Taxmanian morons

[altivo]

I can't wait for April 15th to be over. For some reason (probably the idiotic "stimulus plan") people are just nuts and extra stupid about filing taxes. Many of them expect us to be serving as their private tax accountants (for free) and that we should have copies of every bizarre and unheard of federal and state form number on the shelf for them to pick up.

The worst are the ones on the telephone, who get really rude and nasty when we tell them "No, we don't have a tax lawyer here to answer your question. Call the IRS hot line." I imagine the wait times on that IRS 800 number are in the hours right now. But if you waited until the last minute to do this, that's your problem, not mine.

Libraries have never been the place to get expert tax information, medical advice, or legal advice folks. The best we can do is point you to the book containing the information. We do not advise or interpret the data. We do not read the book for you. And we do not file your taxes. You have to do that yourself! You can complain to the city council, the congressjerk, and to God himself, but that isn't going to change. Calling the local newspaper to tell them we wouldn't redo your taxes after your son "did them wrong" isn't going to change it either. If you can tell that your son did them wrong, you can redo it yourself.

Yes, we have the form you need to file for an extension. No, we won't tell you how to fill it out. And as soon as we close tonight, tax season is over. You can take it up with the federal government. We are NOT the federal government, damn it.

Comments

[moth-wingthane.livejournal.com]

What is the 'stimulus plan'?

[silver-kiden.livejournal.com]

bushy boy says you get six hundred dollars. that thing.

[moth-wingthane.livejournal.com]

Ah, I see. I'm betting Gordon Brown won't do the same.

[silver-kiden.livejournal.com]

probably not. then again, is your economy so far in the crapper that the government NEEDS to pay you?

[moth-wingthane.livejournal.com]

Not yet, but I have a feeling it will be soon. Despite all the Government spin about how strong we're supposed to be here.

[gabrielhorse.livejournal.com]

Agreed... my thoughts exactly.

[altivo.livejournal.com]

An idiotic idea first perpetrated by the Reagan administration, in which the federal government issues a "tax rebate" to each taxpayer in the hope that they will spend it immediately on toys and goodies, thus "stimulating" a collapsing economy. It doesn't work, has never worked, and won't work now. But it does seem to buy political support from the least intelligent portion of the electorate, alas. "He gave me money, I like that." Never mind that it was your own money, and that it wasn't his to give, or that the federal budget deficit will be enlarged by a huge amount when this happens.

[dakhun.livejournal.com]

Giving away 1% of GDP will boost by 1% the economists' measure of GDP, assuming the money is spent. But even if it is not spent, it would boost Income-based GDP by 1% assuming the stimulus package is considered before-tax income, but I'm not sure if it is.

But it is an artifical boost, unrelated to the economy's productivity, and economists really ought to be factoring it out when determining whether there is a recession or not.

[altivo.livejournal.com]

More or less my thoughts. And the real economists do factor it out, but the political spin doctors don't. And besides, it isn't about real economics, but about buying votes from those too stupid to figure this all out for themselves.

There are other negative effects too. Consumer credit is way overextended in the US, which is part of the whole problem. So the government announces that it is about to give $600 to every individual with enough income to file a tax return on, and $300 to to almost anyone else with income they can declare, even if they don't owe any taxes on it. What happens? Well, about half of them or so rush right out and spend that money before they even have it in their hands, running their credit cards up even higher. This can't be the desirable effect, but it still buys votes.

I. E.

[gabrielhorse.livejournal.com]

In other words, if we were on the Titanic, Captain Shrub just issued a command over the loudspeaker to dole out the spare shot glasses to bale the water out with while he prepare's the captain's personal lifeboat, S.S. Petroleum, Inc. ;)

[tinbender.livejournal.com]

I can't figure why people wait so long anyway. When I lived in Arizona, I inevitably had to pay something in to the state, which of course I wouldn't mail until the last day (they were done, just not filed). While in the post office, someone noticed when I went past them that I was getting ready to mail my taxes and asked me a question. Soon I was making money filling out tax forms for people and continued until I was hungry and wanted to go home. Don't know which is worse: waiting until after 4 PM on April 15th to start your taxes or paying some guy in the lobby of the post office to do your taxes. Anyway, I made some pretty decent money in an hour, ironically under the table and tax free : )

BTW, I used to annoy a librarian friend of mine by referring to the library as "the place where you get tax forms" ; )

[altivo.livejournal.com]

The fear of simple arithmetic is something horrifying to behold. I imagine most of those folks had the simplest sort of filings to make, if you could do them all while standing in the post office. Yet they were afraid to add up three figures, subtract another, and calculate a percentage (or look it up in a table) of the result. So much for the vaunted American educational system, eh?

