If one knows how to do taxes, return could be easily e-filed through IRS's free fillable forms. Infact, one could make use of free version of turbo tax until the final step, obtain a copy of the...
If one knows how to do taxes, return could be easily e-filed through IRS's free fillable forms. Infact, one could make use of free version of turbo tax until the final step, obtain a copy of the return and then e-file it through IRS.
State tax in some states (eg. California) can be e-filed for free.
Yeah, it's hard to find. I learned about it not long after I started paying taxes and always search for it before starting my taxes, but back when I switched to it I had to make a new account to...
Yeah, it's hard to find. I learned about it not long after I started paying taxes and always search for it before starting my taxes, but back when I switched to it I had to make a new account to access it (for some reason). Otherwise I got redirected to the "free" version.
Also, I'm not sure the article is correct about the income limit - I think for TurboTax it's $33,000.
This is the IRS link, which was mentioned in the article. I have yet to pay to file my taxes since I've been getting paid. I guess I'll relish the day I'm paid enough to have to pay to get my...
This is the IRS link, which was mentioned in the article. I have yet to pay to file my taxes since I've been getting paid. I guess I'll relish the day I'm paid enough to have to pay to get my taxes done...
I've been using Credit Karma's tax tool for the past couple of years without a hitch, and it appears to be free for all income-brackets. But...I'm sure they harvest your data to sell you on credit card deals, if that's an issue.
I didn't get far into this article before hitting a speed-hump. What? Since when is there a requirement for anyone to pay to file their tax return? To be exempt from this requirement implies that...
I didn't get far into this article before hitting a speed-hump.
Did you know that if you make less than $66,000 a year, you can prepare and file your taxes for free?
What? Since when is there a requirement for anyone to pay to file their tax return? To be exempt from this requirement implies that the requirement exists - and what government is greedy enough to force its citizens to pay for performing a compulsory task?
I read through the rest of the article about how commercial tax accountants hide their free products, but I just couldn't stop thinking about the fact that a government would force its citizens to pay for something that is compulsory.
Then I reached this...
Consumer groups have long argued that the IRS should offer its own free, online tax preparation and filing, as many other countries do.
... and it all made sense. The US Internal Revenue Office doesn't do what the Australian Tax Office does: it doesn't provide the ability for citizens to submit their tax returns.
The ATO has always provided taxpayers with the necessary forms (for free) to submit their tax returns. Lately, it has even been switching to digital returns: starting about a decade ago, it issued a free software package for people who wanted to submit their tax returns, and this free software package has gradually been revised and improved so that it is now a free website. It's all just part of the ATO doing its job. It needs to collect data from taxpayers, so it does what is necessary to collect that data.
I'm surprised the IRS doesn't do the same thing to collect the data it needs.
The IRS does provide forms for people to prepare their own taxes. What this is referring to is a preparation service. The issue is that the US tax code is absurdly complicated. The IRS comes up...
The IRS does provide forms for people to prepare their own taxes. What this is referring to is a preparation service. The issue is that the US tax code is absurdly complicated. The IRS comes up with long complex books each year because it also constantly changes.
So why does this article say that Americans can prepare their tax return for free if they make less than $66,000 a year? Why doesn't it say that all Americans can prepare their tax return for...
The IRS does provide forms for people to prepare their own taxes.
So why does this article say that Americans can prepare their tax return for free if they make less than $66,000 a year? Why doesn't it say that all Americans can prepare their tax return for free... unless they choose to pay an accountant to do it for them? (Which is the same situation we have here in Australia.)
I'm confused.
The issue is that the US tax code is absurdly complicated.
And the Australian tax code isn't?
The IRS comes up with long complex books each year
So did the ATO. Every year, I collected my tax pack from the newsagent: a 10-page form with a 100-page booklet. These days, the booklet is built into the back end of the website.
IRS.gov: Free File: Do Your Federal Taxes For Free Both less than and greater than $66k can file Federal taxes for free, just the perks/requirements are slightly different.
Okay. So this article has misrepresented the situation - hence my confusion. I love that the IRS has to advertise this as a "Free File" service. :) Here in Australia, it's just assumed that filing...
Both less than and greater than $66k can file Federal taxes for free
Okay. So this article has misrepresented the situation - hence my confusion.
IRS.gov: Free File: Do Your Federal Taxes For Free
I love that the IRS has to advertise this as a "Free File" service. :) Here in Australia, it's just assumed that filing your tax return is free, unless you decide to hire an accountant.
