As someone quite familiar with the situation, you're better off saying "Fuck you Intuit". They spend millions of dollars a year lobbying to keep the tax system complex.
It is nice the article mentions Spain. Here you can just give the OK via web signing with a personal certificate issued by the government. But we have a National Identity Document (direct translation from Spanish: Documento Nacional de Identidad) with a nice chip where we can store the certificate [1]. Cons: we must carry it any where we go and show it to the police on request. I believe in USA that would be unimaginable because... you know... government control.
BTW, thanks god Firefox supports client certificates and I sign from Linux.
> They spend millions of dollars a year lobbying to keep the tax system complex.
Not exactly. It wouldn't cost as much as Intuit spends on lobbying to keep the system overly complex. But Intuit doesn't want the tax code to get so complex that people are forced to seek outside help (yes, they make money from Lacerte and the rest of their Pro Tax division, but not as much as they do from TurboTax). And yet they don't want it to be so simple that you can do it on your own. They're seeking that perfect middle where you feel comfortable using software to prepare your taxes. It's a tenuous balance to maintain and why they have to spend so much on lobbying.
Why can it not be both? Congress only passes the Tax Code, the IRS on the other hand has a liberal mandate into how they go about doing their job. They are quite tyrannical when it comes to fees and penalties. They also don't need a court order to garnish your wages or confiscate your property.
Because focusing on the IRS ignores the fact Congress can alter the IRS's mandate at-will to remove any of the policies of the IRS that is considered "bad". The President and his appointees can alter things within the mandate.
Get angry at the people that make policy, not the people that enforce it.
Sure, the IRS could be nicer. However, as someone who had to handle a policy enforcement role from time to time...I know the people I had to enforce policy on hate me, personally. However, I'm just enforcing policy. That enforcement is basically an email saying "No, disregard what X told you because Y is current policy."
People at the bottom usually aren't assholes "just because". We become assholes because people get angry with us over stuff we have no control over [unless we quit].
Getting enforcers to quit or be fired is the general idea of focusing in on them -- if there are no enforcers then nothing is enforced regardless what the policy makers say. It's another solution to solving the problem of bad policy besides the one of changing the policy. One could argue its results. The strategy seems to make a lot of TSA employees feel bad, so the turnover there is quite high, but enough people need any job just to make ends meet that the overall effect to their workforce isn't very much. But this just suggests an alteration: focus on individuals of the loathed organizations, which has had success in the form of social justice warriors being quite successful at getting individuals, even "powerful", higher-up-the-ladder individuals, fired for things they've said or done.
If you don't fix the policies, they just hire replacements. You even admit it is how it works.
"The strategy seems to make a lot of TSA employees feel bad, so the turnover there is quite high, but enough people need any job just to make ends meet that the overall effect to their workforce isn't very much."
You also didn't think about the logical result of pushing out the people who would feel bad about bad policies. It means you leave only the desperate & the bad people running the organization. Well done! You've removed everyone with a hint of moral fiber and/or soul from the enforcement role. And then you'll be surprised when no decent person is there to help you when there is an issue.
If you read my comment carefully you'll see I don't advocate this strategy, I'm just exploring it. Extermination can be an attractive strategy, it just doesn't work very well against endless foes. The part you quote is sufficient for casting doubt on its efficacy -- that I didn't make the slam dunk of pointing out who's left seems irrelevant. Thanks for reminding me of that additional detail, though.
True but the IRS is also off the straight and narrow as they have gone after political opponents of the president, disappeared evidence in the ensuing investigation, etc. etc.
It was a keyword based list based on types of organization the IRS had the most issues with. The Democrats were hit in 2011. Years before this was an "issue". Oddly enough, the Republicans were fine with that but mysteriously they:
1) Ignore the non-partisan, non-political, and liberal groups that were targeted under the same policy.
2) Only complain about the targeting of potentially conservative groups.
And even if you claim "the IRS goes after political opponents of the president", you blame the President for not keeping them on a tight enough leash. You don't blame the people enforcing the Presidential policies.
One of which was stripped of their status. Of the targeted group, less than a third were Republicans. If you bothered to put any effort into researching it you'd turn up the keyword list that includes the keywords.
I'm not sure why I get downvotes because I don't do all the work for people making accusations.
This wasn't some witch hunt. Everything with potential political leanings as well as a number of other non-political categories were flagged. This was because of Citizens United and the fact people were pushing the boundaries.
You keep posting links that don't support your claims.
Let's see, from your first link: According to ThinkProgress's analysis of the heavily redacted "be on the lookout" lists, the IRS may have targeted a higher number of progressive groups than conservative groups overall.
Really? ThinkProgress, a left-leaning organization, did an analysis that showed they weren't targeting conservatives, in fact they were mostly targeting progressive groups.
Provide a decent source and we can have a conversation.
Fair perspective.
I would say the true blame lies with the people who support all of these evil laws, usually out of a belief that they will profit from them.
But nope, if you live abroad it's twice as complicated for an ex-pat.
Worse still, if you're self-employed (like I am) and a freelancer it's ever more paperwork and edge cases to be careful of.
And the cherry on top! Software engineers have a whole different set of tax rules. Fuck you IRS, you greedy pricks.