^_^

[gabrielhorse.livejournal.com]

;) Got mine done... and in early. Thanks again for the help, Alt. Ironically, math was my worst subject in school, but I bucked up and did it :P

[silver-kiden.livejournal.com]

next time, just answer with "now, should i be rude or just make stuff up as i go along?"

[altivo.livejournal.com]

I was ready to skip the question and go right to the rude part. These people have mush for brains, and I'm quite sure it's caused by watching too much television, especially large doses of Oprah and Dr. Phil.

[baphnedia.livejournal.com]

I'd love to say 'just make stuff up' but while they may be too stupid to do simple arithmetic, their lawyers won't be too stupid to cry 'tax fraud' at a public servant.

[avon-deer.livejournal.com]

I've never filed a tax return before, so I don't know what it's like. But I am willing to bet it's a horrid mountain of paperwork and jargon. In a way it's flattering to have people ask you to help. No less annoying though.

[altivo.livejournal.com]

If you are self-employed or own a business, have long term investments in the stock market, and stacks of receipts for business expenses, or if you're a farmer (of all things,) yes, it gets messy and amounts to a stack of paperwork. For the average citizen, no. It's pretty simple. In fact, most of those who don't own their own homes have only a single page (or at most, two) to fill out, with some basic addition and subtraction. And they don't even have to do that. After they fill in the first six or seven lines of data, they can check a box and ask the government to do the rest FOR them!

I own a farm but it's not a going business, so no deductions or income to declare for it. The only relevant point there is the real estate taxes, which can be deducted from my income before the tax rate is applied. My tax forms run to four pages only because of that. Otherwise it would be three, with one of them mostly blank. The third one simply lists the interest and dividends from my retirement savings accounts. The real arithmetic only happens on two sheets, and most of the lines there are blank. With a pocket calculator, it can be done in 15 minutes and double-checked.

The majority of these people who are in a panic don't even have that much to do. Most of them qualify for one of two "short form" filings, either the 1040EZ (a single side of one page) or the 1040A (half of one side.) The American educational system has declined so far that none of them are competent to read and follow instructions like "Add lines 14 through 18 and write total on line 19. If line 24 is larger than line 19, write zero on line 25; otherwise subtract line 24 from line 19 and write the remainder on line 25. Look up the amount on line 25 in table C, and find the amount of tax due in the appropriate column for your filing status. Write the amount due from table C on line 26..."

I don't know whether it's the fear of addition and subtraction or the inability to follow stepwise instructions without getting completely buggered, but either way I declare them all to be morons.

[doco.livejournal.com]

I nearly spilled my drink at the first time I actually saw this "1040" everybody seems to be so afraid of. I've never seen a more poorly designed government form in my life. (Then again, it might just be because I hate maths to no end, but they could at least -try- and make with less clutter on that one...)

[altivo.livejournal.com]

You've probably only seen the "simplified" one. It used to be worse, though honestly, it has never been actually difficult. There are step by step instructions and you just follow them.

Do you have a copy of Form 7734 for the Good Intentions Tax?

[songdogmi.livejournal.com]

The other thing I thought you'd be complaining about is the users trying to e-file using library computers. I can only envision that as one big nightmare.

I bet the librarian who came up with the idea of having the library giving away tax forms will never be named Librarian of the Year by the ALA.

Re: Do you have a copy of Form 7734 for the Good Intentions Tax?

[altivo.livejournal.com]

We've pretty much nipped the e-filing thing in the bud. They have a time limit on public access computers, and the computer logs them off and disconnects them when their time runs out. That alone should be enough, but it didn't stop them. So last year we started putting up signs telling them that we could not assume any responsibility if their personal data was stolen or leaked by one of our computers. "These machines are not secure enough for financial transactions such as tax filing or loan applications." And, we refuse to help anyone who has questions about such things, because I'm not about to stand looking over someone's shoulder while their social security number, mother's maiden name, bank account number, and so forth are all plainly visible on the screen. Obviously, they'd be blaming me if their identity was stolen. So, it's simply out of the question, and we say so up front.

As for the tax forms, yes. It has become a royal headache because 1) the post office in town now refuses to handle any of them, and sends everyone to us; and 2) the government no longer seems to mail them out to anyone, so they all want to get the forms from us. We have to beg, scream, and plead with both the feds and the state in order to keep a supply of the commonly used forms available. They want to send us a dozen or two at a time and make us ask again for more. It comes down to a lot of deliberate pressure from the federal government at least to get everyone to file electronically. They don't care that half the population is still incapable of using a computer to such precision. In fact, I think they get kickbacks from H&R Block for improving their annual income this way.

Re: Do you have a copy of Form 7734 for the Good Intentions Tax?

[gabrielhorse.livejournal.com]

LOL *rolls on the floor* Yeah, I've seen a few of those irate morons in the past few weeks :P

[schnee.livejournal.com]

Oh, yes, that sure sounds rather annoying... it's a good thing it's over again by now.

Just out of curiosity, when does it actually start? Do people only go crazy on the 15th of April, or do they do so before that already?

[altivo.livejournal.com]

April 15 is the filing deadline. By law, employers and financial institutions are required to supply the necessary information about income by the end of January. So they've all had from February 1 until April 15 to get this done, and as I've said, for most of them it's a single sheet of paper with a few numbers to add up on it. Most wait until the last few days to actually get it done, so there's always this mad panic in the second week of April. By then the preprinted forms are hard to find, and they have often lost the statements from the financial institutions and are in a panic about where to get copies of them. We even get people coming to the library expecting us to provide their own financial details for them.

[schnee.livejournal.com]

Most wait until the last few days to actually get it done, so there's always this mad panic in the second week of April.

Ah, OK, that's what I meant.

We even get people coming to the library expecting us to provide their own financial details for them.

Whoa... with people like that, I'm surprised they're even able to find the library. o.o

[altivo.livejournal.com]

Whoa... with people like that, I'm surprised they're even able to find the library. o.o

For many of them, it's the only time of the year that they come near the library. As you might guess, such people don't read anything unless they are forced to, which is why they have trouble following the instructions to fill out the form. This makes the whole problem worse. Since they associate the library with tax forms and the tax deadline, they think that our main reason for existence is to deal with the income tax. Honest, I'm not making this up. And since we are a government agency (the fact that we are a city department, and have nothing to do with the federal government is irrelevant to them) they expect us to supply them with everything they need in order to fulfil a government requirement.

[schnee.livejournal.com]

*noddles* Still weird... anyone with more than one brain cell should be able to stop and think for five seconds and realise that there is no reason why any third party - no even one that would be part of the federal government and that would exist to deal with taxes - would have their own personal financial details. Outside of the question where they'd have gotten those details, it should also be obvious that it wouldn't even be necessary to file taxes if the feds already knew everything about everyone's finances.

I'm really not sure how some people even manage to remember how to breathe, to be honest. :)

*hugs* But at least it's the 16th now, so this should all be over again until next year.

[altivo.livejournal.com]

This, of course, is why America looks so schizoid and erratic to the rest of the world. Sure, we have a democracy of sorts, but these people are voting. Their awareness of anything beyond what's on their own dinner plate is vague at best.

Consequently, they vote for politicians who promise them a tax rebate, regardless of the incredibly stupid policies that those politicians put forth. This is the kind of garbage that got us Bush and his cronies for an additional four years when they should have been tossed out in 2004.

[schnee.livejournal.com]

Yeah - as Churchill is claimed to have said, the best argument against democracy is a five-minute talk with the average voter. :P It's really like that everywhere, though (or at least, it's no different here, basically).

Maybe the fact that the USA usually seems to have very low voter turnouts isn't such a bad thing after all. :P OK, I'm being cynical there, but I do wonder if there's any studies on whether there's any correlation between the likelihood of someone voting and - say - a low IQ etc.

[altivo.livejournal.com]

Many people here seem to turn out to vote only when they are triggered by a polarizing "hot button" issue. That's why politics here has grown so polarized to extremes, with no middle ground and no compromises offered. It has left us with a total deadlock and no forward progress since some time in the 1960s in my opinion.

Instead we get elections that are largely swayed by red herring issues, crafted by marketing firms hired by the parties and candidates. For example, in 2004 the Bush administration garnered a large number of votes by making a big deal out of same sex marriage, what a threat it was to the status quo and the "family", and promising to push for a consitutional amendment to prohibit it. A lot of narrow minded people voted for Bush on that issue alone, even though they really wouldn't have agreed with him on a lot of other things. Of course he hasn't really tried to push that issue once he got into office, because doing so would be a certain failure. Instead he has just done business as usual, wasting lives and money on a pointless war, major handouts to big corporations, and raping the environment every opportunity he gets. But the voters who fell for the single issue and voted based on that kept him in office for four more years...

[schnee.livejournal.com]

*noddles* That's another typical problem, yes. Well, several, in fact - both the fact that politicians lie before elections and that there are never any real consequences (you can't even vote against them purely based on that, since there aren't any others who're different), and the fact that they're willing to manipulate people's fears and sacrifice the principles of equality, fairness etc. upon which any modern democracy should be built in order to drum up support.

I have no idea what one could possibly do about that, though. The only thing that'd really have any chance of success would probably be to educate people, but I think a significant number of people just don't want to be educated, and there's also some at least who'd be willing but who just can't. (I've met one person like that before: well-meaning and generally a good guy, but thick as a plank. I'm pretty sure he wouldn't want to be manipulated like that, but I also think he'd be too thick to not fall for it again and again every single time.)

[altivo.livejournal.com]

There are several solutions that might well help, but getting any of them actually implemented is a battle of major proportions.

One advantage that most of the democracies in the world have over the US is multiple parties. It's harder to polarize the population and the state house when you have three or four parties in there, each of whom holds some reasonable share of support and power. Because the US system became so hidebound with just two parties, it's almost impossible for any alternative party to gain a toehold now. Many people actually think that the constitution itself ordained the "two party system" which of course it did not.

[schnee.livejournal.com]

*noddles* I'm not sure it can be avoided, myself - the iron law of oligarchy usually seems to affect things sooner or later.

Certainly in Germany, even though the situation is not quite as bad (in this regard) as in the USA, choices are more limited than you might think, too, even though it may be changing again now. As you may know, there's two major (large) parties here, the SPD (social democrats) and the CDU/CSU (conservatives; legally two parties that complement each other, but for all practical purposes, one party); there's also some smaller ones, like the FDP ("liberals" in German political jargon, but the word doesn't mean the same thing here - they're basically moderate libertarians with an emphasis on economic issues and economic freedom) and Bündnis '90/Die Grünen (the greens). There's been other parties in the past, and there's also a whole bunch of other very small ones that are mostly irrelevant for the political process (like in the USA); the only ones that get talked about on occasion are the various neonazi parties, namely the Republicans (heh), DVU and NPD.

Anyhow, for the longest time, it was traditional for the Greens to form coalitions with the SPD, and for the FDP to form coalitions with the CDU/CSU. There were some other constellations that you occsasionally encountered - SPD/FDP coalitions and "grand" coalitions (SPD/CDU/CSU), mostly, but those were pretty rare, so for the most part, you still had essentially two choices, even though you could put an emphasis on either partner of the coalition you favoured.

Things are changing now - the SED (the ruling party in the former Eastern German dictatorship) renamed itself the PDS after the reunification, but was never able to gain any political power in former West Germany (in the former East, they did, and occasionally entered into "red+deep red" coalitions with the SPD in state parliaments etc.), so a few years ago, they merged with a newly-formed movement (the so-called WASG) to form a new party, Die Linke, that could be successful in all of Germany and that wouldn't be connected with the SED anymore in people's minds.

It worked out, too. The established parties initially said "we'll never work with those guys", but there's situations now where the old "traditional" coalitions won't work anymore if there's five parties present in parliaments now. Grand coalitions are always an option, of course, but those are seen as undesirable clutches by just about everyone; new options include three-party coalitions (notably the "traffic lights" coalition consisting of the SPD, Greens and FDP, and the "Jamaica" coalition consisting of the CDU/CSU, Greens and FDP), as well as SPD/FDP or even CDU/CSU/Green coalitions. And of course, whether the resistance to coalitions with the Linke will remain is also something that remains to be seen.

