I like the UK system - if you're an employee and you're happy with the tax your employer has withheld on your behalf, you don't have to do anything. You get a statement at the end of the year telling you how much you've been paid and how much tax has been withheld - if you think they've got it wrong, or you want to claim deductions, you file a tax return saying so.
We could do this in the US. By could I mean, if we changed tax regulations -- the system is mostly in place already. Wage income is deducted "pay-as-you-go" here, too. All of my interest, dividends and gains were already reported (but not deducted) by the entities that paid them. The IRS could have just sent me a bill for that with what they already know. Most of the data I put on my 1040 is redundant for the IRS. The biggest impediment -- other than changing the law -- would be that not claiming all your deductions could result in paying far more than you really should owe, especially if you have a mortgage, give to charity, or need to report other such deductions.
Wait, you mean we need to SPEND MY TAX DOLLARS to calculate my taxes to for me one time, and then have me back check, and possibly calculated AGAIN with another software, on my own dime?
okay in all jokes aside I think IRS has a fairly big division to audit the top earners in the country. Essentially there are someone in IRS looking over all the reports from Bill Gates, Warren Buffets, and the like, and do their taxes for them, with dedicated systems to back check them, to make sure they are paying the right amount of taxes. You can call it audit, fact-checked, if you want, but at the end of the day someone in our government is doing the work of equivalent of filing their tax form for them.
What software do you use that adds up all your sales tax, property tax, fuel tax, and all the other taxes plus the fees that are passed on to you that are hidden in the costs of the goods and services you consume?
If you keep all your receipts and have them entered into a financial software then it will spit the appropriate info out for you.
Not to mention H&R Block made me pick between married/joint or married/separate at the beginning of the process, whereas when I did the calculations with a spreadsheet I could just change that input and see my tax calculated both ways (because either could be better depending on circumstances). H&R Block was able to figure out whether I should take the standard deduction or not; it should have been able to do the same for filing status.
A quick way on H&R Block software is to use the "go to" button to go back to the beginning and change the status. It will show the result on the calculation fairly quickly.
I'm sure it's included in the price of the computer, much like MS's licenses for crapware are included in Dells and HPs.
The crapware pays for the OS, which is why Linux versions of the same computer often cost more -- they have to make up for the lost crapware revenue. I mean really, cleaning off the crapware is part of the price you pay for a Windows computer.
And for a well-run IT shop the first thing about deployment is to make its own clean image free of all unnecessary software. Same for a well-run shop in education
Oh, wait, most people working for Google DON'T WANT TO MOVE TO TEXAS. It is probably a symbol of barbarianism with cowboys and horse wagons with no freeways and tall buildings. I guess the tax incentive won't convince them to move for a variety of reasons. Don't think the 6 percent tax is really that bad for them...
Money is poor motivation and costs more than my time.
well said, sir!
Shutting the city down isn't free. Parents have to leave work to get home to children. What do you do when that parent is an ER nurse? Businesses have to close, city workers will cause traffic jams on the way home... and if nothing happens, everyone starts talking about how much money and time was wasted for nothing. You can't win.
Right. So does letting thousands of people stranded on a freeway for 18 hours and children stay in schools overnight. Anybody thought about the overtime pay and economic loss of getting people stuck in a hazardous situation? What IF someone died during this fiasco? Should there be a class action lawsuit against the City, the Sate? If people died because of official decision should there be a criminal probe and charge the Mayor and the Governor with criminal negligence?
Compare to criminal and civil lawsuits the money lost to shutdown a government seems minimal. That is, unless, you want to put a price tag on a human life. If we do, can we start with yours?
This is just a way for the UK gov't to get some additional "concessions" from Microsoft...
No it is not.
Real people are sick of MS in general and MS Office in particular. They're sick of lockin. They're sick of manipulative licensing schemes. They're sick being overcharged for being outside the USA. They're sick of engineered incompatibility. They're sick of upgrade treadmills. They're sick of pointless UI changes and they're sick of all the FUD and deception it takes to keep it all the way it is.
The world is now trying to route around the damage that is Microsoft and its shoddy products and practices. They'll make the change happen sooner rather than later.
I call bullshit.
Google Doc for business requires a yearly fee, per user as well. Adding additional administrative personnel and all, and assuming local hosting (Assuming UK Government is not stupid enough to trust Google's cloud for government data), the cost might came out awash, pending their negotiation with Microsoft.
And guess what, Microsoft does have one of the most effective productivity package, including Access, OneNote, Projects. Excel Spreadsheet is top of the line with data access and all.
Personally I think Microsoft and Google both have quality products. I would hate to see either one go, although with more advancement from Google's suite that might not be too far off. Then Google will simply be another Microsoft and become a menace to the slashdot crowd
Joe, I don't understand why you are screaming on your soap box with an outrageous comparison when you could have bought high-efficiency incandescent light bulb (still producing under the new regulation) to be done with your garage lighting issue! Wrong engineering solution with wrong application don't make any sense! Nobody is saying LED lighting is solution for everything.
All within the new regulation while giving you what you want. Now stop whining and give us the
Wrong. The purpose was to force people to hand over their money to private companies whether they want to or not. It's called Fascism. Go look it up. The rights of business outweigh the rights of the people. Because people are not required to pay for the services they receive, even a small amount if they are indigent, everyone else has been forced to pay those costs.
Right. So in the same way it is wrong for government to regulate that we are suppose to buy car insurance before we can drive.
That is still not to say that I agree with the legislation, though. I agree that encouraging the use of modern efficient replacements for the old bulbs is good, it is bad legislation on principle, if for no other reason. It is FAR beyond any power our ancestors ever imagined giving the Federal government... and in fact they really don't have the legal authority to ban bulbs, regardless of what laws they pass.
Sorry I am going to use your post as the soap box on how government should set the tone and directions on technological advancement, environmental protection/public health, and social standard through executive branch regulation and legislation. The government has the implicit power to set the direction and tone through its position in leadership. After all that is what leadership is about.
Also noted that the legislation in US does not specifically ban the production of regulator incandescent light bulb. Instead the language specifically address the efficiency of the new light bulb produced. If the combination of materials and manufacturing process would make non-gas filled incandescent to perform up to the efficiency standard it can be produced. Of course the manufacture will want to charge premium for the patent and manufacturing process. That's capitalist market working right there, taken advantage of people's desire of keeping with the old stuff.
The government has the capacity and ability to set the tone for either the welfare of the general public (environment and public health and safety). To regulate and encourage interstate commerce (the Commerce Clause) gives the federal government to set regulation on technological grounds that draws a more even line for fair competition that would otherwise not happening because the laziness of human nature or the extra expense that would not immediately benefit the merchant on a short-term basis, especially if individual business can choose to abide or not. Since the timing of the legislation in 2007 the manufacturing process is maturing for the newer, higher efficiency light bulb it is fair to set the new standard so that everyone doing business in United States are competing on a new standard that is fair for everyone. Where the old light bulb production is already on decline, this allows all the manufactures to focus their resources and energy on newer standard without the distraction of having the keep up with the old stuff. If this was enacted in 2001 I would agree that the government is forcing its hand on a non-matured, to be proven technologies without basis. But to say that government does not have the power to regulate because it can abuse it is like saying companies don't need CEO and Chairman because bad leadership can happen all too easily.