<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_01_24_1554207</id>
	<title>Why the IRS Should Automatically Fill In Returns With What It Knows</title>
	<author>Soulskill</author>
	<datestamp>1264353900000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>theodp writes <i>"An article in the NY Times begins, 'In the digital age, filing income tax returns should be a snap. Important data from employers and financial institutions has already been sent to government computers. Yet taxpayers are <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/24/business/24digi.html">still required to perform the chore of preparing a return from scratch</a>, in many cases paying a software company for the privilege.' Why, if your needs are simple, can't you just download forms pre-filled with whatever data the IRS has received about you, make any necessary adjustments, and automatically get the IRS calculation of your taxes? Sounds reasonable, but the IRS rejected <a href="http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/promise/18/provide-option-for-a-pre-filled-out-tax-form/">the President's proposal</a> to give taxpayers the option to do so as 'not feasible at this time' due to delays in the receipt of W-2 and 1099 data. However, California managed to offer a pre-filled state tax return, which cost only 34 cents to process compared to $2.59 to process a traditional paper return. Despite the success of the pilot, meager funds have been allotted for the program due to the strength of its political opponents &mdash; 'principally, <a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/clientsum.php?lname=Intuit+Inc&amp;year=2009">Intuit</a>' &mdash; according to the state controller. Intuit argues it would be a 'conflict of interest for government to be both tax collector and tax preparer.'"</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>theodp writes " An article in the NY Times begins , 'In the digital age , filing income tax returns should be a snap .
Important data from employers and financial institutions has already been sent to government computers .
Yet taxpayers are still required to perform the chore of preparing a return from scratch , in many cases paying a software company for the privilege .
' Why , if your needs are simple , ca n't you just download forms pre-filled with whatever data the IRS has received about you , make any necessary adjustments , and automatically get the IRS calculation of your taxes ?
Sounds reasonable , but the IRS rejected the President 's proposal to give taxpayers the option to do so as 'not feasible at this time ' due to delays in the receipt of W-2 and 1099 data .
However , California managed to offer a pre-filled state tax return , which cost only 34 cents to process compared to $ 2.59 to process a traditional paper return .
Despite the success of the pilot , meager funds have been allotted for the program due to the strength of its political opponents    'principally , Intuit '    according to the state controller .
Intuit argues it would be a 'conflict of interest for government to be both tax collector and tax preparer .
' "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>theodp writes "An article in the NY Times begins, 'In the digital age, filing income tax returns should be a snap.
Important data from employers and financial institutions has already been sent to government computers.
Yet taxpayers are still required to perform the chore of preparing a return from scratch, in many cases paying a software company for the privilege.
' Why, if your needs are simple, can't you just download forms pre-filled with whatever data the IRS has received about you, make any necessary adjustments, and automatically get the IRS calculation of your taxes?
Sounds reasonable, but the IRS rejected the President's proposal to give taxpayers the option to do so as 'not feasible at this time' due to delays in the receipt of W-2 and 1099 data.
However, California managed to offer a pre-filled state tax return, which cost only 34 cents to process compared to $2.59 to process a traditional paper return.
Despite the success of the pilot, meager funds have been allotted for the program due to the strength of its political opponents — 'principally, Intuit' — according to the state controller.
Intuit argues it would be a 'conflict of interest for government to be both tax collector and tax preparer.
'"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30879958</id>
	<title>Re:This is how it's done where I'm from...</title>
	<author>c-reus</author>
	<datestamp>1264359660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In Estonia, you log in to the web page of the IRS equivalent, click "Next" a few times, then click "Confirm" and you're all done. No dead trees involved.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In Estonia , you log in to the web page of the IRS equivalent , click " Next " a few times , then click " Confirm " and you 're all done .
No dead trees involved .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In Estonia, you log in to the web page of the IRS equivalent, click "Next" a few times, then click "Confirm" and you're all done.
No dead trees involved.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30879612</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30882252</id>
	<title>Re:Conflict?</title>
	<author>Rich0</author>
	<datestamp>1264328400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Really?  I can prepare my own taxes and file them electronically without paying anybody a cent, regardless of my income level or what forms I am filing?</p><p>Can you give a reference for this?  The last time I checked the best you could do is have the government pick up the filing tab if your income fell into 1040EZ range.  No doubt there would be other limitations like standard deduction only/etc.</p><p>My state, on the other hand, lets me file electronically over the web.  I don't need to pay for software, or services, or whatever.  Now, the web interface is fairly minimalistic, but it certainly involves no more work than filling out the paper forms.</p><p>I haven't filed electronically in years, despite using software to prepare my returns.  I refuse to pay money to make the IRS's job easier - I manage my withholding anyway so that they never owe me a dime anyway - so if it takes them to June to cash my check so much the better.</p><p>The IRS could create a web filing system that was free to use, and even after paying for the software development they'd make the cost back the same year with the reduced volume of paper.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Really ?
I can prepare my own taxes and file them electronically without paying anybody a cent , regardless of my income level or what forms I am filing ? Can you give a reference for this ?
The last time I checked the best you could do is have the government pick up the filing tab if your income fell into 1040EZ range .
No doubt there would be other limitations like standard deduction only/etc.My state , on the other hand , lets me file electronically over the web .
I do n't need to pay for software , or services , or whatever .
Now , the web interface is fairly minimalistic , but it certainly involves no more work than filling out the paper forms.I have n't filed electronically in years , despite using software to prepare my returns .
I refuse to pay money to make the IRS 's job easier - I manage my withholding anyway so that they never owe me a dime anyway - so if it takes them to June to cash my check so much the better.The IRS could create a web filing system that was free to use , and even after paying for the software development they 'd make the cost back the same year with the reduced volume of paper .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Really?
I can prepare my own taxes and file them electronically without paying anybody a cent, regardless of my income level or what forms I am filing?Can you give a reference for this?
The last time I checked the best you could do is have the government pick up the filing tab if your income fell into 1040EZ range.
No doubt there would be other limitations like standard deduction only/etc.My state, on the other hand, lets me file electronically over the web.
I don't need to pay for software, or services, or whatever.
Now, the web interface is fairly minimalistic, but it certainly involves no more work than filling out the paper forms.I haven't filed electronically in years, despite using software to prepare my returns.
I refuse to pay money to make the IRS's job easier - I manage my withholding anyway so that they never owe me a dime anyway - so if it takes them to June to cash my check so much the better.The IRS could create a web filing system that was free to use, and even after paying for the software development they'd make the cost back the same year with the reduced volume of paper.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30880118</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30880868</id>
	<title>Re:Conflict?</title>
	<author>fluffy99</author>
	<datestamp>1264363620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>We could replace the entire Federal Income Tax with a 12.68\% flat tax and still collect the same amount of money as we are now.</p>  </div><p>The problem here is defining 'income'.  There are so many exemptions, bonus, and incentives that it's nearly impossible to figure it out and easy to cheat.  Businesses are even more complicated. The first step is to get the congress to stop meddling with the tax codes in order to give their campaign contributors (big business) tax breaks.  Next start getting rid of all the tax laws that are complicating the issue for regular citizens.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>We could replace the entire Federal Income Tax with a 12.68 \ % flat tax and still collect the same amount of money as we are now .
The problem here is defining 'income' .
There are so many exemptions , bonus , and incentives that it 's nearly impossible to figure it out and easy to cheat .
Businesses are even more complicated .
The first step is to get the congress to stop meddling with the tax codes in order to give their campaign contributors ( big business ) tax breaks .
Next start getting rid of all the tax laws that are complicating the issue for regular citizens .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We could replace the entire Federal Income Tax with a 12.68\% flat tax and still collect the same amount of money as we are now.
The problem here is defining 'income'.
There are so many exemptions, bonus, and incentives that it's nearly impossible to figure it out and easy to cheat.
Businesses are even more complicated.
The first step is to get the congress to stop meddling with the tax codes in order to give their campaign contributors (big business) tax breaks.
Next start getting rid of all the tax laws that are complicating the issue for regular citizens.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30880112</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30882580</id>
	<title>Re:What do you think happens today?</title>
	<author>Artifakt</author>
	<datestamp>1264330080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes, you're not seeing the huge problem, but it definitely exists. I'm a professional tax preparer as one of my trades. This year, I have done or assisted on over 50 EIC forms so far for people in the range where Earned Income Credit applies and every single one of them has triggered additional IRS mandated questions, usually three or more per case. Questions such as "You are claiming a child under six - who takes care of that child while you are at work?" or "Your self employed income form shows less than typical expenses - have you accounted for all schedule C related expenses?"<br>
   I'm not even focused in that area, rather I do mostly corporate and a ultra-specialization involving royalties received by estates of deceased authors. I see these EIC cases mostly only because I instruct 2nd and 3 year preparers who have to deal with them.<br>
   Answering these sort of questions means being able to say, for example, "In home daycare conducted during evening to midnight shift hours produces few food and drink expenses compared to the daytime hour equivalent and does not normally require the taxpayer placing their vehicle into business service. These factors make business expenses low." I really can't see most of these clients claiming successfully that they are familiar enough with overall small business trends and average expensing issues that they could make that claim for a legal record, even if they somehow knew it applied to them.<br>
   By what we are seeing this early in the tax season, the government has a very great deal it doesn't know, it wants to know it all, and if you are an average lower income filer claiming the Earned Income Credit and you do it via a free online service, your chance of being audited this year just jumped from less than 0.5\% to about 7\%, possibly higher. In my worst nightmare interpretation of what I'm seeing, the government is emplacing all the preparatory mechanisms needed to declare 5 or 6 million poor people felons by about next November, although a lot of politicans and IRS administrators are assuring people the response is going to be a lot more reasonable than that.<br>
    The IRS was originally told to focus on EIC fraud specifically by the 2004 congress, and it's just now really ramping up. At that time, EIC fraud was rated as second to business form fraud, at about 1/4 of the total damages to the tax base for business fraud. People can argue about why the congress in that year demanded renewed focus on the less serious source of fraud rather than the greater one, but that's not why I bring this up. Simply, the government now needs money more seriously than before, and escalating efforts to detect the number one type of fraud are an obvious way to close the tax gap, so even if the IRS is not doing this to small business filers yet, it will very likely come next year or 2012 at the latest.<br>
   There's a similar problem for people claiming the 1st time homebuyer's credit, in that the IRS has repeatedly revised the filing requirements to get more documentation, to where now the taxpayer will probably have to provide at least five additional documents to file the credit correctly. Taxpayers may have to wait until they have updated both their driver's liscence and vehicle registration to reflect the new address, and get a certificate stating the home is safe for occupancy on top of the deed and mortgage documents. I'm wondering right now what happens if the taxpayer doesn't drive, and has bought a previously occupied home, where the state doesn't normally do a habitability inspection. It seems likely at least some people who bought a home based on this credit will have a very hard time getting all the forms the IRS now wants.<br>
    By the way, for the situations such as you describe in your post, there's a major downside. For example, if the government has records that show you sold stock, they will consider it equally authoritative that you had zero basis</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , you 're not seeing the huge problem , but it definitely exists .
I 'm a professional tax preparer as one of my trades .
This year , I have done or assisted on over 50 EIC forms so far for people in the range where Earned Income Credit applies and every single one of them has triggered additional IRS mandated questions , usually three or more per case .
Questions such as " You are claiming a child under six - who takes care of that child while you are at work ?
" or " Your self employed income form shows less than typical expenses - have you accounted for all schedule C related expenses ?
" I 'm not even focused in that area , rather I do mostly corporate and a ultra-specialization involving royalties received by estates of deceased authors .
I see these EIC cases mostly only because I instruct 2nd and 3 year preparers who have to deal with them .
Answering these sort of questions means being able to say , for example , " In home daycare conducted during evening to midnight shift hours produces few food and drink expenses compared to the daytime hour equivalent and does not normally require the taxpayer placing their vehicle into business service .
These factors make business expenses low .
" I really ca n't see most of these clients claiming successfully that they are familiar enough with overall small business trends and average expensing issues that they could make that claim for a legal record , even if they somehow knew it applied to them .
By what we are seeing this early in the tax season , the government has a very great deal it does n't know , it wants to know it all , and if you are an average lower income filer claiming the Earned Income Credit and you do it via a free online service , your chance of being audited this year just jumped from less than 0.5 \ % to about 7 \ % , possibly higher .
In my worst nightmare interpretation of what I 'm seeing , the government is emplacing all the preparatory mechanisms needed to declare 5 or 6 million poor people felons by about next November , although a lot of politicans and IRS administrators are assuring people the response is going to be a lot more reasonable than that .
The IRS was originally told to focus on EIC fraud specifically by the 2004 congress , and it 's just now really ramping up .
At that time , EIC fraud was rated as second to business form fraud , at about 1/4 of the total damages to the tax base for business fraud .
People can argue about why the congress in that year demanded renewed focus on the less serious source of fraud rather than the greater one , but that 's not why I bring this up .
Simply , the government now needs money more seriously than before , and escalating efforts to detect the number one type of fraud are an obvious way to close the tax gap , so even if the IRS is not doing this to small business filers yet , it will very likely come next year or 2012 at the latest .
There 's a similar problem for people claiming the 1st time homebuyer 's credit , in that the IRS has repeatedly revised the filing requirements to get more documentation , to where now the taxpayer will probably have to provide at least five additional documents to file the credit correctly .
Taxpayers may have to wait until they have updated both their driver 's liscence and vehicle registration to reflect the new address , and get a certificate stating the home is safe for occupancy on top of the deed and mortgage documents .
I 'm wondering right now what happens if the taxpayer does n't drive , and has bought a previously occupied home , where the state does n't normally do a habitability inspection .
It seems likely at least some people who bought a home based on this credit will have a very hard time getting all the forms the IRS now wants .
By the way , for the situations such as you describe in your post , there 's a major downside .
For example , if the government has records that show you sold stock , they will consider it equally authoritative that you had zero basis</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, you're not seeing the huge problem, but it definitely exists.
I'm a professional tax preparer as one of my trades.
This year, I have done or assisted on over 50 EIC forms so far for people in the range where Earned Income Credit applies and every single one of them has triggered additional IRS mandated questions, usually three or more per case.
Questions such as "You are claiming a child under six - who takes care of that child while you are at work?
" or "Your self employed income form shows less than typical expenses - have you accounted for all schedule C related expenses?
"
   I'm not even focused in that area, rather I do mostly corporate and a ultra-specialization involving royalties received by estates of deceased authors.
I see these EIC cases mostly only because I instruct 2nd and 3 year preparers who have to deal with them.
Answering these sort of questions means being able to say, for example, "In home daycare conducted during evening to midnight shift hours produces few food and drink expenses compared to the daytime hour equivalent and does not normally require the taxpayer placing their vehicle into business service.
These factors make business expenses low.
" I really can't see most of these clients claiming successfully that they are familiar enough with overall small business trends and average expensing issues that they could make that claim for a legal record, even if they somehow knew it applied to them.
By what we are seeing this early in the tax season, the government has a very great deal it doesn't know, it wants to know it all, and if you are an average lower income filer claiming the Earned Income Credit and you do it via a free online service, your chance of being audited this year just jumped from less than 0.5\% to about 7\%, possibly higher.
In my worst nightmare interpretation of what I'm seeing, the government is emplacing all the preparatory mechanisms needed to declare 5 or 6 million poor people felons by about next November, although a lot of politicans and IRS administrators are assuring people the response is going to be a lot more reasonable than that.
The IRS was originally told to focus on EIC fraud specifically by the 2004 congress, and it's just now really ramping up.
At that time, EIC fraud was rated as second to business form fraud, at about 1/4 of the total damages to the tax base for business fraud.
People can argue about why the congress in that year demanded renewed focus on the less serious source of fraud rather than the greater one, but that's not why I bring this up.
Simply, the government now needs money more seriously than before, and escalating efforts to detect the number one type of fraud are an obvious way to close the tax gap, so even if the IRS is not doing this to small business filers yet, it will very likely come next year or 2012 at the latest.
There's a similar problem for people claiming the 1st time homebuyer's credit, in that the IRS has repeatedly revised the filing requirements to get more documentation, to where now the taxpayer will probably have to provide at least five additional documents to file the credit correctly.
Taxpayers may have to wait until they have updated both their driver's liscence and vehicle registration to reflect the new address, and get a certificate stating the home is safe for occupancy on top of the deed and mortgage documents.
I'm wondering right now what happens if the taxpayer doesn't drive, and has bought a previously occupied home, where the state doesn't normally do a habitability inspection.
It seems likely at least some people who bought a home based on this credit will have a very hard time getting all the forms the IRS now wants.
By the way, for the situations such as you describe in your post, there's a major downside.
For example, if the government has records that show you sold stock, they will consider it equally authoritative that you had zero basis</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30880194</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30879876</id>
	<title>Re:This is how it's done where I'm from...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264359180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It is not a good idea because it promotes high taxes and cheating...</p><p>Imagine the following. Accountant sits at table. Let's see what the government thinks you owe, and let me calculate what you should owe. Oh look, the government does not know about that. I suppose lets let sleeping dogs sleep...</p><p>A French citizen once told me the reason why French taxes are so high is because they expect you to hide half of it. I thought that was crazy, until I started living there. It was at that point people asked, "ok so will you be paying this with receipt or in cash? We need to know so that everybody in the food chain will do the same."</p><p>Pre-filling is NOT a good idea... Or let me rephrase this. Its great for the taxpayer, really bad for the government.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It is not a good idea because it promotes high taxes and cheating...Imagine the following .
Accountant sits at table .
Let 's see what the government thinks you owe , and let me calculate what you should owe .
Oh look , the government does not know about that .
I suppose lets let sleeping dogs sleep...A French citizen once told me the reason why French taxes are so high is because they expect you to hide half of it .
I thought that was crazy , until I started living there .
It was at that point people asked , " ok so will you be paying this with receipt or in cash ?
We need to know so that everybody in the food chain will do the same .
" Pre-filling is NOT a good idea... Or let me rephrase this .
Its great for the taxpayer , really bad for the government .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It is not a good idea because it promotes high taxes and cheating...Imagine the following.
Accountant sits at table.
Let's see what the government thinks you owe, and let me calculate what you should owe.
Oh look, the government does not know about that.
I suppose lets let sleeping dogs sleep...A French citizen once told me the reason why French taxes are so high is because they expect you to hide half of it.
I thought that was crazy, until I started living there.
It was at that point people asked, "ok so will you be paying this with receipt or in cash?
We need to know so that everybody in the food chain will do the same.
"Pre-filling is NOT a good idea... Or let me rephrase this.
Its great for the taxpayer, really bad for the government.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30879612</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30880562</id>
	<title>Re:Fair Tax</title>
	<author>Compholio</author>
	<datestamp>1264362240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>The IRS shouldn't even exist. Why tax productive work? Why not tax consumption? The more you buy, the more tax you pay. If you save and are thrifty, the less tax you pay.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p></div></blockquote><p>

Because then the people that earn a crap-ton of money and don't "technically" buy anything (and if they do it's not in this country) don't end up paying taxes.  Since that's where a significant portion of the government's revenue comes from you'd have to end up dicking over the people who are poor or unemployed.  If you do that you will get crap like in my state where shanty towns start springing up all over the place, because all of the shelters are gone or filled, and you'll have to expend even more resources to protect the "haves" from the "have nots".</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The IRS should n't even exist .
Why tax productive work ?
Why not tax consumption ?
The more you buy , the more tax you pay .
If you save and are thrifty , the less tax you pay .
.. . Because then the people that earn a crap-ton of money and do n't " technically " buy anything ( and if they do it 's not in this country ) do n't end up paying taxes .
Since that 's where a significant portion of the government 's revenue comes from you 'd have to end up dicking over the people who are poor or unemployed .
If you do that you will get crap like in my state where shanty towns start springing up all over the place , because all of the shelters are gone or filled , and you 'll have to expend even more resources to protect the " haves " from the " have nots " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The IRS shouldn't even exist.
Why tax productive work?
Why not tax consumption?
The more you buy, the more tax you pay.
If you save and are thrifty, the less tax you pay.
...

Because then the people that earn a crap-ton of money and don't "technically" buy anything (and if they do it's not in this country) don't end up paying taxes.
Since that's where a significant portion of the government's revenue comes from you'd have to end up dicking over the people who are poor or unemployed.
If you do that you will get crap like in my state where shanty towns start springing up all over the place, because all of the shelters are gone or filled, and you'll have to expend even more resources to protect the "haves" from the "have nots".
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30879886</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30880472</id>
	<title>Already done 10 years ago here in Spain</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264361820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well, you don't have good basic public services like Universal Health Insurance, and your proudly low-taxes-low-bureacracy motto doesn't seem to be very efective...</p><p>Time to re-think about the american way of life? (not worst of the world, by any means, but seriously "improvable")</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , you do n't have good basic public services like Universal Health Insurance , and your proudly low-taxes-low-bureacracy motto does n't seem to be very efective...Time to re-think about the american way of life ?
( not worst of the world , by any means , but seriously " improvable " )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, you don't have good basic public services like Universal Health Insurance, and your proudly low-taxes-low-bureacracy motto doesn't seem to be very efective...Time to re-think about the american way of life?
(not worst of the world, by any means, but seriously "improvable")</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30880242</id>
	<title>Re:This is how it's done where I'm from...</title>
	<author>FailedTheTuringTest</author>
	<datestamp>1264360800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Same in Norway.  And you use your mobile phone to send a text message to state that you confirm/agree that the data sent to you are correct.  If you want to make changes to the government's tax assessment, then you have to fill out paperwork of course.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Same in Norway .
And you use your mobile phone to send a text message to state that you confirm/agree that the data sent to you are correct .
If you want to make changes to the government 's tax assessment , then you have to fill out paperwork of course .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Same in Norway.
And you use your mobile phone to send a text message to state that you confirm/agree that the data sent to you are correct.
If you want to make changes to the government's tax assessment, then you have to fill out paperwork of course.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30879612</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30912530</id>
	<title>in australia tax calculates you!</title>
	<author>lavaticus</author>
	<datestamp>1264515480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>In au we've had something like this for a couple of years - it's great! makes it so much easier. You can even take data from previous years tax to autofill bits.<br> <br>

The biggest benefit is no need for an accountant for most people.</htmltext>
<tokenext>In au we 've had something like this for a couple of years - it 's great !
makes it so much easier .
You can even take data from previous years tax to autofill bits .
The biggest benefit is no need for an accountant for most people .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In au we've had something like this for a couple of years - it's great!
makes it so much easier.
You can even take data from previous years tax to autofill bits.
The biggest benefit is no need for an accountant for most people.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30879784</id>
	<title>Re:people are lazy</title>
	<author>Klinky</author>
	<datestamp>1264358760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>If there is an error in favor of the individual, if it's significant, the IRS may bring on an audit. If you catch the mistake after you file, your amended return gets more scrutiny and you have a higher chance of audit. I wouldn't sleep soundly if I knew there was an error and just let it slide because it gave me a couple extra bucks. Basically, if there is an error it needs to be fixed, you don't just want to sleep on it and go "well at least this worked out in my favor".

As far as people being duped into what they owe. There could be a very simple summary provided, along with the pre-filled forms. "You made X, so you are in this tax bracket, so we need this much money and you paid this much money, so this is how much you get back or you owe". If the values don't jive, then people can review the actual forms or take it to a professional to review. Even professional tax preparers mess up &amp; the individual may not know it at all, so I don't see much danger with a pre-filled tax form.

Frankly Intuit &amp; the like make too much money on what basically amounts to a couple data entry boxes &amp; a macro that pre-fills forms w/ simple mathematics. That'll be $49.95 please, let's not get started on the B&amp;M places that like to charge $100+ so you can have a human go to the website for you.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If there is an error in favor of the individual , if it 's significant , the IRS may bring on an audit .
If you catch the mistake after you file , your amended return gets more scrutiny and you have a higher chance of audit .
I would n't sleep soundly if I knew there was an error and just let it slide because it gave me a couple extra bucks .
Basically , if there is an error it needs to be fixed , you do n't just want to sleep on it and go " well at least this worked out in my favor " .
As far as people being duped into what they owe .
There could be a very simple summary provided , along with the pre-filled forms .
" You made X , so you are in this tax bracket , so we need this much money and you paid this much money , so this is how much you get back or you owe " .
If the values do n't jive , then people can review the actual forms or take it to a professional to review .
Even professional tax preparers mess up &amp; the individual may not know it at all , so I do n't see much danger with a pre-filled tax form .
Frankly Intuit &amp; the like make too much money on what basically amounts to a couple data entry boxes &amp; a macro that pre-fills forms w/ simple mathematics .
That 'll be $ 49.95 please , let 's not get started on the B&amp;M places that like to charge $ 100 + so you can have a human go to the website for you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If there is an error in favor of the individual, if it's significant, the IRS may bring on an audit.
If you catch the mistake after you file, your amended return gets more scrutiny and you have a higher chance of audit.
I wouldn't sleep soundly if I knew there was an error and just let it slide because it gave me a couple extra bucks.
Basically, if there is an error it needs to be fixed, you don't just want to sleep on it and go "well at least this worked out in my favor".
As far as people being duped into what they owe.
There could be a very simple summary provided, along with the pre-filled forms.
"You made X, so you are in this tax bracket, so we need this much money and you paid this much money, so this is how much you get back or you owe".
If the values don't jive, then people can review the actual forms or take it to a professional to review.
Even professional tax preparers mess up &amp; the individual may not know it at all, so I don't see much danger with a pre-filled tax form.
Frankly Intuit &amp; the like make too much money on what basically amounts to a couple data entry boxes &amp; a macro that pre-fills forms w/ simple mathematics.
That'll be $49.95 please, let's not get started on the B&amp;M places that like to charge $100+ so you can have a human go to the website for you.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30879640</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30879886</id>
	<title>Fair Tax</title>
	<author>Edward Teach</author>
	<datestamp>1264359240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The IRS shouldn't even exist.  Why tax productive work?  Why not tax consumption?  The more you buy, the more tax you pay. If you save and are thrifty, the less tax you pay.</p><p><a href="http://www.fairtax.org/" title="fairtax.org">http://www.fairtax.org/</a> [fairtax.org]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The IRS should n't even exist .
Why tax productive work ?
Why not tax consumption ?
The more you buy , the more tax you pay .
If you save and are thrifty , the less tax you pay.http : //www.fairtax.org/ [ fairtax.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The IRS shouldn't even exist.
Why tax productive work?
Why not tax consumption?
The more you buy, the more tax you pay.
If you save and are thrifty, the less tax you pay.http://www.fairtax.org/ [fairtax.org]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30881402</id>
	<title>Re:Why they WON'T</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264366560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I think you know little of how waiters work then.  They already don't declare their tips fully.  Most of them don't and they already know that they won't be caught so the situation is no worse in either case.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think you know little of how waiters work then .
They already do n't declare their tips fully .
Most of them do n't and they already know that they wo n't be caught so the situation is no worse in either case .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think you know little of how waiters work then.
They already don't declare their tips fully.
Most of them don't and they already know that they won't be caught so the situation is no worse in either case.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30880304</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30880118</id>
	<title>Re:Conflict?</title>
	<author>jenn\_13</author>
	<datestamp>1264360260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>
Almost every year about this time I post some sort of rant about how wasteful it is that we don't even have a free, official online tax-filing website.  It would save filers tons of time, it would save the IRS tons of money.  But the tax preparers don't care about that (after all, $1 of intentional government inefficiency is 25 cents of income for them) and somehow, though I can't figure out how, this tiny special interest has the power to dictate government policy.</p></div><p>It's not exactly "official", as you have to go to a third party, but you can file online free. I worked as a tax preparer one year, and from my experience, the reason most clients chose $tax\_service instead of doing it themselves (paper or online) wasn't because they couldn't, but because $tax\_service offered refund anticipation loans. Which means they get a check for several thousand, less a couple hundred in fees, the next day, rather than waiting a week or more for direct deposit of the full refund.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Almost every year about this time I post some sort of rant about how wasteful it is that we do n't even have a free , official online tax-filing website .
It would save filers tons of time , it would save the IRS tons of money .
But the tax preparers do n't care about that ( after all , $ 1 of intentional government inefficiency is 25 cents of income for them ) and somehow , though I ca n't figure out how , this tiny special interest has the power to dictate government policy.It 's not exactly " official " , as you have to go to a third party , but you can file online free .
I worked as a tax preparer one year , and from my experience , the reason most clients chose $ tax \ _service instead of doing it themselves ( paper or online ) was n't because they could n't , but because $ tax \ _service offered refund anticipation loans .
Which means they get a check for several thousand , less a couple hundred in fees , the next day , rather than waiting a week or more for direct deposit of the full refund .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
Almost every year about this time I post some sort of rant about how wasteful it is that we don't even have a free, official online tax-filing website.
It would save filers tons of time, it would save the IRS tons of money.
But the tax preparers don't care about that (after all, $1 of intentional government inefficiency is 25 cents of income for them) and somehow, though I can't figure out how, this tiny special interest has the power to dictate government policy.It's not exactly "official", as you have to go to a third party, but you can file online free.
I worked as a tax preparer one year, and from my experience, the reason most clients chose $tax\_service instead of doing it themselves (paper or online) wasn't because they couldn't, but because $tax\_service offered refund anticipation loans.
Which means they get a check for several thousand, less a couple hundred in fees, the next day, rather than waiting a week or more for direct deposit of the full refund.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30879772</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30881506</id>
	<title>Re:Increases Fraud</title>
	<author>slashdotjunker</author>
	<datestamp>1264323960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>If the IRS pre-fills what the government knows about on the form, then that tells you what the government doesn't know about, and thus can safely be omitted.</p></div></blockquote><p>
Obviously there's a little game that can be played here. If the government suspects that you are cheating on your taxes it can deliberately omit something next year and see if you take the bait.
<br> <br>
Personally, I've always seen filling out a tax return as a 5th Amendment violation. If I owe tax then send me a bill and I'll pay it. Otherwise, leave me alone. We should focus our efforts on building a better financial infrastructure that can correctly track taxable activities instead of forcing our citizens to incriminate themselves.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If the IRS pre-fills what the government knows about on the form , then that tells you what the government does n't know about , and thus can safely be omitted .
Obviously there 's a little game that can be played here .
If the government suspects that you are cheating on your taxes it can deliberately omit something next year and see if you take the bait .
Personally , I 've always seen filling out a tax return as a 5th Amendment violation .
If I owe tax then send me a bill and I 'll pay it .
Otherwise , leave me alone .
We should focus our efforts on building a better financial infrastructure that can correctly track taxable activities instead of forcing our citizens to incriminate themselves .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If the IRS pre-fills what the government knows about on the form, then that tells you what the government doesn't know about, and thus can safely be omitted.
Obviously there's a little game that can be played here.
If the government suspects that you are cheating on your taxes it can deliberately omit something next year and see if you take the bait.
Personally, I've always seen filling out a tax return as a 5th Amendment violation.
If I owe tax then send me a bill and I'll pay it.
Otherwise, leave me alone.
We should focus our efforts on building a better financial infrastructure that can correctly track taxable activities instead of forcing our citizens to incriminate themselves.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30879842</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30880664</id>
	<title>Re:This is how it's done where I'm from...</title>
	<author>de la mettrie</author>
	<datestamp>1264362720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Same thing here in Switzerland. Where I live, there's a website for securely filling out your tax return (<a href="http://www.taxme.ch/" title="taxme.ch">taxme.ch</a> [taxme.ch]), and everything is pre-filled with the data from last year. You make the necessary changes and print out a single confirmation sheet to sign and mail back.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Same thing here in Switzerland .
Where I live , there 's a website for securely filling out your tax return ( taxme.ch [ taxme.ch ] ) , and everything is pre-filled with the data from last year .
You make the necessary changes and print out a single confirmation sheet to sign and mail back .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Same thing here in Switzerland.
Where I live, there's a website for securely filling out your tax return (taxme.ch [taxme.ch]), and everything is pre-filled with the data from last year.
You make the necessary changes and print out a single confirmation sheet to sign and mail back.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30879612</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30879700</id>
	<title>As an independent tax preparer...</title>
	<author>the roAm</author>
	<datestamp>1264358220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I must say, shut up! I like my easy money, damn!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I must say , shut up !
I like my easy money , damn !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I must say, shut up!
I like my easy money, damn!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30885856</id>
	<title>Re:U.S. Government Policy...</title>
	<author>demonlapin</author>
	<datestamp>1264353120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>We tried, in 1986, to fix things. By 1990 they were already off track again. Thankfully, we're not yet back to 1985 levels of insanity.</htmltext>
<tokenext>We tried , in 1986 , to fix things .
By 1990 they were already off track again .
Thankfully , we 're not yet back to 1985 levels of insanity .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We tried, in 1986, to fix things.
By 1990 they were already off track again.
Thankfully, we're not yet back to 1985 levels of insanity.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30880092</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30880818</id>
	<title>Re:This is how it's done where I'm from...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264363440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Be glad you aren't a professional athlete or performer.  They have to file a return for each state they played in.  It can easily turn into over twenty tax returns quickly.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Be glad you are n't a professional athlete or performer .
They have to file a return for each state they played in .
It can easily turn into over twenty tax returns quickly .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Be glad you aren't a professional athlete or performer.
They have to file a return for each state they played in.
It can easily turn into over twenty tax returns quickly.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30879716</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30880688</id>
	<title>Re:Tsk, tsk...</title>
	<author>evanbd</author>
	<datestamp>1264362780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Most of us who've bothered to think about it much aren't begging the question; we've considered it, answered it, moved on, and see no need to keep bringing it up.</p><p>It really shouldn't surprise you that you're in the minority on that view, even among people who've stopped to think about it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Most of us who 've bothered to think about it much are n't begging the question ; we 've considered it , answered it , moved on , and see no need to keep bringing it up.It really should n't surprise you that you 're in the minority on that view , even among people who 've stopped to think about it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Most of us who've bothered to think about it much aren't begging the question; we've considered it, answered it, moved on, and see no need to keep bringing it up.It really shouldn't surprise you that you're in the minority on that view, even among people who've stopped to think about it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30880068</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30886516</id>
	<title>Re:In US private companies do this, only gov't can</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264359180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Mind you, if the government actually tried to implement this, privacy advocates would be screaming in the asiles (very likely many of the same people currently complaining here)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Mind you , if the government actually tried to implement this , privacy advocates would be screaming in the asiles ( very likely many of the same people currently complaining here )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Mind you, if the government actually tried to implement this, privacy advocates would be screaming in the asiles (very likely many of the same people currently complaining here)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30880018</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30880780</id>
	<title>Re:This is how it's done where I'm from...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264363200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Same in Portugal.<br>The form is pre-filled, you only change what you need, or add your specific benefits.</p><p>It's a Java applet, though...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Same in Portugal.The form is pre-filled , you only change what you need , or add your specific benefits.It 's a Java applet , though.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Same in Portugal.The form is pre-filled, you only change what you need, or add your specific benefits.It's a Java applet, though...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30879958</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30879640</id>
	<title>people are lazy</title>
	<author>circletimessquare</author>
	<datestamp>1264357920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>intuit is right: the government will claim this or that, and people will just accept it. when an honest mistake by the government, nevermind malicious intent, might wind up overtaxing someone. most people will wind up spending say $2,000 more on their taxes, accepting the government's proposal unseen, rather than reviewing it for mistakes</p><p>i don't know about other people, but for me, i'd rather pull my own fingernails out with a wrench than do my taxes. however, the current status quo means that if there is an error, whether honest mistake or malicious, it is usually in favor of the individual, not the government</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>intuit is right : the government will claim this or that , and people will just accept it .
when an honest mistake by the government , nevermind malicious intent , might wind up overtaxing someone .
most people will wind up spending say $ 2,000 more on their taxes , accepting the government 's proposal unseen , rather than reviewing it for mistakesi do n't know about other people , but for me , i 'd rather pull my own fingernails out with a wrench than do my taxes .
however , the current status quo means that if there is an error , whether honest mistake or malicious , it is usually in favor of the individual , not the government</tokentext>
<sentencetext>intuit is right: the government will claim this or that, and people will just accept it.
when an honest mistake by the government, nevermind malicious intent, might wind up overtaxing someone.
most people will wind up spending say $2,000 more on their taxes, accepting the government's proposal unseen, rather than reviewing it for mistakesi don't know about other people, but for me, i'd rather pull my own fingernails out with a wrench than do my taxes.
however, the current status quo means that if there is an error, whether honest mistake or malicious, it is usually in favor of the individual, not the government</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30882054</id>
	<title>Re:This is how it's done where I'm from...</title>
	<author>ducomputergeek</author>
	<datestamp>1264327320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A tax "professional" can't help you.  It takes a tax attorney.  And to find one that is well versed is hard to find.  You have to go to a large firm like Bryan Cave, and they aren't cheap either.  The one I work with is about $600 an hour.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A tax " professional " ca n't help you .
It takes a tax attorney .
And to find one that is well versed is hard to find .
You have to go to a large firm like Bryan Cave , and they are n't cheap either .
The one I work with is about $ 600 an hour .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A tax "professional" can't help you.
It takes a tax attorney.
And to find one that is well versed is hard to find.
You have to go to a large firm like Bryan Cave, and they aren't cheap either.
The one I work with is about $600 an hour.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30879896</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30885930</id>
	<title>Scrap income tax, increase sales taxes instead</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264353900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What you earn is yours to keep and spend. Instead, apply a goods and services tax of about 15 - 25 \% across the board.<br>Should result in less headaches for the man in the street.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What you earn is yours to keep and spend .
Instead , apply a goods and services tax of about 15 - 25 \ % across the board.Should result in less headaches for the man in the street .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What you earn is yours to keep and spend.
Instead, apply a goods and services tax of about 15 - 25 \% across the board.Should result in less headaches for the man in the street.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30880724</id>
	<title>intuit not thinking</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264362960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You know, if Intuit were really smart they wouldn't fight this...but rather got to the IRS and ask, "how can we be contracted to help you."</p><p>They'd probably make more.  But, I guess the people at Intuit haven't read Who Moved My Cheese.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You know , if Intuit were really smart they would n't fight this...but rather got to the IRS and ask , " how can we be contracted to help you .
" They 'd probably make more .
But , I guess the people at Intuit have n't read Who Moved My Cheese .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You know, if Intuit were really smart they wouldn't fight this...but rather got to the IRS and ask, "how can we be contracted to help you.
"They'd probably make more.
But, I guess the people at Intuit haven't read Who Moved My Cheese.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30880420</id>
	<title>Re:UK Tax Returns</title>
	<author>Ironsides</author>
	<datestamp>1264361580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Ok.  How does that work if you have outside sources of income or deductions?  In the US, interest on your bank account is taxable.  Dividends from stocks you own are taxable.  Interest from Student Loans, House Mortgage or charitable donations are tax deductible.  We also have retirement account contributions that are tax deductible until we start withdrawing them when they are taxable.  (or vice versa depending on the retirement account)  Does the UK have as complicated a scheme that is not based purely on income as the US has?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Ok. How does that work if you have outside sources of income or deductions ?
In the US , interest on your bank account is taxable .
Dividends from stocks you own are taxable .
Interest from Student Loans , House Mortgage or charitable donations are tax deductible .
We also have retirement account contributions that are tax deductible until we start withdrawing them when they are taxable .
( or vice versa depending on the retirement account ) Does the UK have as complicated a scheme that is not based purely on income as the US has ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ok.  How does that work if you have outside sources of income or deductions?
In the US, interest on your bank account is taxable.
