The problem that others are having with DevOps is that they seem to be defining it differently than you are. What you wrote makes sense but the scenarios people are complaining about don't sound at all like your definition.

Considering that 47% of Americans have a true tax liability of zero or less and that is caused mainly because of those "credits and stuff", then yes, the vast majority aren't straightforward but it is true that the IRS has all the necessary info once you enter all the required SSN.

This is a very common belief and was one of the debating points during the floor debate in the 1950s that added withholding which did not exist before then.

It worked just fine up until the 1950s.

Ah yes, but our nice nannies solved that for us in the 1950s when the withholding was first introduced. The reason given openly was that it was hard for people to save and pay up. The reason discussed dur9ing the floor debates was about how a couple of generations down the road people will forget that they are asking for a refund because they overpaid but will begin thinking of the refund as money the nice government decided to hand out just because they are nice. It is amazing how few people actually understand the term "tax liability." Most will tell you they have no tax liability because they get money back. And then when people talk about being against something because it will cause tax liabilities to increase X%, they don't because because they understand that increasing zero by any percent still means zero.

Does that $3000 "refund" include all the EITC crap. If so, adjust your scenario way down.

And that isn't really 3.3%. It is closer to 0.275% (one-twelth of 3.3%). Monthly inflation numbers are always posted as annual rates.

No, not really. Compared to Reagan Bush Jr was progressive (more government control).

sadly true

And people just don't get that. The more power government has, the more government will be corrupted.

The only way to have less corruption in government is to have less power in government.

Yes, I would love for my representatives to cater to the special interest known as me. They won't. They won't even if I am Warren Buffet. Really, they won't. They are probably more likely to listen to Warren Buffet than me because of his accomplishments but I doubt Warren Buffet has ever asked for something because it would benefit only him. Business men generally lobby for things on the basis that it will benefit everyone like him and all those he now employs or those he will be able employee after getting whatever he is after.

By the way, which special interests should Congress not listen to? NRA, Brady Campaign, Sierra Club, ranchers, Chamber of Congress, AFL-CIO, UAW, Chrysler, Ford, AMA, Trial Lawyers, NAACP, Humane Society, PETA, SPLC, Freedom From Religion, Southern Baptist Congress, insurance companies? The problem with special interests is that everyone generally wants the "bad" ones banned and the "good" ones to have more access and everyone has differing definitions of good and bad. I'm all for banning the access of the bad special interests as long as I get to define "bad"?

Well, the point is to have an ideal to strive for and measure ourselves against the ideal. You know, just like we do for volume and mass and length and time, etc.

Because the left absolutely disagrees with you on that. They absolutely believe that the main purpose of taxes is to drive a social agenda. Sadly, many on the right agree with them.

So, as long as I continue to write code against my current version of .Net, the automated update ecosystem will notice that and not ask me to update but the day I cease writing code against it, then I'll be inundated with updates on a daily basis?

oobayly, do you live in Colorado?

I didn't take it as simple criticism because their is a general sentiment around here that companies should publish everything and cater to every single whim of every single person on the planet regardless of whether doing so allows the company to actually do what companies are supposed to do (turn a profit of some sort). This happens to the point of people suggesting that it is or should be illegal to not support a version of software from date of first release until the universe ceases to exist.

My point was suggesting that Mateo_LeFou was already free to form a company and offer that service to his users.

And yes, I do find that far more productive than demanding that others do so. Mainly because I believe that he was asking for something impossible and he would find that out for himself by going through the exercise.