1543
submitted 9 months ago by oakey66@lemmy.world to c/technology@lemmy.world

It’s about time that Intuit was called out for their scam. Hopefully, the attempt to stop the federal tax filing will get dismissed as well.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] AlwaysNowNeverNotMe@kbin.social 159 points 9 months ago

I love how it's gone so far beyond "We would like to assist people in paying their taxes."

"We would like to prevent the US government from examining the possibility of creating it's own online tax filing portal."

"We would like to advertise our product as free using government channels and grants only to then turn around after the user has input their most sensitive data into our database and attempt to wring them for $100.00 or not be bound by our privacy policy."

[-] solstice@lemmy.world 10 points 9 months ago

Feels like every Evil Corporation (tm) has gone this route. In ye olden days it used to be a competitive market where businesses tried to provide the best product and services for the best prices. Then at some point everyone collectively decided to start doing as little as possible without getting sued. I'm so sick of it.

Regarding tax compliance for individuals, if you have the slightest complications in your financial situation, it might be best to pay a small time preparer $500 to deal with the hassle. Software isn't cheap these days so might as well pay a small premium for the better service a pro provides. (Disclaimer: I am a pro so my opinion is biased.)

[-] bakachu@lemm.ee 5 points 9 months ago

Agree, would rather my money went to a local firm with an actual person who I can consistently contact for questions. Did this a few years ago for an especially challenging tax year. Absolutely 0 regrets - if I had done it via self-serve software I would've missed out on quite a few unknown tax assists that the accountant found.

[-] AlwaysNowNeverNotMe@kbin.social -1 points 9 months ago

It was in the specific moment that tort reform limited damages to 250,000 because they blamed an old Lady for getting burned by her 170° coffee. Though she was awarded like 7.6 million as an additive damage because.mcdonalds had been gently warned several times before

[-] solstice@lemmy.world 2 points 9 months ago

Why, because it's cheaper to get sued for a few bucks than to not be a shitty company? Interesting. Like Ed Norton's car recall equation in Fight Club. Got a source? Not challenging you but I'm curious if that's your opinion or a known concept.

[-] AlwaysNowNeverNotMe@kbin.social 2 points 9 months ago

More specifically because the vast majority of cases will either never be filed or in rarer circumstances be easily settled out of court with an initial low-ball. Judgements often take this into account but by limiting the maximum payout it could be argued that that was the price of a human life. You are free to look this up but it's settled law barring several notable exemptions.

https://www.carlsonattorneys.com/news-and-update/liebeck-v-mcdonalds

this post was submitted on 08 Sep 2023
1543 points (99.5% liked)

Technology

55647 readers
3641 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS