Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Technically, no. But the federal government is supposed to be looking out for the interests of citizens and taxpayers. As Lincoln said, 'for the people.'
I'm truly surprised that so many people think it's fine for the government to take advantage of taxpayers lack of financial savvy. Raise 'em up stupid in public education, then take advantage of their stupidity when they get into the working world--heck of a racket.
so should the IRS staff up so it has enough people to sit down with every taxpayer at the beginning of each year and every time they change jobs or have a life event to review their W-4 to make sure they're having the optimum amount withheld? That's the only way you can justify the government being a fiduciary.
so should the IRS staff up so it has enough people to sit down with every taxpayer at the beginning of each year and every time they change jobs or have a life event to review their W-4 to make sure they're having the optimum amount withheld? That's the only way you can justify the government being a fiduciary.
Read the post again, I said clearly "fiduciary (so to speak)." Are you familiar with 'so to speak?'
By the same token of your point, do you think the government should lie, cheat, and steal at every opportunity in order to vacuum more money from the taxpayer wallet? Or look out for the taxpayer when possible and practical, as it would be in this case?
Read the post again, I said clearly "fiduciary (so to speak)." Are you familiar with 'so to speak?'
By the same token of your point, do you think the government should lie, cheat, and steal at every opportunity in order to vacuum more money from the taxpayer wallet? Or look out for the taxpayer when possible and practical, as it would be in this case?
I'm fully aware of what so to speak means but it has no place here. You're either a fiduciary or you aren't.
Last time I checked, the government is not lying, cheating or stealing when it comes to withholding. In fact, as I mentioned before, everyone was accusing them of doing the opposite with the new withholding tables under the TCJA. The IRS was accused of artificially decreasing the amount withheld in order to give the appearance of a bigger tax cut to workers. The IRS even had to waive underpayment penalties because the uproar was so great. Remember that?
Were you praising the IRS then because they didn't take the money from people? Doubtful.
I'm fully aware of what so to speak means but it has no place here. You're either a fiduciary or you aren't.
Semantics. If you prefer you can substitute some of the other language, such as "looking out for the interests of citizens and taxpayers" in post #15.
Quote:
Last time I checked, the government is not lying, cheating or stealing when it comes to withholding.
In fact if they cozen people into giving them an interest-free loan they are cheating and stealing. Would you con a friend or relative into giving you a back-door interest free loan? That's what the federal gov't does.
Quote:
In fact, as I mentioned before, everyone was accusing them of doing the opposite with the new withholding tables under the TCJA. The IRS was accused of artificially decreasing the amount withheld in order to give the appearance of a bigger tax cut to workers. The IRS even had to waive underpayment penalties because the uproar was so great. Remember that?
Were you praising the IRS then because they didn't take the money from people? Doubtful.
I was not familiar with that situation, so no, I did not praise the IRS for it. I do recall some politicos complaining that the size of refunds had fallen since the 2017 tax cuts. I did call that out as stupid at the time. Smaller refund=smaller interest free loan from taxpayer to gov't=more money in taxpayer's pocket.
Are you an IRS employee by chance? If so, sorry if I hurt your feelings, but facts are facts.
Semantics. If you prefer you can substitute some of the other language, such as "looking out for the interests of citizens and taxpayers" in post #15.
In fact if they cozen people into giving them an interest-free loan they are cheating and stealing. Would you con a friend or relative into giving you a back-door interest free loan? That's what the federal gov't does.
I was not familiar with that situation, so no, I did not praise the IRS for it. I do recall some politicos complaining that the size of refunds had fallen since the 2017 tax cuts. I did call that out as stupid at the time. Smaller refund=smaller interest free loan from taxpayer to gov't=more money in taxpayer's pocket.
Are you an IRS employee by chance? If so, sorry if I hurt your feelings, but facts are facts.
Not an IRS employee, other side of the table.
Tell you what, let's see your design for a W-4 and withholding tables that will withhold the exact proper amount from 100+ million taxpayers in all circumstances.
Tell you what, let's see your design for a W-4 and withholding tables that will withhold the exact proper amount from 100+ million taxpayers in all circumstances.
We'll wait.
Congrats on being perhaps the 10,000th CD poster to post this kind of red herring (i.e. logical fallacy). You issuing me a massive homework assignment does not constitute a response to any of what I have argued. I'll wait for a substantive response.
Income tax refunds are not because they took to much , it is because you gave them to much ..... so no ,there is no reason to get interest on something you misjudged
Tax forms wouldn't still be "fill-in-the-blank" if they wanted you to break exactly even, or even wanted to give you that option to consider, among many.
The fed is perfectly happy letting people think they need to "claim zero, so they get a return, and don't have to pay" until they settle up at the end of the tax year.
Because that's as far as most people think into their own taxes.
First, lets be clear that we're NOT talking about those who walk out of H&R Block with a $7K check, thanks to the EITC or other tax credits.
So, then, why should the IRS pay interest when filers are free to get a minimal refund instead of opting for a large one because they can't manage their money?
First, lets be clear that we're NOT talking about those who walk out of H&R Block with a $7K check, thanks to the EITC or other tax credits.
So, then, why should the IRS pay interest when filers are free to get a minimal refund instead of opting for a large one because they can't manage their money?
There is precious little difference between someone "living for their tax refund" and someone earning enough to be ineligible for EITC but still "living for their annual bonus", regardless if it's many times the max child tax credit. Poor budgeting transcends social class.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