Dividends from stocks you own are taxable.
Interest from Student Loans, House Mortgage or charitable donations are tax deductible.
We also have retirement account contributions that are tax deductible until we start withdrawing them when they are taxable.
(or vice versa depending on the retirement account)  Does the UK have as complicated a scheme that is not based purely on income as the US has?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30879878</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30886358</id>
	<title>Re:Funny that you mention California</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264357680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You can adjust the withholding yourself. The default is just an their guess, but you can estimate your tax and adjust the withholding so you don't overpay throughout the year. This works for both CA and federal.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You can adjust the withholding yourself .
The default is just an their guess , but you can estimate your tax and adjust the withholding so you do n't overpay throughout the year .
This works for both CA and federal .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You can adjust the withholding yourself.
The default is just an their guess, but you can estimate your tax and adjust the withholding so you don't overpay throughout the year.
This works for both CA and federal.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30879626</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30880592</id>
	<title>Re:Why they shouldn't..</title>
	<author>mysidia</author>
	<datestamp>1264362420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
That's cool...  if they think you're 3 years of age,  you get the child exemption from having to pay any taxes on interest earned.
</p><p>
And probably other financial writeoffs  traditionally intended  for saving for a childs' expenses such as education.
</p><p>
And with 27 kids of your own,  you got plenty of exemptions.
</p><p>
At least until they figure out their mistake.
</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's cool... if they think you 're 3 years of age , you get the child exemption from having to pay any taxes on interest earned .
And probably other financial writeoffs traditionally intended for saving for a childs ' expenses such as education .
And with 27 kids of your own , you got plenty of exemptions .
At least until they figure out their mistake .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
That's cool...  if they think you're 3 years of age,  you get the child exemption from having to pay any taxes on interest earned.
And probably other financial writeoffs  traditionally intended  for saving for a childs' expenses such as education.
And with 27 kids of your own,  you got plenty of exemptions.
At least until they figure out their mistake.
</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30879604</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30881522</id>
	<title>This is how it's done where I'm from...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264324080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I suggested this years ago to the government of my country but as usual they will wait until the US adopts such a system first. Most employed persons have one employer and any financial institution already sends the information to the government therefore such a completed tax form, preferably two pages only would suffice and keep things simple. The taxpayer receives the form, electronically or postal mail, and makes any adjustments on a amendment sheet before returning it if necessary. When the taxpayer is satisfied with the accuracy it is signed and returned to the government. This would ensure both taxpayer and government coffers get the maximum due each party.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I suggested this years ago to the government of my country but as usual they will wait until the US adopts such a system first .
Most employed persons have one employer and any financial institution already sends the information to the government therefore such a completed tax form , preferably two pages only would suffice and keep things simple .
The taxpayer receives the form , electronically or postal mail , and makes any adjustments on a amendment sheet before returning it if necessary .
When the taxpayer is satisfied with the accuracy it is signed and returned to the government .
This would ensure both taxpayer and government coffers get the maximum due each party .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I suggested this years ago to the government of my country but as usual they will wait until the US adopts such a system first.
Most employed persons have one employer and any financial institution already sends the information to the government therefore such a completed tax form, preferably two pages only would suffice and keep things simple.
The taxpayer receives the form, electronically or postal mail, and makes any adjustments on a amendment sheet before returning it if necessary.
When the taxpayer is satisfied with the accuracy it is signed and returned to the government.
This would ensure both taxpayer and government coffers get the maximum due each party.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30879612</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30879604</id>
	<title>Why they shouldn't..</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264357680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Because we would find out how poor the government is about actually keeping track of data..</p><p>Seriously.. you'd probably log in to find that you have 27 kids and are 3 years of age.. and your income is the same as your zip code..</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Because we would find out how poor the government is about actually keeping track of data..Seriously.. you 'd probably log in to find that you have 27 kids and are 3 years of age.. and your income is the same as your zip code. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because we would find out how poor the government is about actually keeping track of data..Seriously.. you'd probably log in to find that you have 27 kids and are 3 years of age.. and your income is the same as your zip code..</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30887514</id>
	<title>Re:This is how it's done where I'm from...</title>
	<author>ubersoldat2k7</author>
	<datestamp>1264413900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>In Spain, I've been told that we can do pretty much the same thing, except that it doesn't work on Linux, so I don't know if it's true.</htmltext>
<tokenext>In Spain , I 've been told that we can do pretty much the same thing , except that it does n't work on Linux , so I do n't know if it 's true .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In Spain, I've been told that we can do pretty much the same thing, except that it doesn't work on Linux, so I don't know if it's true.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30879958</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30879890</id>
	<title>Re:works fine in Sweden</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264359300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ah yes is Sweden also not the place with the highest amount of deductions? You get taxed out of the wahzoo, and the only real way to lower your taxes is to start claiming  things. So are you saying by not claiming things you are happy to pay such high taxes?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ah yes is Sweden also not the place with the highest amount of deductions ?
You get taxed out of the wahzoo , and the only real way to lower your taxes is to start claiming things .
So are you saying by not claiming things you are happy to pay such high taxes ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ah yes is Sweden also not the place with the highest amount of deductions?
You get taxed out of the wahzoo, and the only real way to lower your taxes is to start claiming  things.
So are you saying by not claiming things you are happy to pay such high taxes?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30879638</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30883170</id>
	<title>Re:Conflict?</title>
	<author>Artifakt</author>
	<datestamp>1264334100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The IRS timeline on direct deposit is officially 8 to 15 days from acceptance of the return. Timeline if the IRS can't do direct deposit is 3 to 4 weeks for a paper check. A lot of the people looking for a quick loan should be much more patient, but I have a bit more time in as a preparer than a year, and I would have to say that the average wait they are trying to reduce is quite a bit more than a week. By the IRS's own rules, it can really <b>never</b> be a week or less.<br>I don't like to see people wanting a RAL because they don't have a bank account, and they are being dunned for existing debts or their car broke down again, or something like that, but the banks offering the RALs are no worse than the other banks and financials that have put many of these people in desperate straits in the first place, and if the tax preparer follows the law, the clients get several reminders that the RAL is costing them a high annual equivalent interest, they have the option to just file direct to the IRS, they will have to repay the loan if the IRS doesn't send all their money, and so on. From what I've seen these clients are being burned worse by the various check into cash and rent to own places than at tax time, not that that means the RAL system is always good.<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; Much less than half my clients want refund anticipation loans. I've got a high percentage who simply can't do their returns (Unless you count something like being technically able to pay 300$ for a professional class in California's Edge of the Water rule before they file this year as meaning technically they could do their own). I've got a dozen clients a year who need to file either injured spouse or innocent spouse forms, 2 dozen who have to report capital gains, foreign income or foreign taxes, and the like, and probably a dozen who actually already got a letter from the IRS.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The IRS timeline on direct deposit is officially 8 to 15 days from acceptance of the return .
Timeline if the IRS ca n't do direct deposit is 3 to 4 weeks for a paper check .
A lot of the people looking for a quick loan should be much more patient , but I have a bit more time in as a preparer than a year , and I would have to say that the average wait they are trying to reduce is quite a bit more than a week .
By the IRS 's own rules , it can really never be a week or less.I do n't like to see people wanting a RAL because they do n't have a bank account , and they are being dunned for existing debts or their car broke down again , or something like that , but the banks offering the RALs are no worse than the other banks and financials that have put many of these people in desperate straits in the first place , and if the tax preparer follows the law , the clients get several reminders that the RAL is costing them a high annual equivalent interest , they have the option to just file direct to the IRS , they will have to repay the loan if the IRS does n't send all their money , and so on .
From what I 've seen these clients are being burned worse by the various check into cash and rent to own places than at tax time , not that that means the RAL system is always good .
      Much less than half my clients want refund anticipation loans .
I 've got a high percentage who simply ca n't do their returns ( Unless you count something like being technically able to pay 300 $ for a professional class in California 's Edge of the Water rule before they file this year as meaning technically they could do their own ) .
I 've got a dozen clients a year who need to file either injured spouse or innocent spouse forms , 2 dozen who have to report capital gains , foreign income or foreign taxes , and the like , and probably a dozen who actually already got a letter from the IRS .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The IRS timeline on direct deposit is officially 8 to 15 days from acceptance of the return.
Timeline if the IRS can't do direct deposit is 3 to 4 weeks for a paper check.
A lot of the people looking for a quick loan should be much more patient, but I have a bit more time in as a preparer than a year, and I would have to say that the average wait they are trying to reduce is quite a bit more than a week.
By the IRS's own rules, it can really never be a week or less.I don't like to see people wanting a RAL because they don't have a bank account, and they are being dunned for existing debts or their car broke down again, or something like that, but the banks offering the RALs are no worse than the other banks and financials that have put many of these people in desperate straits in the first place, and if the tax preparer follows the law, the clients get several reminders that the RAL is costing them a high annual equivalent interest, they have the option to just file direct to the IRS, they will have to repay the loan if the IRS doesn't send all their money, and so on.
From what I've seen these clients are being burned worse by the various check into cash and rent to own places than at tax time, not that that means the RAL system is always good.
      Much less than half my clients want refund anticipation loans.
I've got a high percentage who simply can't do their returns (Unless you count something like being technically able to pay 300$ for a professional class in California's Edge of the Water rule before they file this year as meaning technically they could do their own).
I've got a dozen clients a year who need to file either injured spouse or innocent spouse forms, 2 dozen who have to report capital gains, foreign income or foreign taxes, and the like, and probably a dozen who actually already got a letter from the IRS.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30880118</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30879858</id>
	<title>Re:works fine in Sweden</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264359060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You know, when I was reading your post, I thought Sweden, eh? Wavy line... wavy lines...</p><p>Knocking at the door. Swedish male citizen goes and answers it.</p><p>Beautiful blond is at the door. (Translated to American)"Hi, I'm with the Revenue Service and I have your tax form. Do you want to have sex before or after reviewing your tax form?"</p><p>Swedish make citizen: "Um. Let me ask my wife. Honey, should I have sex with the tax collector before or after reviewing the form?"</p><p>Beautiful blond Swedish wife walks in: "Listen YOU! We filed jointly so it HAS to be a threesome before AND after reviewing the form!"</p><p>Tax collector: "That's IS the law! File jointly and it's a threesome! I'm terribly sorry!"</p><p>So this is the way it happens over there, right?  Really?!?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You know , when I was reading your post , I thought Sweden , eh ?