Anyhow... long story cut short, while things are in flux again in Germany right now in this regard, we more or less had a two-party system for a long time, too. It's not been quite as bad in the USA, but I'd still say the iron law of oligarchy has proven to be true here, too.

[altivo.livejournal.com]

The latest issue of New Scientist has an article about this that explains some of the problems, many of which are inherent in the "winner takes all" style of most elections and voting systems.

They describe a voting system in which voters would rank all the candidates for an office in order, and a scoring process that produces a better result than just whoever gets a plurality wins. It avoids the main problem that kills third parties in the US: the notion that voting for a third party candidate actually helps the candidate you like least, which is often true under single plurality scoring systems. They even give a statistical analysis of the Florida vote in 2000 suggesting that under their modified system, Bush would not have won.

Of course this is all interesting but will never happen. Those who hold the power would fear losing it. And requiring voters to rank four or five candidates instead of choosing one makes the whole process so much more complicated that I can't imagine it happening.

[schnee.livejournal.com]

*noddles* I think for Bush to not win in Florida in 2000, even the current system would've been enough if it had been applied correctly, without any fraud. c.c

But yeah, there certainly are better systems out there, even if you can't design a perfect one. Unfortunately, the only ones who'd actually be able to change the voting system are those profiting from the current system (something that's true in general), so it's probably unlikely at best that they'll implement any changes - that would require them to put the common good ahead of their own self-interest, and most politicians will be unlikely to do that. (Even if one isn't very cynical in your assessment of politicans in general, one would still have to take into account that even genuinely well-intended politicians will have an interest in being able to implement the policy decisions they believe to be best for society and that therefore, even these will not be inclined to take away their own ability to do so.)

Mmm, the article doesn't seem to be available online for free, though. Pity.

[altivo.livejournal.com]

Try your university library. New Scientist is a pretty well-respected British publication, so they may have it available.

[schnee.livejournal.com]

*checks their web catalogue* Oh, yes, they do seem to have it. I'll check it out. :)

[altivo.livejournal.com]

Come to think of it, when I first moved to the state of Illinois, they had a better system here for choosing state legislators. It was heavily slanted toward a dual party system, but at least it insured that in a landslide year the minority still got some representation. It was called "bullet" voting.

Each district had three representatives rather than one, but each party could only nominate a maximum of two candidates for the district. This meant that in each district, you always had at least two different parties represented in the legislature.

The actual voting seemed to confuse voters, though. You got to cast two votes only, and could either give both to the same candidate (called "voting the bullet") or divide them between two candidates. The counting was simple, and the three candidates with the highest vote counts were declared elected. I liked it, so of course that guaranteed that they would do away with it.

When it was changed to the more conventional system, the argument was that it would "save money" by reducing the size of the legislature, but of course it also allowed the majority party to completely override the minority all the time, increasing polarization and hostilities and causing a lot more ugly politics.

Right on the mark.

[gabrielhorse.livejournal.com]

That sums it up. I'm glad you put this down... it pretty much sums up what every politician in my lifetime has done and seems determined to continue doing- duck and shuffle, shuck and jive.

Now, let's make a big issue over wether the "w" in "We the people..." should OR shouldn't be capitalized(!)

[hellmutt.livejournal.com]

It's the aura of competence you project. Quite your own fault. ;)

[altivo.livejournal.com]

Bah. Since I'm rarely visible to the public any more, that's not it, or at least, I'm not it. We've all been dealing with this idiocy for the last week or so.

[saythename.livejournal.com]

Hell, I'm happy they just have the forms
in a rack!

[cabcat.livejournal.com]

Damn they must be stupid, I never even considered ringing the library to ask how to do my tax o.O I'd go to a tax accountant to do that.

[altivo.livejournal.com]

Tax accountants charge for the privilege. Libraries are free. We get requests to diagnose people's illnesses, tell them how to write wills and contracts, all sorts of stuff like that.

[cabcat.livejournal.com]

Yes but come on o.O I wonder if libraries here have to deal with that.