Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by chromas on Wednesday April 18 2018, @12:12PM   Printer-friendly
from the something-something-death-and-taxes dept.

C|net reports:

If you were waiting until the last minute to pay your taxes and were depending on IRS.gov to make a payment from your checking account, there's some bad news.

For most of Tuesday, the last day to file taxes, the Direct Pay section of the Internal Revenue Service's website wasn't working. Instead, people planning to pay electronically saw a message reading, "This service is currently unavailable. We apologize for any inconvenience."

Now there's good news -- of sorts. The site is working once again. And Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin told reporters Tuesday that Americans who couldn't pay their taxes because of the outage will receive an extension. The IRS later said that individuals and businesses with a filing or payment due date of April 17 will now have until midnight on Wednesday, April 18. Taxpayers need do nothing to qualify for the extra time.

[...] Direct Pay is a service that lets taxpayers pay their estimated taxes directly via a bank account, free of charge. Paying with a credit card through the IRS site costs around 2 percent of the payment amount, starting at $2.50.

[...] While the problem persisted, both vendors had continued to accept electronic returns. At the time, an H&R Block spokesperson said, "We are encouraging taxpayers to continue to use our retail services or our do-it-yourself products as they normally would."

It was a similar story at TurboTax. "For those that prepared and filed their taxes with TurboTax earlier today, TurboTax is now submitting those returns to the IRS and is currently processing newly filed returns as normal," an Intuit spokesperson said after the government restored functionality to the IRS site.

From The Washington Post:

A computer glitch at the IRS knocked offline the agency's ability to process many tax returns filed electronically, a stunning breakdown that left agency officials flummoxed and millions of Americans bewildered. Senior government officials were at a loss to explain what happened, even as close to 5 million Americans were expected to try to file their taxes before the midnight deadline.

IRS officials did not specify what went wrong, saying only that they would undertake a "hard reboot" of their systems. By late Tuesday, the IRS said that its systems were back online and that taxpayers could proceed to file returns through the end of Wednesday. Taxes had been due on Tuesday. (That was two days later than the usual due date, April 15, which fell on a Sunday. Monday was Emancipation Day, a holiday in the District.)

[...] An IRS spokeswoman said that "all indications point to this being hardware-related. We're aware of no other external issues."

[...] It wasn't immediately clear how many people were affected or could take advantage of the one-day delay in the filing deadline, but IRS officials said taxpayers wouldn't have to do anything special to take advantage of the postponement. Many filers who use online tax preparation software, such as TurboTax or H&R Block, or pay their taxes directly to the IRS online were affected. The vast majority of tax preparers, such as accountants, are required to file taxes electronically.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 18 2018, @01:29PM (23 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 18 2018, @01:29PM (#668553)

    I think it's interesting that H&R block was marketing your new tax cuts to me while I was filing. I'm supposed to get a refund of $900 next year, according to their propaganda.

    I'm going to prepare to feel an extreme level of not surprise when the actual amount I've been taxed stays about the same.

    Refunds are just the government returning money that it stole from you during the year by lifting it out of your paycheck before you even saw it. But it's a pretty neat psychological trick to get people to accept the idea of income tax.

    Income tax is capitalist slavery. Literally. The capitalists think they own a portion of my paycheck so they can start World War 3. We need to get rid of income tax. We should only have property tax and sales tax. So you can see I'm not against taxes. I'm only against slavery.

    Starting Score:    0  points
    Moderation   +2  
       Insightful=1, Interesting=1, Total=2
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 2, Touché) by khallow on Wednesday April 18 2018, @02:03PM (12 children)

    by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday April 18 2018, @02:03PM (#668570) Journal

    The capitalists think they own a portion of my paycheck so they can start World War 3.

    About half of those taxes goes to individual level welfare and entitlement spending.

    • (Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 18 2018, @02:39PM (11 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 18 2018, @02:39PM (#668591)

      Welfare that doesn't really help anybody. The welfare from my income taxes goes into programs that trap people on government assistance. I've spoken to a number of people who don't bother looking for work, because they'll lose their benefits. They're getting paid from my taxes roughly the equivalent of a full time $20/hr job with benefits. These programs also remove all incentives to use family planning services, creating a moral hazard.

      The only solution I can see is universal basic income. It should be funded from property taxes and sales taxes. Income should never be taxed. UBI will give us a social safety net without trapping people in a false dilemma.

      There's also the medical insurance complex. It's pretty neat how the bloodsuckers in the insurance industry have managed to insert themselves into our legal framework for healthcare coverage. They take my tax money and provide no value whatsoever on top of medicare/medicaid. Medicare/medicaid should be universal and funded with property taxes and sales taxes. Again, no income tax.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 18 2018, @03:09PM (9 children)

        by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 18 2018, @03:09PM (#668607)

        Hahahahaha, what a load of buuulllshit! Maybe some people get that much with unemployment for a short while, but no one gets $40k a year in assistance outside some very extreme cases.

        It 100% helps people, don't lie. You are truthful about it trapping people though, but that is a problem created by all the people who want accountability and who would rather the programs disappear altogether.

        • (Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 18 2018, @03:27PM (7 children)

          by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 18 2018, @03:27PM (#668613)

          I don't want "accountability." I've seen how "accountability" causes more problems than it solves. That's why I want UBI. It's the very opposite of accountability: no strings attached.

          You must not know a lot of people in the situation I described. Their housing is paid for from my tax dollars. Their food is paid for from my tax dollars. Their medical care is paid for from my tax dollars. However, our broken welfare system requires certain things from them thanks to the accountability crowd. Those are things like always having more children. I see your knee jerking.

          So they're in a bind. They have to have another child to continue receiving all those benefits. They and their family will starve in a gutter if they do not receive those benefits. If they get a job, which will be minimum wage or near, they will lose their benefits and still starve in a gutter.

          That is no way to be. Nobody should face a situation where they need to have another child and then another and another just to keep their heads above water.

          If it traps people, it is not 100% helping people. Only a UBI can be 100% helping people. If we don't want a UBI, we should stop things like tying benefits to having another child. That only digs them in deeper. And they have no choice but to dig in deeper unless they want to die.

          It's another form of slavery. We've created a welfare system with the sole purpose of allowing certain people to be full-time breeders. That works out well for the capitalists. More cannon fodder for wars.

          The flip-side is that many people who need help cannot get it because they don't have children.

          • (Score: 1) by tftp on Wednesday April 18 2018, @04:33PM (6 children)

            by tftp (806) on Wednesday April 18 2018, @04:33PM (#668630) Homepage
            As soon as everyone gets extra money, prices will rise to eat that difference. You have to fix the prices first.
            • (Score: 2) by lentilla on Thursday April 19 2018, @04:13AM (5 children)

              by lentilla (1770) on Thursday April 19 2018, @04:13AM (#668844)

              There are several reasons why that is a non-issue.

              Let's say you give a $10,000 "First Home Buyer's Grant" - yes, the first thing that happens is the price of homes will rise by $10,000. Providing a Universal Basic Income won't have the same effect. Look at your weekly shopping - there's a vast variety of different products, sourced and supplied from various places. If the price of a good goes up, people will buy it elsewhere or buy a different product. That's the market-place in action. The prices won't rise because people are buying a basket of goods and the market isn't a monopoly.

              So let's say the prices do rise. (Which I believe they will, just not commensurate with the additional money injected.) Having prices rise is not necessarily bad - providing the money returns to the ecosystem.

              The market already deals with distorting effects. In theory, people that need money might get welfare today. With UBI, they would stop getting welfare. So the amount of money in the marketplace remains more-or-less the same - it just gets shuffled around more evenly. (And we get rid of a bunch of rules that trap people in poverty, which is what the grandparent was talking about.)

              If prices were going to rise, we would have seen it already - a loaf of bread and a bottle of milk would cost a minimum-wage day's worth of labour because there are many who could easily afford this. For various reasons, this is not the case, and I don't believe introducing a universal basic income would cause this either.

              • (Score: 1) by tftp on Thursday April 19 2018, @04:51AM (4 children)

                by tftp (806) on Thursday April 19 2018, @04:51AM (#668860) Homepage

                You are claiming that the food prices will not rise, but explaining this theory "because market." But market loves to rise prices. There is no reason why producers, distributors and vendors will not add a little extra price to the goods. The rule of the market is that everything costs as much as the customer is ready to pay.

                This extra money (say, $12K/yr UBI * 300M of eligible population = $3.6 billion per year) has to be created from thin air, as that salary is not balanced by equivalent amount of products. Being dropped from helicopters (see Ben Bernanke,) it will result in an instant inflation. Housing prices are the most sensitive indicator. Everyone will want to grab his piece of this wealth for himself. Inflation will result. And now consider that it's impossible to survive on $12K/yr and you need to at least triple that figure...

                If prices were going to rise, we would have seen it already - a loaf of bread and a bottle of milk would cost a minimum-wage day's worth of labour because there are many who could easily afford this.

                But who then will be working, if sitting at home for an hour is equivalent to a full day of hard labor? We are not on Solaria [wikipedia.org] yet. Work has to be rewarded. How?

                • (Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday April 19 2018, @05:37AM (2 children)

                  by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Thursday April 19 2018, @05:37AM (#668881) Journal

                  The rule of the market is that everything costs as much as the customer is ready to pay.

                  One can see the error in this "rule" by looking at its converse. "The rule of the market is that everything costs as little as the seller is willing to sell for." There's no real distinction between buyer and seller in most markets (I grant that there are occasional exceptions such as a near monopoly or extreme information asymmetry, that might change that). So why should something heavily favor one side?

                  There is no reason why producers, distributors and vendors will not add a little extra price to the goods.

                  Except the reason they didn't do it already. If they could sell something for more than they sell it now, then why aren't they selling it for more now?

                  • (Score: 1) by tftp on Thursday April 19 2018, @05:56AM (1 child)

                    by tftp (806) on Thursday April 19 2018, @05:56AM (#668887) Homepage

                    I grant that there are occasional exceptions such as a near monopoly or extreme information asymmetry, that might change that

                    Don't you see some asymmetry between a hungry man, who wants to eat, and a fat cat, sitting on sacks of food?

                    Except the reason they didn't do it already. If they could sell something for more than they sell it now, then why aren't they selling it for more now?

                    They are. They are just covering all wealth strata. Some stores sell common food of debatable health value for little. Other stores (Whole Foods, for example) deal in more exquisite goods for a larger price. We cannot look at the market as if there is only one seller and only one buyer. Certain math is involved. For example, if the vendor rises his prices, he may lose revenue, as the customers leave him and buy something else, maybe completely different. A wise merchant calculates the sweet spot by varying prices for a short time and monitoring sales. A seller is in a far better position than a buyer in this aspect.

                    • (Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday April 19 2018, @09:55AM

                      by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Thursday April 19 2018, @09:55AM (#668963) Journal

                      Don't you see some asymmetry between a hungry man, who wants to eat, and a fat cat, sitting on sacks of food?

                      Nope. The fat cat needs to eat too. And if he doesn't sell his food for cheaper, better quality/experience, etc, he starves as well since the hungry man goes elsewhere.

                • (Score: 2) by lentilla on Thursday April 19 2018, @06:43AM

                  by lentilla (1770) on Thursday April 19 2018, @06:43AM (#668905)

                  The way I see Universal Basic Income is that it is primarily about redistribution, not about injecting "extra money" into the economy. (Or dropping it from helicopters, although that would be a sight to behold!)

                  A society takes all the money it spends on welfare and instead of grudgingly paying a pittance to those that meet stringent requirements and grovel enough, they simply pay every citizen a weekly stipend. When I say "welfare", I mean all of it: unemployment payments, housing assistance, the various versions of "middle class welfare" (every country differs here), payments due to parental leave, and the pension. Simply take all that cash, and pay it out equally to every citizen over the age of sixteen.

                  The reason I believe we won't see a massive increase in the price of everything is that the total amount of money in the system stays the same. It has simply been redistributed.

                  Now to address some of the points raised in your reply. I'm not claiming that food prices will not rise, I'm simply stating a belief that if they do rise, the rise will not be particularly dramatic. A rise in food prices could also be seen as a good thing - it means that the poorest in our society can now afford the basics.

