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.

  • AlwaysNowNeverNotMe
    link
    fedilink
    1581 year 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
      link
      fedilink
      English
      101 year ago

      Feels like every Evil Corporation ™ 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
        link
        fedilink
        English
        51 year 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
        link
        fedilink
        -11 year 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
          link
          fedilink
          English
          21 year 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
            link
            fedilink
            21 year 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