Great opportunity to plug Andrew Yang. Source: Yang 2020, File Income Taxes.
Great opportunity to plug Andrew Yang.
As president, I will...
Instruct the IRS to implement a system whereby any American can opt into a program to have their taxes filed automatically.
Instruct the IRS to coordinate with the Treasury to prepare a report on federal spending, and send each taxpayer a rundown of the actual amount of their taxes that went to each major spending area (e.g., domestic programs, foreign aid, military, etc).
in the literally 1 timeline where he actually does more than poll 1% and crash out in iowa, yang would probably get to find out that he can't just command the IRS to do shit and have something...
in the literally 1 timeline where he actually does more than poll 1% and crash out in iowa, yang would probably get to find out that he can't just command the IRS to do shit and have something actually happen in any reasonable timeframe, not least because of the massive labor shortages it currently has and the general bureaucracy that comes with shuffling around agencies and undertaking massive reorganizations like that (nor can he probably hope to increase its budget in the way he wants to not least because he completely lacks any sort of political capital with either party). i feel pretty comfortable saying that you would just be better off lobbying a more viable candidate to push this kind of tax filing reform than you would be to support yang because of his tax policy, considering that a lot of candidates are already running on tax reform and have more political capital than yang ever will.
I do not support Yang because of his tax policy, I support Yang because of his many policies combined, this is just one of them. I'm aware‒and I'm sure he is too‒that he's not able to just make...
I do not support Yang because of his tax policy, I support Yang because of his many policies combined, this is just one of them. I'm aware‒and I'm sure he is too‒that he's not able to just make things happen. But neither can any other candidate. That's a pointless argument.
Yang is one of the most agreeable candidates running right now. I know both Republicans and Democrats that have shown interest in his campaign. The main issue is most people haven't heard of him. Come next month, we'll be seeing a lot more from him.
Saying you shouldn't support a candidate because they don't have a high chance of winning is the same reason we have a two-party system. This mentality is only hurts us, and it needs to stop.
this is going to get off on a tangent quickly so i'll leave it at this reply, but firstly no, most politicians have an ability to make things happen (or not happen) in a way yang doesn't and will...
I do not support Yang because of his tax policy, I support Yang because of his many policies combined, this is just one of them. I'm aware‒and I'm sure he is too‒that he's not able to just make things happen. But neither can any other candidate. That's a pointless argument.
Saying you shouldn't support a candidate because they don't have a high chance of winning is the same reason we have a two-party system. This mentality is only hurts us, and it needs to stop.
this is going to get off on a tangent quickly so i'll leave it at this reply, but firstly no, most politicians have an ability to make things happen (or not happen) in a way yang doesn't and will likely never be able to have by virtue of simply having been a part of the political process before now. people don't really talk about it, but connections are a very large part of the political process, and lacking them tends to very much inhibit your career. even a well-connected, solid democrat is likely to struggle to pass policies post-2020 election because of polarization, though; yang will have even more trouble than that, because he has literally no such connections. while someone like sanders or biden or another big name might be able to break through that and broker deals with people by adeptly leveraging and using such connections, yang won't be able to do anything of the sort. that's pretty painful in an environment where every vote in congress counts.
secondly, we have a two-party system because it is mathematically extremely difficult to support a well-defined multi-party democracy in an FPTP system (which is the premise of duverger's law). multi-party systems really only exist in at best under significant duress (and generally, with unusual or mitigating circumstances like highly defined regionalisms that the US lacks) in places like canada, the UK, and india; even then, though, there is still a tendency for "multi-party" systems to generally coalesce into two distinct factions. in india for example, there are two broad coalitions which tend to dominate elections despite the many parties represented in their legislature. it's not impossible, of course, but me telling you that you're better off lobbying a more viable candidate to adopt yang's tax filing reform policies so they can have a better chance of being enacted isn't why we have a two-party system nor does it really reinforce it. i mean, that doesn't even really make sense: yang is running for the democratic nomination--he is literally playing into the two-party system by doing that anyways--but regardless, it's not like suddenly encouraging people to vote for another party like the greens or libertarians is going to really change the politics of the country. they both fall quite well to one side of the aisle, and their elected representatives would almost certainly vote just like democrats and republicans respectively would on the issue of the tax filing reform yang wants (and other such issues) if they had any in congress.
