From what I'm seeing, that's not right, and Dunkin Brands[1] makes roughly 20% of Intuit's[2] income. Regardless, the amount a company is willing to spend on lobbying is not only dictated by their income, but also by how much they stand to gain or lose. I think Intuit may see legislation that makes taxes easier for many people as the beginnings of a trend that could be an existential crises for them. Even if they were on par with a Dunkin Donuts, I could see how they would be much more willing to spend any potential profits to fight this.

1: http://amigobulls.com/stocks/DNKN/income-stament/annual

2: http://amigobulls.com/stocks/INTU/income-statement/annual

What's preposterous about it? You can buy a lot of influence for a couple million a year. Are you saying they're wasting their money and might as well just redistribute it to shareholders? If not, then presumably they think it a worthwhile expense or they wouldn't spend it.

The Chamber of Commerce has been lobbying for a simpler tax code (including flat taxes) for decades. They can direct vastly more lobbying dollars to the problem than can Intuit or H&R Block. If it was just a matter of lobbying dollars, the 0.5% of the economy that benefits from more complicated taxes could not possibly out-lobby the 99.5% of the economy that benefits from simpler taxes (all else being equal).

The thing is, there are a lot of people and industries lobbying to keep the tax system complicated: real eatate agents and home builders want the mortgage deduction, oil and gas industries want the depletion allowance, hedge funds want carried interest, et cetera ad libitum. It's nowhere near 0.5% of the influential people in the economy, plus the people it benefits, it benefits a lot, while everybody else, it grinds away a few percent of their welfare.

EDIT to add: plus the incentives for lawmakers are to keep the system complicated, so all the contributions keep rolling in.

Turns out that people want to pay less tax. You say this like it's unexpected.

Most people are not going to have personal concerns over a pre-filled return as long as they are confident that they can modify it without repercussions. They may oppose it ideologically, on the basis that the government should experience as much friction as possible in its efforts to fleece the populace. Such an ideological position is a valid reason to oppose this change.

> They may oppose it ideologically, on the basis that the government should experience as much friction as possible in its efforts to fleece the populace. Such an ideological position is a valid reason to oppose this change.

Tax evasion is not a valid ideological policy. Tax minimization, fine, everyone is entitled to deduct as much as the tax code allows. Tax evasion is crossing the line into crime. That's literally always where the line has been drawn on taxes - "pay unto Caesar what is Caesar's".

If you don't like the tax policy, leave. It's part of the social contract - find somewhere to live where you agree with the social contract.

(and yes expatriation should be easier)

It's not tax evasion. People comply with the law, they just want it to be as difficult/expensive as possible for the government to continue the program.

>If you don't like the tax policy, leave. It's part of the social contract - find somewhere to live where you agree with the social contract.

lol? This attitude is the antithesis of democracy. In democracies, we say, "If you don't like it, contact your representatives and organize some peaceful, lawful opposition, and you may convince enough people to change it."

And indeed, it appears that's exactly what the people of California did when they didn't like this proposal, and of course, rather than admit defeat, the other side blames a corporation that dared to exercise its rights.

I don't know what it is with HN lately, but a lot of these really vapid, myopic memes have been invading the political threads here. I didn't make it to HN until right after Obama was elected, so maybe this is just how it is when Republicans are in power? The "threat" becomes more credible, resentment becomes more palpable, and it's get taken out on the users on the board?

> I don't know what it is with HN lately, but a lot of these really vapid, myopic memes have been invading the political threads here.

White noise response, nice. "How dare you post about XYZ".

Don't do this. If you don't have a point to make, then don't post. Internet bytes are cheap, you are not a mod who gets to flag posts.

You're not the first person to come up with the idea of passive-aggressive responses to things you don't like. And if you want to play the "malicious compliance" game then be my guest... but don't be surprised when an IRS agent or a judge pushes your shit in over it.

A lot of libertarians think that judges are beep-boop robots and will drop their spaghetti all over the floor when you whip out the one secret legal maneuver that attorneys don't want you to know about (judges hate him!).

This is very much not the case, at every level that you will ever reach the law is interpreted in a strongly "common law" view towards actual justice that doesn't really care for your strict textualism. The judge is going to take quite a dim view of you whipping out your clever trick and you are going to suffer for it.

Some don't, SCOTUS is notoriously partisan and the East Texas courts are notoriously friendly to patent law (although SCOTUS has repeatedly slapped down their interpretations). But anywhere you're going to get, don't expect your "the flag has a fringe!" arguments to fly.

By and large, the law will still be interpreted with the context of basic human decency. If you try and be a dick and stall the government with baseless legal maneuvering, the human being on the other side of the stand is going to recognize that and you're going to have a real bad time.

"simpler tax code" = "fewer loopholes".

That 0.5% of the economy hires 95% of the lobbyists. Corporate lobbying to save or add loopholes dwarfs all other tax-related lobbying efforts.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/18/companies-lobbying-...

> If it was just a matter of lobbying dollars, the 0.5% of the economy that benefits from more complicated taxes could not possibly out-lobby the 99.5% of the economy that benefits from simpler taxes (all else being equal).

This is a laughably oversimplified way to think about, so much so that there's even a term for how wrong this is: diffuse benefits, concentrated costs (and its inverse, obviously).

But all else is not equal. And the argument is not that the tax prep companies are out to complicate the tax code, qua liability and subsidy, but that they have frustrated efforts to allow the IRS to offer a simpler filing experience to the public. The usual argument is that if the IRS were to simplify the submission of taxes and offer its own tax prep app, it would be perversely incentivized to maximize its take rather than minimizing taxpayer liability.

Of course, Congress could just pass a law mandating that the IRS take as little as legally required, but as you are surely aware the instant conservative view is that administrative agencies are rapacious out-of-control behemoths restrained only by the heroic efforts of a few valiant champions of liberty etc. etc.