Wavy line... wavy lines...Knocking at the door .
Swedish male citizen goes and answers it.Beautiful blond is at the door .
( Translated to American ) " Hi , I 'm with the Revenue Service and I have your tax form .
Do you want to have sex before or after reviewing your tax form ?
" Swedish make citizen : " Um .
Let me ask my wife .
Honey , should I have sex with the tax collector before or after reviewing the form ?
" Beautiful blond Swedish wife walks in : " Listen YOU !
We filed jointly so it HAS to be a threesome before AND after reviewing the form !
" Tax collector : " That 's IS the law !
File jointly and it 's a threesome !
I 'm terribly sorry !
" So this is the way it happens over there , right ?
Really ? ! ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You know, when I was reading your post, I thought Sweden, eh?
Wavy line... wavy lines...Knocking at the door.
Swedish male citizen goes and answers it.Beautiful blond is at the door.
(Translated to American)"Hi, I'm with the Revenue Service and I have your tax form.
Do you want to have sex before or after reviewing your tax form?
"Swedish make citizen: "Um.
Let me ask my wife.
Honey, should I have sex with the tax collector before or after reviewing the form?
"Beautiful blond Swedish wife walks in: "Listen YOU!
We filed jointly so it HAS to be a threesome before AND after reviewing the form!
"Tax collector: "That's IS the law!
File jointly and it's a threesome!
I'm terribly sorry!
"So this is the way it happens over there, right?
Really?!?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30879638</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30879914</id>
	<title>Re:An invitation to defraud</title>
	<author>SerpentMage</author>
	<datestamp>1264359480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes, this is why the posters in Europe say, "oh oh we do this already."</p><p>You see to get any salvation from the high taxes in Europe you just have to claim. Drive to work? Claim those kilometers. Need education for work, and clothes for work? You need to claim that.</p><p>The reality is that in Europe if you were to ok the taxes as is, you would be paying too much. Hence you fill out the tax forms and try to find every taxloophole there is.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , this is why the posters in Europe say , " oh oh we do this already .
" You see to get any salvation from the high taxes in Europe you just have to claim .
Drive to work ?
Claim those kilometers .
Need education for work , and clothes for work ?
You need to claim that.The reality is that in Europe if you were to ok the taxes as is , you would be paying too much .
Hence you fill out the tax forms and try to find every taxloophole there is .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, this is why the posters in Europe say, "oh oh we do this already.
"You see to get any salvation from the high taxes in Europe you just have to claim.
Drive to work?
Claim those kilometers.
Need education for work, and clothes for work?
You need to claim that.The reality is that in Europe if you were to ok the taxes as is, you would be paying too much.
Hence you fill out the tax forms and try to find every taxloophole there is.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30879646</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30880612</id>
	<title>Its all about the subserviency</title>
	<author>noddyxoi</author>
	<datestamp>1264362480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Or the act of in plain consciousness allowing yourself to be part of this big scam.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Or the act of in plain consciousness allowing yourself to be part of this big scam .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Or the act of in plain consciousness allowing yourself to be part of this big scam.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30881172</id>
	<title>Re:Conflict?</title>
	<author>atfrase</author>
	<datestamp>1264365420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So it's a conflict of interest for government to set the tax law and also assess our payment due, because they'd be inclined to err in their own favor; better, then, to have citizens involved to look out for their own interests.</p><p>And it's a conflict of interest for citizens to assess their own payment, because they'd also be inclined to err in their own favor; hence, government has to double-check every return to look out for its own interests.</p><p>Now let's complete the triad: it's also a conflict of interest for Intuit to comment on making taxes simpler for citizens, because the more complicated the tax returns are, the more of a market Intuit has for its product.</p><p>I think having government do all the math and send us the bill is not the solution, because Intuit does have a point about the dangers there.  The solution is making the tax code simple enough for the average person to understand without having to pay somebody like Intuit or risk making a (potentially very expensive) mistake.  But of course Intuit would never suggest such a thing, for obvious reasons.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So it 's a conflict of interest for government to set the tax law and also assess our payment due , because they 'd be inclined to err in their own favor ; better , then , to have citizens involved to look out for their own interests.And it 's a conflict of interest for citizens to assess their own payment , because they 'd also be inclined to err in their own favor ; hence , government has to double-check every return to look out for its own interests.Now let 's complete the triad : it 's also a conflict of interest for Intuit to comment on making taxes simpler for citizens , because the more complicated the tax returns are , the more of a market Intuit has for its product.I think having government do all the math and send us the bill is not the solution , because Intuit does have a point about the dangers there .
The solution is making the tax code simple enough for the average person to understand without having to pay somebody like Intuit or risk making a ( potentially very expensive ) mistake .
But of course Intuit would never suggest such a thing , for obvious reasons .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So it's a conflict of interest for government to set the tax law and also assess our payment due, because they'd be inclined to err in their own favor; better, then, to have citizens involved to look out for their own interests.And it's a conflict of interest for citizens to assess their own payment, because they'd also be inclined to err in their own favor; hence, government has to double-check every return to look out for its own interests.Now let's complete the triad: it's also a conflict of interest for Intuit to comment on making taxes simpler for citizens, because the more complicated the tax returns are, the more of a market Intuit has for its product.I think having government do all the math and send us the bill is not the solution, because Intuit does have a point about the dangers there.
The solution is making the tax code simple enough for the average person to understand without having to pay somebody like Intuit or risk making a (potentially very expensive) mistake.
But of course Intuit would never suggest such a thing, for obvious reasons.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30879616</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30882856</id>
	<title>Re:Intuit Isn't the Only Problem</title>
	<author>Eil</author>
	<datestamp>1264331820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>The tax filing and preparation industry, of which <b>Intuit</b> is a part, has long been an obstacle to any change in the tax code that would serve to simplify and reduce the need for their services. However, they are far from the only special interest group with an incentive to keep the US Tax code as complex, opaque, and <b>unintuitive</b> as possible.</p></div></blockquote><p>I see what you did there.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The tax filing and preparation industry , of which Intuit is a part , has long been an obstacle to any change in the tax code that would serve to simplify and reduce the need for their services .
However , they are far from the only special interest group with an incentive to keep the US Tax code as complex , opaque , and unintuitive as possible.I see what you did there .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The tax filing and preparation industry, of which Intuit is a part, has long been an obstacle to any change in the tax code that would serve to simplify and reduce the need for their services.
However, they are far from the only special interest group with an incentive to keep the US Tax code as complex, opaque, and unintuitive as possible.I see what you did there.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30880258</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30879992</id>
	<title>This would lead only to more cheating.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264359780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Imagine that the IRS only fills in 2/3rds of your income.  Are you honest enough to add in the missing 1/3 or are you<br>a cheat and are going to "feel lucky" that they don't know about your missing income?</p><p>Most of you are cheats and you know it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Imagine that the IRS only fills in 2/3rds of your income .
Are you honest enough to add in the missing 1/3 or are youa cheat and are going to " feel lucky " that they do n't know about your missing income ? Most of you are cheats and you know it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Imagine that the IRS only fills in 2/3rds of your income.
Are you honest enough to add in the missing 1/3 or are youa cheat and are going to "feel lucky" that they don't know about your missing income?Most of you are cheats and you know it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30884978</id>
	<title>Re:What do you think happens today?</title>
	<author>cyberstealth1024</author>
	<datestamp>1264346160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>AFAIK, everyone who has a job.  we have taxes withheld from our paychecks as well, but we have estimate our expected exemptions...  then whenever the tax year comes to a close, we have to finalize these exemptions and such and such.  So the tax return is basically a required adjustment</htmltext>
<tokenext>AFAIK , everyone who has a job .
we have taxes withheld from our paychecks as well , but we have estimate our expected exemptions... then whenever the tax year comes to a close , we have to finalize these exemptions and such and such .
So the tax return is basically a required adjustment</tokentext>
<sentencetext>AFAIK, everyone who has a job.
we have taxes withheld from our paychecks as well, but we have estimate our expected exemptions...  then whenever the tax year comes to a close, we have to finalize these exemptions and such and such.
So the tax return is basically a required adjustment</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30881998</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30880386</id>
	<title>Compare this to your local CPA..</title>
	<author>HockeyPuck</author>
	<datestamp>1264361460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>if you use Intuit/Turbotax/quicken/whatever, once you start filling in your information they can connect to your financial institution and download 1099, capital gains information W-2s etc..</p><p>Talk to your local CPA, and they want you to fill in a electronic version of a excel spreadsheet.  When I ask the CPAs why they don't use a solution whereby I don't have to worry as much about typos, and I don't have to pay a junior accountant to verify that I entered in my capital gains correctly in some excel spreadsheet type online form, they always tell me, "Accountants don't like change."</p><p>This isn't just Intuit, it's all the accounting firms out there that want the system to be complex.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>if you use Intuit/Turbotax/quicken/whatever , once you start filling in your information they can connect to your financial institution and download 1099 , capital gains information W-2s etc..Talk to your local CPA , and they want you to fill in a electronic version of a excel spreadsheet .
When I ask the CPAs why they do n't use a solution whereby I do n't have to worry as much about typos , and I do n't have to pay a junior accountant to verify that I entered in my capital gains correctly in some excel spreadsheet type online form , they always tell me , " Accountants do n't like change .
" This is n't just Intuit , it 's all the accounting firms out there that want the system to be complex .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>if you use Intuit/Turbotax/quicken/whatever, once you start filling in your information they can connect to your financial institution and download 1099, capital gains information W-2s etc..Talk to your local CPA, and they want you to fill in a electronic version of a excel spreadsheet.