                  I think I've addressed your points about helicopters by talking about redistribution.

                  Housing prices are the most sensitive indicator.

                  You're not wrong. Rent under a UBI will be very interesting - particularly at the very bottom end of the market. I can't imagine UBI will affect the middle and top end of the sector.

                  Your final question: "who then will be working, if sitting at home for an hour is equivalent to a full day of hard labor?" I wonder if I hadn't made my point sufficiently because the answer to that one is "only a fool". I was trying to draw a comparison between prices in the marketplace today and prices under a putative UBI model. So I wonder if we are talking at cross-purposes.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 18 2018, @07:19PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 18 2018, @07:19PM (#668690)

          oh yeah, welfare and government housing has done wonders for the black community. just ask any roadside memorial.

      • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Thexalon on Wednesday April 18 2018, @06:42PM

        by Thexalon (636) on Wednesday April 18 2018, @06:42PM (#668676)

        Welfare that doesn't really help anybody. The welfare from my income taxes goes into programs that trap people on government assistance. I've spoken to a number of people who don't bother looking for work, because they'll lose their benefits. They're getting paid from my taxes roughly the equivalent of a full time $20/hr job with benefits. These programs also remove all incentives to use family planning services, creating a moral hazard.

        That is mostly a load of lies [washingtonpost.com].

        Income should never be taxed.

        Can you provide a reason for this other than "I don't wanna pay"? I agree with UBI, I think that's where society needs to go, but I'm totally fine with taxing income to get it. The number-crunching I've seen on UBI suggests that the cutoff where you'd get less from UBI than the taxes you paid for it would be somewhere around $175K a year, and since there'd be a bunch of benefits for society as a whole (e.g. fewer people asking me for change on the street) it's probably a good investment.

        And I think Medicare/Medicaid for All is just the start of what should be done on health care. The fact that American health care costs a *lot* more than every other country on the planet, but gets mediocre results at best, is a clear problem that has roots deeper than the insurance industry.

        --
        The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
  • (Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 18 2018, @02:24PM (9 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 18 2018, @02:24PM (#668585)

    > We should only have property tax and sales tax.

    I take it you don't own property? You probably make a good salary, but rent a small place to live??

    I'd be OK with paying a sales tax once, when I buy a house, this might even cut down on real estate speculation & flippers. But, why do I have to keep paying it every year? As I get closer to retirement, property & school taxes (USA) look like one of the larger expenses I'm going to have to budget for, if I want to keep living in the house I own (no more mortgage).

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 18 2018, @02:47PM (8 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 18 2018, @02:47PM (#668596)

      I take it you don't own property?

      I own property. I'm willing to pay the additional amount from my income tax as property tax. Property tax is also passed on to renters. Occasionally I have a lodger, and of course I pass part of my property taxes on to him. Property tax is a tax I pay because I live in a nice community, and I want to continue living in a nice community.

      Other people have different preferences, such as people who live out in the country. They pay less property tax, and that's fine. I've considered it, but I like living in town.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 18 2018, @07:14PM (1 child)

        by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 18 2018, @07:14PM (#668688)

        there's nothing ok about property tax. it means you never own your property. you fail to bring in enough new money in your old age, but you paid off you house and land and grow your own food, etc? tough shit. some piece of shit pig comes to take it all from you. the whole idea is completely ridiculous. if you want to fund the brainwashing of other people's kids or some lazy, useless county workers or more nazi pigs, you can do that through other taxes that are more optional like sales or fuel taxes. that was the whole reason the politicians tied it to people's houses to take the choice away. hey leaches, if the people aren't paying that means it's not their will. get a fucking job/skill, you fucking thieves!

        • (Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday April 19 2018, @10:00AM

          by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Thursday April 19 2018, @10:00AM (#668965) Journal

          you can do that through other taxes that are more optional like sales or fuel taxes.

          Property tax is just as optional as those. And just as I can "never own my property", I can "never trade" and "never travel" (though obviously taxes of the sort you have described do none of those things). Look, you've already granted that we need taxes to pay for certain community/government services. It's time to recognize that the people who own property receive the lion's share of the benefit of those services which you acknowledge.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 19 2018, @05:02AM (5 children)

        by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 19 2018, @05:02AM (#668866)

        I own property. I'm willing to pay the additional amount from my income tax as property tax.