Trump also had no political experience before running. There's a lot you can say about that, but he has gotten things done‒for better, or for worse. Yang can get things done too. I wasn't saying...
Exemplary
Trump also had no political experience before running. There's a lot you can say about that, but he has gotten things done‒for better, or for worse. Yang can get things done too.
me telling you that you're better off lobbying a more viable candidate to adopt yang's tax filing reform policies so they can have a better chance of being enacted isn't why we have a two-party system nor does it really reinforce it.
I wasn't saying that, I was saying that choosing a different candidate because he's more likely to win is no different than not choosing a third-party because they won't win. People don't vote Independent, because people don't vote Independent. Many people consider that "throwing a vote away". Though judging by your response, that wasn't what you were saying either?
Yang has been going up in polls (albeit, barely; but more importantly in coverage too), not down (though we saw how accurate polls were in 2016). And again, we still haven't gotten to the debates. If people actually listen to what he has to say, and look into his policies, I'm positive a lot of people will switch sides. Just look at how his interviews with Republicans have gone. He's been on Fox, and Ben Shapiro (he was the only Democratic candidate to agree to go on Shapiro's show), and both times he's nailed it. Even these extreme right-wing people like him. It's insane.
Like I said before, I'm not just going for his tax policy, that's just what was relevant in this context. There are so many ideas of his I can get behind, this one's a pretty minor one for me. Right now there are no other Democratic candidate that I'd vote for at this time, even if Yang dropped out (though I'm doing more research). And I don't think I'm alone on that.
If one knows how to do taxes, return could be easily e-filed through IRS's free fillable forms. Infact, one could make use of free version of turbo tax until the final step, obtain a copy of the return and then e-file it through IRS.
State tax in some states (eg. California) can be e-filed for free.
Yeah, it's hard to find. I learned about it not long after I started paying taxes and always search for it before starting my taxes, but back when I switched to it I had to make a new account to access it (for some reason). Otherwise I got redirected to the "free" version.
Also, I'm not sure the article is correct about the income limit - I think for TurboTax it's $33,000.
This is the IRS link, which was mentioned in the article. I have yet to pay to file my taxes since I've been getting paid. I guess I'll relish the day I'm paid enough to have to pay to get my taxes done...
I've been using Credit Karma's tax tool for the past couple of years without a hitch, and it appears to be free for all income-brackets. But...I'm sure they harvest your data to sell you on credit card deals, if that's an issue.
Fantastic, Florida's not included.
I didn't get far into this article before hitting a speed-hump.
What? Since when is there a requirement for anyone to pay to file their tax return? To be exempt from this requirement implies that the requirement exists - and what government is greedy enough to force its citizens to pay for performing a compulsory task?
I read through the rest of the article about how commercial tax accountants hide their free products, but I just couldn't stop thinking about the fact that a government would force its citizens to pay for something that is compulsory.
Then I reached this...
... and it all made sense. The US Internal Revenue Office doesn't do what the Australian Tax Office does: it doesn't provide the ability for citizens to submit their tax returns.
The ATO has always provided taxpayers with the necessary forms (for free) to submit their tax returns. Lately, it has even been switching to digital returns: starting about a decade ago, it issued a free software package for people who wanted to submit their tax returns, and this free software package has gradually been revised and improved so that it is now a free website. It's all just part of the ATO doing its job. It needs to collect data from taxpayers, so it does what is necessary to collect that data.
I'm surprised the IRS doesn't do the same thing to collect the data it needs.
The IRS does provide forms for people to prepare their own taxes. What this is referring to is a preparation service. The issue is that the US tax code is absurdly complicated. The IRS comes up with long complex books each year because it also constantly changes.
So why does this article say that Americans can prepare their tax return for free if they make less than $66,000 a year? Why doesn't it say that all Americans can prepare their tax return for free... unless they choose to pay an accountant to do it for them? (Which is the same situation we have here in Australia.)
I'm confused.
And the Australian tax code isn't?
So did the ATO. Every year, I collected my tax pack from the newsagent: a 10-page form with a 100-page booklet. These days, the booklet is built into the back end of the website.
IRS.gov: Free File: Do Your Federal Taxes For Free
Both less than and greater than $66k can file Federal taxes for free, just the perks/requirements are slightly different.
Okay. So this article has misrepresented the situation - hence my confusion.