When I ask the CPAs why they don't use a solution whereby I don't have to worry as much about typos, and I don't have to pay a junior accountant to verify that I entered in my capital gains correctly in some excel spreadsheet type online form, they always tell me, "Accountants don't like change.
"This isn't just Intuit, it's all the accounting firms out there that want the system to be complex.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30881808</id>
	<title>Australia has this already</title>
	<author>Caustic Soda</author>
	<datestamp>1264325580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>We can already do this in Australia. Electronic submissions have been around for at least the last five years, and you only need to fill out every section of the form the first time you submit electronically. In subsequent years, and info which has not changed (such as address, employer details etc) doesn't need to be manually entered, but is auto-filled from the Tax Office servers.

There was also a suggestion recently that they should simplify the system even further, and remove the need for people who only need a "simple" tax return to submit a form at all (I'm not sure how they were going to define "simple"). This supposedly would mean about two million less tax returns every year.</htmltext>
<tokenext>We can already do this in Australia .
Electronic submissions have been around for at least the last five years , and you only need to fill out every section of the form the first time you submit electronically .
In subsequent years , and info which has not changed ( such as address , employer details etc ) does n't need to be manually entered , but is auto-filled from the Tax Office servers .
There was also a suggestion recently that they should simplify the system even further , and remove the need for people who only need a " simple " tax return to submit a form at all ( I 'm not sure how they were going to define " simple " ) .
This supposedly would mean about two million less tax returns every year .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We can already do this in Australia.
Electronic submissions have been around for at least the last five years, and you only need to fill out every section of the form the first time you submit electronically.
In subsequent years, and info which has not changed (such as address, employer details etc) doesn't need to be manually entered, but is auto-filled from the Tax Office servers.
There was also a suggestion recently that they should simplify the system even further, and remove the need for people who only need a "simple" tax return to submit a form at all (I'm not sure how they were going to define "simple").
This supposedly would mean about two million less tax returns every year.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30880478</id>
	<title>Norway is the same as Finland</title>
	<author>Terje Mathisen</author>
	<datestamp>1264361880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We get a pre-filled tax sheet, you confirm that it is correct by either sending in an SMS with a one-time code, logging into a secure web site or returning it in the included (postage pre-paid) envelope.</p><p>You can also make any needed changes either electronically or on the paper form.</p><p>The online form will also automatically calculate how much you owe or will get back.</p><p>Terje</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We get a pre-filled tax sheet , you confirm that it is correct by either sending in an SMS with a one-time code , logging into a secure web site or returning it in the included ( postage pre-paid ) envelope.You can also make any needed changes either electronically or on the paper form.The online form will also automatically calculate how much you owe or will get back.Terje</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We get a pre-filled tax sheet, you confirm that it is correct by either sending in an SMS with a one-time code, logging into a secure web site or returning it in the included (postage pre-paid) envelope.You can also make any needed changes either electronically or on the paper form.The online form will also automatically calculate how much you owe or will get back.Terje</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30879612</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30880248</id>
	<title>Great!</title>
	<author>PPH</author>
	<datestamp>1264360860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Now I'll know how well I've hidden my income.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Now I 'll know how well I 've hidden my income .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Now I'll know how well I've hidden my income.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30886884</id>
	<title>Re:This is how it's done where I'm from...</title>
	<author>the\_arrow</author>
	<datestamp>1264449960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Same in Sweden. You can even do some minor changes through the web-interface. Of course, if you don't trust the "intarwebs", you can always just sign and send in the (already filled in) paper copy.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Same in Sweden .
You can even do some minor changes through the web-interface .
Of course , if you do n't trust the " intarwebs " , you can always just sign and send in the ( already filled in ) paper copy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Same in Sweden.
You can even do some minor changes through the web-interface.
Of course, if you don't trust the "intarwebs", you can always just sign and send in the (already filled in) paper copy.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30879958</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30897774</id>
	<title>Re:This is how it's done where I'm from...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264422720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And in Australia.</p><p>eTax<br>http://ato.gov.au/individuals/pathway.asp?pc=001/002/014</p><p>There's a prefill option that does most of it for you.<br>It's been around for years.</p><p>"Leader of the free world" lol!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And in Australia.eTaxhttp : //ato.gov.au/individuals/pathway.asp ? pc = 001/002/014There 's a prefill option that does most of it for you.It 's been around for years .
" Leader of the free world " lol !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And in Australia.eTaxhttp://ato.gov.au/individuals/pathway.asp?pc=001/002/014There's a prefill option that does most of it for you.It's been around for years.
"Leader of the free world" lol!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30879612</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30880464</id>
	<title>Re:This is how it's done where I'm from...</title>
	<author>idji</author>
	<datestamp>1264361820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>In Austria it is even simpler than that. Do NOTHING at all unless you want to make some special claim because all normal claims - like number of kids, commuter-rebate and so on go through the employer.

And you can change or add any data you like at anytime over the next 5 years in an online government portal / and the telephone hotline is free and there is no waiting and the people are really helpful.</htmltext>
<tokenext>In Austria it is even simpler than that .
Do NOTHING at all unless you want to make some special claim because all normal claims - like number of kids , commuter-rebate and so on go through the employer .
And you can change or add any data you like at anytime over the next 5 years in an online government portal / and the telephone hotline is free and there is no waiting and the people are really helpful .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In Austria it is even simpler than that.
Do NOTHING at all unless you want to make some special claim because all normal claims - like number of kids, commuter-rebate and so on go through the employer.
And you can change or add any data you like at anytime over the next 5 years in an online government portal / and the telephone hotline is free and there is no waiting and the people are really helpful.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30879612</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30881138</id>
	<title>Re:This is how it's done where I'm from...</title>
	<author>Tumbleweed</author>
	<datestamp>1264365240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>In Finland you get a pre-filled tax sheet in the mail, you only have to return it if there are any changes you need to make. I'm currently living in the US, I find the amount of crap you need to go through to get your affairs in order absolutely stunning.</i></p><p>Yeah, but we don't have to eat pickled herring, so it comes out even, really. And our movies are actually fun to watch.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In Finland you get a pre-filled tax sheet in the mail , you only have to return it if there are any changes you need to make .
I 'm currently living in the US , I find the amount of crap you need to go through to get your affairs in order absolutely stunning.Yeah , but we do n't have to eat pickled herring , so it comes out even , really .
And our movies are actually fun to watch .
: )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In Finland you get a pre-filled tax sheet in the mail, you only have to return it if there are any changes you need to make.
I'm currently living in the US, I find the amount of crap you need to go through to get your affairs in order absolutely stunning.Yeah, but we don't have to eat pickled herring, so it comes out even, really.
And our movies are actually fun to watch.
:)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30879612</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30880766</id>
	<title>Re:Conflict?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264363140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
Intuit would probably argue that it's a conflict of interest to be a tax preparer  and <b>not Intuit</b>
</p><p>
Intuit probably also thinks it a conflict of interest for the IRS to decide the layout and contents of the forms.
</p><p>
Instead the layout, presentation, and contents of the forms should be determined by a company like Intuit.
</p><p>
(And by the time they're done,  only someone who has a law degree, a computer science, a finance degree, AND a mathematics degree, or equivalent experience, and knowledge of a series of OS-specific proprietary encoding standards will be able to understand anything the form says,   prior to being processed by   Intuits  annual $100,000 per-seat  "Tax form decoding suite"),   and initially encoded using their tax sw.
</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Intuit would probably argue that it 's a conflict of interest to be a tax preparer and not Intuit Intuit probably also thinks it a conflict of interest for the IRS to decide the layout and contents of the forms .
Instead the layout , presentation , and contents of the forms should be determined by a company like Intuit .
( And by the time they 're done , only someone who has a law degree , a computer science , a finance degree , AND a mathematics degree , or equivalent experience , and knowledge of a series of OS-specific proprietary encoding standards will be able to understand anything the form says , prior to being processed by Intuits annual $ 100,000 per-seat " Tax form decoding suite " ) , and initially encoded using their tax sw .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
Intuit would probably argue that it's a conflict of interest to be a tax preparer  and not Intuit

Intuit probably also thinks it a conflict of interest for the IRS to decide the layout and contents of the forms.
Instead the layout, presentation, and contents of the forms should be determined by a company like Intuit.
(And by the time they're done,  only someone who has a law degree, a computer science, a finance degree, AND a mathematics degree, or equivalent experience, and knowledge of a series of OS-specific proprietary encoding standards will be able to understand anything the form says,   prior to being processed by   Intuits  annual $100,000 per-seat  "Tax form decoding suite"),   and initially encoded using their tax sw.
</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30879616</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30881770</id>
	<title>Re:This is how it's done where I'm from...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264325340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Many states only require you to file if you lived there more than 6 months.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Many states only require you to file if you lived there more than 6 months .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Many states only require you to file if you lived there more than 6 months.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30879716</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30880762</id>
	<title>Re:Funny that you mention California</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264363080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Not california (think the other end of the country, but just as much penchant for spending money) but I received an overdue tax notice about 3 months ago. I was bouncing between jobs (and states) so I was in state X for a few months (during which time I wasn't working).  I filed my federal income taxes early (while in state X).  A couple weeks later (before April 15th), I was living and working in another state (with no income tax) and this wouldn't have been an issue.
<p>
Anyhow, they sent an overdue tax notice (to the wrong address).  Their state law is: if you don't appeal within 30 days (to a notice you might not have received), you cannot appeal at all.  I took care of it (I almost feel sorry for them, expecting $5,000 and ending up with under $10) but even after they new my correct address and that their records were wrong, they continued sending (now non-appealable) bills to the wrong address.
</p><p>
If that were a private company or individual, it would be illegal big time.  But when you're a (state) government stuff like "due process" and "guilt" don't apply.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not california ( think the other end of the country , but just as much penchant for spending money ) but I received an overdue tax notice about 3 months ago .
I was bouncing between jobs ( and states ) so I was in state X for a few months ( during which time I was n't working ) .
I filed my federal income taxes early ( while in state X ) .
A couple weeks later ( before April 15th ) , I was living and working in another state ( with no income tax ) and this would n't have been an issue .
