Lobbying for government unfriendliness, incompetence and inefficiency
Lawrence Lessig praised the tax man in 7">his latest column for Wired Magazine. This odd maneuver provides an all-too poignant, more recent example of assaults on government's attempts to make tax collection easier, something described in here.
Lessig's example hails from California, where the state Republican Caucus attacked a state effort that actually prepared simple returns for some taxpayers when the state had all the needed information. Taxpayers could review the proposed returns, and about 30 percent accepted them. The result was less hassle for the citizenry and for the government, which presumably didn't have to do much further processing and typing.
In short, it sounded too good to be true for all involved. And it was. The problem was, the tax-preparation people were not involved. These, of course, are the same moronic jerks that can't get their own taxes right on the first, or even second, try (see earlier post, in re H&R Block).
The result was a lobbying effort through the Senate Republican Caucus, which seems to have obeyed its masters. Check out their public-relations effort here. Many of the arguments would be laughed at by a high-school debate team. In their absence, MeTheSheeple will begin the ridicule:
And what of this claim of decreasing the pressure? Maybe there's something to it. Yet if the legislators can take the time to begin public lobbying against this ReadyReturn program, surely one of them can take the time to begin studying the tax code, while another one can begin lobbying for a true simplification. Nobody's stopping them. They talk about "pressure," but the legislators are the ones increasing the pressure -- against a government reform that actually works, and helps.
The second claim, that ReadyReturn could miss some income and thus taxes, is legitimate and acknowleged as such by the state. Fine. But what about number three?
The third claim is that taxpayers may accept the ReadyReturn forms without adding all the exceptions, such as charitable deductions:
The basic claim that follows is that government has spent 50 years making income taxes hard, and now has an easy way out. The irony is this claim against history is utter bullshit. For much longer than 50 years, the government determined your taxes and collected them. Centuries ago, it was a sheriff, who could be incredibly abusive in every sense of the term (see, for example, the excellent historical novel "Pillars of the Earth" for an idea). Ever since then, the government has assessed property values and collected taxes accordingly, with no substantive input from the taxpayers. The government assesses sales taxes and collects them, too, with no substantive input from the taxpayers. This evil shift against income taxes doesn't go against tradition as much as bring it back into line.
The Senate Republican Caucus' fifth argument doesn't even make coherent sense in English. It is, of course, drafted almost entirely in the words of a tax-preparation businessman. Presumably the senators would have rather kept the incoherent argument verbatim than risk offending such an important donor, who seems to suggest that everyone that gets a ReadyReturn will have to pay someone to do their taxes a second time, while they'll do it themselves a third time. There is no explanation for this argument, although MeTheSheeple wonders about links to California's long history of methamphetamine production.
The sixth argument is that ReadyReturn may not be easily understood by people who don't speak English well. Sadly, neither will any tax documents. These folks are still free to puzzle over their taxes on their own or pay someone else to do the taxes. The only reason to make this argument, then, is that the professional tax people are afraid more people might not turn to them. They're not actually worried about these immigrants; they're worried about their bottom line while pretending to be worried about them.
This whole op-ed piece is pathetic in its logic, and filled with nothing but contempt for the hard-working taxpayers who elected this nimrods. MeTheSheeple hopes this comes back to haunt the senators at election time.
Lessig's example hails from California, where the state Republican Caucus attacked a state effort that actually prepared simple returns for some taxpayers when the state had all the needed information. Taxpayers could review the proposed returns, and about 30 percent accepted them. The result was less hassle for the citizenry and for the government, which presumably didn't have to do much further processing and typing.
In short, it sounded too good to be true for all involved. And it was. The problem was, the tax-preparation people were not involved. These, of course, are the same moronic jerks that can't get their own taxes right on the first, or even second, try (see earlier post, in re H&R Block).