        It would be just fine if property tax had any relation to the income of the owner. But at least in CA it is a fixed number that is derived from the purchase price + mods and raised every year by 1%. People's income often peaks at 50 years old and drops to zero after retirement. But the property tax must be paid no matter what! People are forced to sell their homes and move into tiny houses or rentals that are still cheaper, unless they have a wealthy relative who takes care of these expenses.

        • (Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday April 19 2018, @10:02AM (4 children)

          by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Thursday April 19 2018, @10:02AM (#668966) Journal

          People are forced to sell their homes and move into tiny houses or rentals that are still cheaper, unless they have a wealthy relative who takes care of these expenses.

          And what is the problem with that? Save more money when you're younger, if you don't want to do that. It is a terrible use of government to subsidize life style choices.

          • (Score: 2) by lentilla on Thursday April 19 2018, @10:57AM (3 children)

            by lentilla (1770) on Thursday April 19 2018, @10:57AM (#668996)

            And what is the problem with that?

            Practically speaking, the problem is two-fold. Governments have a bad habit of changing the rules, and your environment doesn't necessarily stay static.

            Say I retired in 1998 and my house was worth $400,000. It's 2018 and my house is worth $1,600,000. My income hasn't increased... the house hasn't improved... but property tax has quadrupled.

            That's the problem. If you're on the move and earning money you might be able to roll with the flow. Older people are not fast and flexible - that's a simple fact of life. If you just want to live your life out in peace it can become difficult.

            subsidize life style choices.

            I don't disagree with you, I just question how you can foretell the future. Ironically, the prevailing method used by fiscally wise people where I live; wanting to hedge their future; is to buy investment properties. Which of course exacerbates the problem.

            • (Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday April 19 2018, @11:05AM (2 children)

              by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Thursday April 19 2018, @11:05AM (#668997) Journal

              Say I retired in 1998 and my house was worth $400,000. It's 2018 and my house is worth $1,600,000. My income hasn't increased... the house hasn't improved... but property tax has quadrupled.

              That's the problem. If you're on the move and earning money you might be able to roll with the flow. Older people are not fast and flexible - that's a simple fact of life. If you just want to live your life out in peace it can become difficult.

              Why is the obvious solution, sell the house, supposed to be a bad choice? You can buy a far cheaper house elsewhere and then have a huge cushion.

              Ironically, the prevailing method used by fiscally wise people where I live; wanting to hedge their future; is to buy investment properties. Which of course exacerbates the problem.

              I bet that worked well for them in 2008.

              I don't disagree with you, I just question how you can foretell the future.

              Because one needs to be accurate in foretelling the future in order to know that saving more money is going to help? I'm not foretelling anything. Having trouble with property tax is only one of many potential negative consequences of not saving money.

              • (Score: 2) by lentilla on Thursday April 19 2018, @11:51AM (1 child)

                by lentilla (1770) on Thursday April 19 2018, @11:51AM (#669019)

                Why is the obvious solution, sell the house, supposed to be a bad choice?

                Because I want to live in my own house. You do understand that people like to live in the house and the community that they built, without undue influence, right?

                You mentioned 2008 and "saving more money". Saving money is not the point of life. There has to be a balance. That's why I brought up foretelling the future - nobody knows the future and I tried valiantly to demonstrate why "accura[cy] in foretelling the future" is fraught with mis-steps.

                When I've built my home, built my community, and done everything to the best of my ability, do I not deserve similar protection from parasites that our young are afforded?

                You can buy a far cheaper house elsewhere

                Not anywhere where your friends and family can drive within a day.

                • (Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday April 19 2018, @01:56PM

                  by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Thursday April 19 2018, @01:56PM (#669092) Journal

                  Because I want to live in my own house. You do understand that people like to live in the house and the community that they built, without undue influence, right?

                  I imagine you also would like to not grow old. We don't always get what we want, much less get it without consequence. What puzzles me is why the rest of us are supposed to be concerned because someone might be forced to move out of their extremely valuable home due to property tax? That's a situation I imagine the youth of today would love to have.