I love that the IRS has to advertise this as a "Free File" service. :) Here in Australia, it's just assumed that filing your tax return is free, unless you decide to hire an accountant.
Great opportunity to plug Andrew Yang.
Source: Yang 2020, File Income Taxes.
in the literally 1 timeline where he actually does more than poll 1% and crash out in iowa, yang would probably get to find out that he can't just command the IRS to do shit and have something actually happen in any reasonable timeframe, not least because of the massive labor shortages it currently has and the general bureaucracy that comes with shuffling around agencies and undertaking massive reorganizations like that (nor can he probably hope to increase its budget in the way he wants to not least because he completely lacks any sort of political capital with either party). i feel pretty comfortable saying that you would just be better off lobbying a more viable candidate to push this kind of tax filing reform than you would be to support yang because of his tax policy, considering that a lot of candidates are already running on tax reform and have more political capital than yang ever will.
I do not support Yang because of his tax policy, I support Yang because of his many policies combined, this is just one of them. I'm aware‒and I'm sure he is too‒that he's not able to just make things happen. But neither can any other candidate. That's a pointless argument.
Yang is one of the most agreeable candidates running right now. I know both Republicans and Democrats that have shown interest in his campaign. The main issue is most people haven't heard of him. Come next month, we'll be seeing a lot more from him.
Saying you shouldn't support a candidate because they don't have a high chance of winning is the same reason we have a two-party system. This mentality is only hurts us, and it needs to stop.
this is going to get off on a tangent quickly so i'll leave it at this reply, but firstly no, most politicians have an ability to make things happen (or not happen) in a way yang doesn't and will likely never be able to have by virtue of simply having been a part of the political process before now. people don't really talk about it, but connections are a very large part of the political process, and lacking them tends to very much inhibit your career. even a well-connected, solid democrat is likely to struggle to pass policies post-2020 election because of polarization, though; yang will have even more trouble than that, because he has literally no such connections. while someone like sanders or biden or another big name might be able to break through that and broker deals with people by adeptly leveraging and using such connections, yang won't be able to do anything of the sort. that's pretty painful in an environment where every vote in congress counts.
secondly, we have a two-party system because it is mathematically extremely difficult to support a well-defined multi-party democracy in an FPTP system (which is the premise of duverger's law). multi-party systems really only exist in at best under significant duress (and generally, with unusual or mitigating circumstances like highly defined regionalisms that the US lacks) in places like canada, the UK, and india; even then, though, there is still a tendency for "multi-party" systems to generally coalesce into two distinct factions. in india for example, there are two broad coalitions which tend to dominate elections despite the many parties represented in their legislature. it's not impossible, of course, but me telling you that you're better off lobbying a more viable candidate to adopt yang's tax filing reform policies so they can have a better chance of being enacted isn't why we have a two-party system nor does it really reinforce it. i mean, that doesn't even really make sense: yang is running for the democratic nomination--he is literally playing into the two-party system by doing that anyways--but regardless, it's not like suddenly encouraging people to vote for another party like the greens or libertarians is going to really change the politics of the country. they both fall quite well to one side of the aisle, and their elected representatives would almost certainly vote just like democrats and republicans respectively would on the issue of the tax filing reform yang wants (and other such issues) if they had any in congress.
Trump also had no political experience before running. There's a lot you can say about that, but he has gotten things done‒for better, or for worse. Yang can get things done too.
I wasn't saying that, I was saying that choosing a different candidate because he's more likely to win is no different than not choosing a third-party because they won't win. People don't vote Independent, because people don't vote Independent. Many people consider that "throwing a vote away". Though judging by your response, that wasn't what you were saying either?
Yang has been going up in polls (albeit, barely; but more importantly in coverage too), not down (though we saw how accurate polls were in 2016). And again, we still haven't gotten to the debates. If people actually listen to what he has to say, and look into his policies, I'm positive a lot of people will switch sides. Just look at how his interviews with Republicans have gone. He's been on Fox, and Ben Shapiro (he was the only Democratic candidate to agree to go on Shapiro's show), and both times he's nailed it. Even these extreme right-wing people like him. It's insane.
Like I said before, I'm not just going for his tax policy, that's just what was relevant in this context. There are so many ideas of his I can get behind, this one's a pretty minor one for me. Right now there are no other Democratic candidate that I'd vote for at this time, even if Yang dropped out (though I'm doing more research). And I don't think I'm alone on that.
Same thing happened to me. I just filed a paper form.