The result was a lobbying effort through the Senate Republican Caucus, which seems to have obeyed its masters. Check out their public-relations effort here. Many of the arguments would be laughed at by a high-school debate team. In their absence, MeTheSheeple will begin the ridicule:
ReadyReturn confuses simplicity with simplification. The program does not address the underlying need to simplify our tax code. Just as automatic withholding made the impact of income taxes less visible to taxpayers, the ReadyReturn program will diminish the public pressure to simplify the tax code.Umm. What? Changes to the tax code would be the legislature's responsibility, which is to say, in part, the responsibility of the Republican Caucus that wrote this crap. This is a legitimate effort on the part of an administrative agency to ease the way for taxpayers, which is to say these legislators' constituents. The state agency itself cannot change the tax code. Sorry. Are these guys actually arguing that the government shouldn't make it easier for the people who elected them? Yep.
And what of this claim of decreasing the pressure? Maybe there's something to it. Yet if the legislators can take the time to begin public lobbying against this ReadyReturn program, surely one of them can take the time to begin studying the tax code, while another one can begin lobbying for a true simplification. Nobody's stopping them. They talk about "pressure," but the legislators are the ones increasing the pressure -- against a government reform that actually works, and helps.
The second claim, that ReadyReturn could miss some income and thus taxes, is legitimate and acknowleged as such by the state. Fine. But what about number three?
The third claim is that taxpayers may accept the ReadyReturn forms without adding all the exceptions, such as charitable deductions:
But, provided with the option of a tax return already prepared by the government, a taxpayer may just sign it and send it in as a convenience. The result is that the taxpayer may never consult a tax preparer, tax preparation software, or even the instructions included with the tax form and realize his or her ability to reduce his or her tax liability.Wow. Is this actually a Republican effort to undermine a sense of personal responsibility? Yes, indeed, it is. Nitwits. And God forbid they accept a convenience without first A) paying someone; B) paying someone; or C) actually taking the responsibility to read the instructions. But, importantly, people should be inconvenienced and encouraged to spend more money to figure out what they owe, when a free service may at least give 'em a head start. Who is pulling the strings? Ah, "some":
Some have articulated concern that ReadyReturn violates the proper role of government. In his testimony before the FTB, Bernard McKay, Vice President of Corporate Affairs for Intuit, provided perspective on this issue ...Intuit, of course, being the people that write popular tax software. "Some have articulated concern"? Nice use of passive voice. Mistakes were made, too.
The basic claim that follows is that government has spent 50 years making income taxes hard, and now has an easy way out. The irony is this claim against history is utter bullshit. For much longer than 50 years, the government determined your taxes and collected them. Centuries ago, it was a sheriff, who could be incredibly abusive in every sense of the term (see, for example, the excellent historical novel "Pillars of the Earth" for an idea). Ever since then, the government has assessed property values and collected taxes accordingly, with no substantive input from the taxpayers. The government assesses sales taxes and collects them, too, with no substantive input from the taxpayers. This evil shift against income taxes doesn't go against tradition as much as bring it back into line.
The Senate Republican Caucus' fifth argument doesn't even make coherent sense in English. It is, of course, drafted almost entirely in the words of a tax-preparation businessman. Presumably the senators would have rather kept the incoherent argument verbatim than risk offending such an important donor, who seems to suggest that everyone that gets a ReadyReturn will have to pay someone to do their taxes a second time, while they'll do it themselves a third time. There is no explanation for this argument, although MeTheSheeple wonders about links to California's long history of methamphetamine production.
The sixth argument is that ReadyReturn may not be easily understood by people who don't speak English well. Sadly, neither will any tax documents. These folks are still free to puzzle over their taxes on their own or pay someone else to do the taxes. The only reason to make this argument, then, is that the professional tax people are afraid more people might not turn to them. They're not actually worried about these immigrants; they're worried about their bottom line while pretending to be worried about them.
This whole op-ed piece is pathetic in its logic, and filled with nothing but contempt for the hard-working taxpayers who elected this nimrods. MeTheSheeple hopes this comes back to haunt the senators at election time.
posted by MeTheSheeple at 10:08 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home