edit: save_ferris linked to an excellent story below: https://www.propublica.org/article/filing-taxes-could-be-fre...
- why does a judge in a lawsuit get to make the decision here? I.e. why is this kind of law not debated as part of public discourse and a decision made through a democratic path?
- given this benefits a tiny fraction of people in the US, why doesn’t a particular party/politician take a stand on it as a policy to win a chunk of votes?
For the first point, a UK former judge spoke extensively on the topic of the courts overstepping their remit as part of the 2019 Reith lectures: https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m00057m8
What judge?
The FTC investigation mentioned in the article may end with the FTC filing a lawsuit, but that would be about whether Intuit deceived taxpayers (by directing them towards a paid version even if they were eligible to file for free), not whether the Free File program should exist or whether the IRS should develop its own software.
The Free File program as it currently exists is the result of executive action, a “memorandum of understanding” between the IRS and tax software companies. [1] Last year there was a bill in Congress that would have codified it into law, but that part of the bill was dropped due to concerns it would permanently bar the IRS from developing its own software. ProPublica’s reporting about Intuit’s obfuscation played a part in that outcome. So there was a “public discourse” of sorts, although it’s a pretty obscure issue.
Also:
> given this benefits a tiny fraction of people in the US
Keep in mind that a large fraction of Congress follows the ideology that, broadly speaking, the government can’t do anything right and it’s best to outsource as much as possible to private companies. Intuit’s lobbying was obviously a major factor, but they were playing for a receptive audience. Congress is also not particularly tech-savvy, by and large.
[1] https://www.journalofaccountancy.com/news/2019/jun/congress-...
Because national politics in the U.S. in 2020 is big business. It's not about votes or public policy, it's about redirecting funds to party coffers, paid consultants, and ideally the office-holders themselves (or at least their advisors, family and friends).
A similar bill was passed in 2019: https://www.propublica.org/article/congress-is-about-to-ban-...
We (Americans) still, in general, don't need to file taxes like we do, though. The US has tons of paperwork: Norway sends me an electronic document to look over and unless I want to file, I owe money, or something is wrong, I don't have to do anything. They will automatically pay out refunds. Sure, I still "file taxes", but realistically, I just look over some electronic paperwork.
This method of "filing taxes" makes it easy to comply with filing and I'm guessing it makes collection rates better with less work.
I'm 40 and have never had to do a tax return, I get a summary at the end of the year and a breakdown on each pay slip and that's pretty much it.
It's one of those silent services that government does so well it pretty much disappears into the background.
Only in exceptional circumstances does a normal waged employee have to have anything to do with taxes.
Until I was self-employed in my 30s I never filled out a tax form. Some people never do.
You're being swindled in the US.
Norway just asks upfront. Yes, I have to try to predict what I'm going to make that year, but yes, I can update it if I change jobs. Marriage, children, etc all gets factored in. If I don't change things, I think it stays the same. The vast majority of folks don't have to self-assess like Americans do, and thinking that we need to do it more seems to be more leaning towards an attitude of Exceptionalism - which seems to be just as much an excuse as it is something folks have pride in.
We're being swindled in the US by a lot of things. Tax prep as you mentioned, but also health care guaranteed sick pay, fair minimum wages, etc...
But half the country is actually in favor of maintaining all this.
This is by design, in the US the anti-tax crowd wants filing taxes to be harder and more inefficient. It serves their purposes. And they are a powerful lobbying group.
Not including sales tax actually demonstrates more clearly the result of anti-tax sentiment, though I'm still not convinced it is lobbying itself that does this. Instead, the same sort of folks go into politics and directly get involved in making laws about this sort of thing. Of course, this is built on a long-standing anti-tax sentiment in the US that folks tie into an "origin story" of sorts (taxation from England minimally helped spur the revolution).
And they do have a point: The more of a pain a tax is for the taxpaper, the more they think about disliking taxes. But it doesn't realistically go that far: We do all sorts of things to make paying taxes easier for folks. Gasoline prices include all taxes (from federal down to sales tax). Payroll taxes are deducted from your paycheck. Stores collect sales tax instead of you sending it to the government. Prepaid phone plans still have taxes included and renters don't pay for property tax directly.And so on.
> Doing taxes keeps citizens aware of the tax burden imposed upon them by the government.
https://theweek.com/articles/825902/how-republicans-trapped-...
If you have an unusual tax situation you have to do it still, but 99% of people just have 1 job with 1 salary.
Even the information they do have is not all available on your account transcript until mid/late summer.
With some substantial investments they could probably generate pre-filled forms for the simple cases by late March. I’d support that, even though it wouldn’t help me at all.
"Why isn't the IRS giving people a way to prepopulate and file taxes for free with the financial info that the IRS already has on everyone?"
Well, I suppose it's just a product of the corporate interests and congressional deadlock that prevents us from doing a multitude of things right now. Other countries manage to do this just fine.