Comments on: Nothing is certain but death and … http://www.robweir.com/blog/2006/09/nothing-is-certain-but-death-and.html?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=nothing-is-certain-but-death-and Thinking the unthinkable, pondering the imponderable, effing the ineffable and scruting the inscrutable Tue, 07 Feb 2012 11:20:47 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Rob http://www.robweir.com/blog/2006/09/nothing-is-certain-but-death-and.html#comment-95 Rob Mon, 02 Oct 2006 23:15:00 +0000 http://www.robweir.com/blog/2006/09/nothing-is-certain-but-death-and.html#comment-95 For what it is worth, the price paid for tax preparation software and filing fees is a tax deductible expense here. <br/><br/>You make some interesting points. There is a progression, from Hammurabi making his law code fixed and public, to the Protestant founders pushing for the Bible to be translated into the vernacular, to Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 which requires Federal web sites and other electronic technologies be accessible to members of the public with disabilities. <br/><br/>These are all part of the 4,000 year push to ensure that what the state demands of its citizens be understandable by its citizens. But in the case of taxes, I think the complexity of the laws, more than the technology required to file, is the thing that presents the greater problem. Normal life events, like getting married, buying a house, having a child, retiring, etc., cause a fearsome increase in tax preparation complexity. <br/><br/>I take it as axiomatic that any tax code which is complex enough to hide an Enron in it is too complex for the average citizen. For what it is worth, the price paid for tax preparation software and filing fees is a tax deductible expense here.

You make some interesting points. There is a progression, from Hammurabi making his law code fixed and public, to the Protestant founders pushing for the Bible to be translated into the vernacular, to Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 which requires Federal web sites and other electronic technologies be accessible to members of the public with disabilities.

These are all part of the 4,000 year push to ensure that what the state demands of its citizens be understandable by its citizens. But in the case of taxes, I think the complexity of the laws, more than the technology required to file, is the thing that presents the greater problem. Normal life events, like getting married, buying a house, having a child, retiring, etc., cause a fearsome increase in tax preparation complexity.

I take it as axiomatic that any tax code which is complex enough to hide an Enron in it is too complex for the average citizen.

]]> By: C. T. Rambler http://www.robweir.com/blog/2006/09/nothing-is-certain-but-death-and.html#comment-94 C. T. Rambler Mon, 02 Oct 2006 13:53:00 +0000 http://www.robweir.com/blog/2006/09/nothing-is-certain-but-death-and.html#comment-94 This reminds me about a mental exercise I had been asking myself for years: If the government mandate online tax return for citizens, can it mandate the use of certain software to file the tax return, and if it choose to mandate the use of certain software, must it provide alternative, at no extra cost?<br/><br/>The arguement here is that taxpayers have no choice but to deal with Inland Revenue. Thus, if Inland Revenue says you must file online and can only use this and that software, you do not really have a choice but to buy them. Is this fair? <br/><br/>Your post add an interesting dimension: By publishing the standard for filing, can the government claims that it satisfied its responsibility of providing alternative methods of filing, eventhough the taxpayer is forced to fork out money to buy filing softwares, any software for that matter? (Not to mention the necessity to purchase a computer) <br/><br/>I know of some countries tried or contemplating trying to encourage online filing by impose additional fee on paper-based filing on the grounds that it is simply passing the additional cost of processing to the people that incurs it (with exception for disabled taxpayers of course).<br/><br/>Personally, I think it will be necessary for Inland Revenue to provide a free (as in money) way of filing tax return. It can be a free (as in money) software but must work on all platforms. Ditto for online-filing website. Otherwise, they must allow me to file by paper at no extra cost. This reminds me about a mental exercise I had been asking myself for years: If the government mandate online tax return for citizens, can it mandate the use of certain software to file the tax return, and if it choose to mandate the use of certain software, must it provide alternative, at no extra cost?

The arguement here is that taxpayers have no choice but to deal with Inland Revenue. Thus, if Inland Revenue says you must file online and can only use this and that software, you do not really have a choice but to buy them. Is this fair?

Your post add an interesting dimension: By publishing the standard for filing, can the government claims that it satisfied its responsibility of providing alternative methods of filing, eventhough the taxpayer is forced to fork out money to buy filing softwares, any software for that matter? (Not to mention the necessity to purchase a computer)

I know of some countries tried or contemplating trying to encourage online filing by impose additional fee on paper-based filing on the grounds that it is simply passing the additional cost of processing to the people that incurs it (with exception for disabled taxpayers of course).

Personally, I think it will be necessary for Inland Revenue to provide a free (as in money) way of filing tax return. It can be a free (as in money) software but must work on all platforms. Ditto for online-filing website. Otherwise, they must allow me to file by paper at no extra cost.

]]>