably just lack, or they don’t have the experience,” he added.
I like the quote above about this topic but it does still seem like men are the problem. The problem is that we as a society haven't taught those skills and worse yet reinforce the opposite. We should be concerned with men's internal lives and mold them to fit into modern society
Seriously. We can’t just call men “the problem”. We have to address the problems men are having in their social lives and in dating. Men are not being given a fair shot to bring their best selves.
He had recently read about a high school creative writing assignment in which boys and girls were asked to imagine a day from the perspective of the opposite sex. While girls wrote detailed essays showing they had already spent significant time thinking about the subject, many boys simply refused to do the exercise or did so resentfully.
I mean, we're not just talking about the ability to communicate (which is important), but the basic ability to empathize. If men (in general) are unwilling to even consider the female point of view, is it any wonder why women have a difficult time dating? This isn't happening in a vacuum; there are real reasons why this is happening.
Think of the structural issues which have caused this to be the case. Blaming men for not achieving an externally defined target isn’t going to help anyone.
Boys refusing to do an exercise about imagining a day as the other gender represents a social problem, not a men problem. High school boys who refuse to imagine themselves as someone else were taught to be resistant to that idea, and not only by men but society as a whole.
Maybe we stop with top down one size fits all solutions to human interaction? The article is a good example of part of the problem, as it seems to exonerate one group while putting all the onus for change on the other. Mainly by it having essentially a single position from all them people that the author uses as sources and references and the narrow scope that they actually show.
You couldn’t be more in your own echo chamber. If other men are telling you woman also act the same way as some men and also have issues and you refuse to see another position or point of view you are the problem.
I would hesitate to draw conclusions from something like that. Both me and a lot of the other men I know just flat out skipped basically every assignment like that if it didn’t give enough points to be worth the effort, from middle school up through college.
Beyond that, it just seems like a shitty assignment as a whole. Because either a) it’s done under an assumption that their day as the opposite sex would be spontaneous, and thus would have very few relevant differences from their normal days (and we can easily guess those differences) or b) it’s done under an assumption of having always been the opposite sex, in which case it would just be an exercise in the butterfly effect, since huge amounts of things would be different, to the point that any generic hypothetical day would work.
All this is to say, it’s a prime assignment for skipping
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.
More of the wettest winter we’ve had on record in nearly 50 years. The tropical storm just finished off the remaining areas that were under a drought watch.
Say Mexico was starving. Say aid was sent to them again and again but every time, the Mexican government snatched a large chunk of it up and hoarded it. Say then that the Mexican government decides to attack the US and the US cut off aid. The Mexican government still have huge stocks of food and supplies from the years of aid that was meant for the people, but now no new aid is coming in.
Is the US to blame for Mexicans starving? Or is it the Mexican government who refuse to distribute their stockpiles to their people?
to be accurate it would have to be the us says the mexican government snatched a large chunk and horded it. also mexico would also have had to not be able to elect a government for close to 20 years. also the us government would have propped up the people hoarding everything like netanyahu did for hamas.
I think the last point is the most important: Netanyahu is so responsible for all of this that I think his rhetoric around a “second war of independence” is all designed around distracting people.
I mean, for fuck’s sake, last March we were all talking about how he and his party were trying to do away with government oversight so he could get out of criminal corruption probes.
This guy is literally using the people of Israel and Palestine for his own gains. Hamas literally exists because of him.
From a quick Google search, docking is done to prevent injury to the stallion in mating and is thought to increase the frequency/ desire for the stallion to mate. There are, of course, more humane ways of accomplishing this but that’s the historical justification for the practice
This is the kind of irrational bullshit that people defend to the death. “Thought to” = wishful thinking with zero evidence. Thanks for looking it up, though!
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.
nytimes.com
Top