Anyhow , they sent an overdue tax notice ( to the wrong address ) .
Their state law is : if you do n't appeal within 30 days ( to a notice you might not have received ) , you can not appeal at all .
I took care of it ( I almost feel sorry for them , expecting $ 5,000 and ending up with under $ 10 ) but even after they new my correct address and that their records were wrong , they continued sending ( now non-appealable ) bills to the wrong address .
If that were a private company or individual , it would be illegal big time .
But when you 're a ( state ) government stuff like " due process " and " guilt " do n't apply .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not california (think the other end of the country, but just as much penchant for spending money) but I received an overdue tax notice about 3 months ago.
I was bouncing between jobs (and states) so I was in state X for a few months (during which time I wasn't working).
I filed my federal income taxes early (while in state X).
A couple weeks later (before April 15th), I was living and working in another state (with no income tax) and this wouldn't have been an issue.
Anyhow, they sent an overdue tax notice (to the wrong address).
Their state law is: if you don't appeal within 30 days (to a notice you might not have received), you cannot appeal at all.
I took care of it (I almost feel sorry for them, expecting $5,000 and ending up with under $10) but even after they new my correct address and that their records were wrong, they continued sending (now non-appealable) bills to the wrong address.
If that were a private company or individual, it would be illegal big time.
But when you're a (state) government stuff like "due process" and "guilt" don't apply.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30879626</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30880488</id>
	<title>You are neglecting basic finance</title>
	<author>cdrguru</author>
	<datestamp>1264361880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Think about it.  You pay $50 a year for some tax software - you are also going to pay 10\% of that as taxes.  If you go to a tax preparer, they are going to pay taxes on an even greater amount.  The result is that the IRS gets more money, period.  The states get their cut of this as well, and they are massively overspending now, so they desperately need it.</p><p>Do you really believe the IRS is going to (a) reduce the amount of money they get and (b) cut off a source of revenue to the states?  No way.</p><p>Most other countries do not have any sort of problem taxing the heck out of citizens, so they are already paying 60-70\% to the government.  I'd say those governments do not need the extra hit, but in the US it is certainly welcome.</p><p>Would the IRS do a better job if they told people what they owed?  Maybe.  The problem is the IRS doesn't trust their sources any more than they trust the average taxpayer.  Today, it is a secret battle between people reporting what other people should be reporting and paying on.  Anyone that comes out on the short end gets audited if they are blatent enough.  If the IRS told people what they owed, they would be removing this check.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Think about it .
You pay $ 50 a year for some tax software - you are also going to pay 10 \ % of that as taxes .
If you go to a tax preparer , they are going to pay taxes on an even greater amount .
The result is that the IRS gets more money , period .
The states get their cut of this as well , and they are massively overspending now , so they desperately need it.Do you really believe the IRS is going to ( a ) reduce the amount of money they get and ( b ) cut off a source of revenue to the states ?
No way.Most other countries do not have any sort of problem taxing the heck out of citizens , so they are already paying 60-70 \ % to the government .
I 'd say those governments do not need the extra hit , but in the US it is certainly welcome.Would the IRS do a better job if they told people what they owed ?
Maybe. The problem is the IRS does n't trust their sources any more than they trust the average taxpayer .
Today , it is a secret battle between people reporting what other people should be reporting and paying on .
Anyone that comes out on the short end gets audited if they are blatent enough .
If the IRS told people what they owed , they would be removing this check .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Think about it.
You pay $50 a year for some tax software - you are also going to pay 10\% of that as taxes.
If you go to a tax preparer, they are going to pay taxes on an even greater amount.
The result is that the IRS gets more money, period.
The states get their cut of this as well, and they are massively overspending now, so they desperately need it.Do you really believe the IRS is going to (a) reduce the amount of money they get and (b) cut off a source of revenue to the states?
No way.Most other countries do not have any sort of problem taxing the heck out of citizens, so they are already paying 60-70\% to the government.
I'd say those governments do not need the extra hit, but in the US it is certainly welcome.Would the IRS do a better job if they told people what they owed?
Maybe.  The problem is the IRS doesn't trust their sources any more than they trust the average taxpayer.
Today, it is a secret battle between people reporting what other people should be reporting and paying on.
Anyone that comes out on the short end gets audited if they are blatent enough.
If the IRS told people what they owed, they would be removing this check.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30879646</id>
	<title>An invitation to defraud</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264357980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If the IRS were to list everything it knows, wouldn't that be an invitation to cheat on your taxes? As it stands, we have an incentive to report everything, because if the IRS knows about income and we don't include it on our 1040, we get busted. But if the IRS tells us what it knows, many (if not most) people would simply pay the tax on that, and neglect to report the rest.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If the IRS were to list everything it knows , would n't that be an invitation to cheat on your taxes ?
As it stands , we have an incentive to report everything , because if the IRS knows about income and we do n't include it on our 1040 , we get busted .
But if the IRS tells us what it knows , many ( if not most ) people would simply pay the tax on that , and neglect to report the rest .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If the IRS were to list everything it knows, wouldn't that be an invitation to cheat on your taxes?
As it stands, we have an incentive to report everything, because if the IRS knows about income and we don't include it on our 1040, we get busted.
But if the IRS tells us what it knows, many (if not most) people would simply pay the tax on that, and neglect to report the rest.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30885678</id>
	<title>Re:This is how it's done where I'm from...</title>
	<author>Machtyn</author>
	<datestamp>1264351740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yeah, I'd say the government should be paying more attention to tax reform.  But seeing how badly they're botching health care reform, I'm still hoping for that change that was promised.
<br> <br>/don't blame me, I didn't vote for him. but I did vote.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , I 'd say the government should be paying more attention to tax reform .
But seeing how badly they 're botching health care reform , I 'm still hoping for that change that was promised .
/do n't blame me , I did n't vote for him .
but I did vote .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, I'd say the government should be paying more attention to tax reform.
But seeing how badly they're botching health care reform, I'm still hoping for that change that was promised.
/don't blame me, I didn't vote for him.
but I did vote.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30879612</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30880004</id>
	<title>Re:How could they justify an audit?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264359840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>1) "By signing here, you indicate that you have fully read these forms and that all information is correct, blah blah blah"</p><p>2) It's generally self-employed people claiming rather questionable deductions who have trouble with audits, not regular 'workers'.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>1 ) " By signing here , you indicate that you have fully read these forms and that all information is correct , blah blah blah " 2 ) It 's generally self-employed people claiming rather questionable deductions who have trouble with audits , not regular 'workers' .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1) "By signing here, you indicate that you have fully read these forms and that all information is correct, blah blah blah"2) It's generally self-employed people claiming rather questionable deductions who have trouble with audits, not regular 'workers'.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30879826</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30880150</id>
	<title>Just have an energy tax</title>
	<author>tjstork</author>
	<datestamp>1264360440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think we should get rid of the income and sales taxes altogether and just have a flat energy tax.  A flat energy tax would attract conservatives because it is a tax on consumption, rather than investment, and liberals because it is both environmentally friendly and progressive, to policy planners because it would smooth out the bust and boom revenue cycle that comes from our top heavy tax code today, and everyone because it would actually be a lot easier to administrate.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think we should get rid of the income and sales taxes altogether and just have a flat energy tax .
A flat energy tax would attract conservatives because it is a tax on consumption , rather than investment , and liberals because it is both environmentally friendly and progressive , to policy planners because it would smooth out the bust and boom revenue cycle that comes from our top heavy tax code today , and everyone because it would actually be a lot easier to administrate .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think we should get rid of the income and sales taxes altogether and just have a flat energy tax.
A flat energy tax would attract conservatives because it is a tax on consumption, rather than investment, and liberals because it is both environmentally friendly and progressive, to policy planners because it would smooth out the bust and boom revenue cycle that comes from our top heavy tax code today, and everyone because it would actually be a lot easier to administrate.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30880598</id>
	<title>Re:Conflict?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264362420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>We go flat taxes, which cuts taxes on the top 1\% which is paying for 40\% of the taxes now....<br> <br>
The wealthy use their freed up income to buy more polticians that enact legislation increasing government spending. A tax increase is passed to pay for the increased spending...<br> <br>
On and on it goes until the flat tax is sitting at 25\% and the poor can't afford to feed themselves let alone stay in a house. Sounds like a plan.</htmltext>
<tokenext>We go flat taxes , which cuts taxes on the top 1 \ % which is paying for 40 \ % of the taxes now... . The wealthy use their freed up income to buy more polticians that enact legislation increasing government spending .
A tax increase is passed to pay for the increased spending.. . On and on it goes until the flat tax is sitting at 25 \ % and the poor ca n't afford to feed themselves let alone stay in a house .
Sounds like a plan .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We go flat taxes, which cuts taxes on the top 1\% which is paying for 40\% of the taxes now.... 
The wealthy use their freed up income to buy more polticians that enact legislation increasing government spending.
A tax increase is passed to pay for the increased spending... 
On and on it goes until the flat tax is sitting at 25\% and the poor can't afford to feed themselves let alone stay in a house.
Sounds like a plan.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30880112</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30885590</id>
	<title>Australia Does it</title>
	<author>raovq</author>
	<datestamp>1264351200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Here is australia we get to do it all online. Every year the ATO (tax office) releases software that can be used to compile and submit your tax information. When it runs, it gives you the option to obtain all information it can, including income, health insurance, social security payments, education debts and more obscure things.

This system means my tax return involves running this application, making sure the information is correct, enter in some non-invented deductions and hit submit. Takes ten minutes, and the return is processed in a few days.

It seems very hard to believe that Australia can manage to make a system that the US considers no viable.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Here is australia we get to do it all online .
Every year the ATO ( tax office ) releases software that can be used to compile and submit your tax information .
When it runs , it gives you the option to obtain all information it can , including income , health insurance , social security payments , education debts and more obscure things .
This system means my tax return involves running this application , making sure the information is correct , enter in some non-invented deductions and hit submit .
Takes ten minutes , and the return is processed in a few days .
It seems very hard to believe that Australia can manage to make a system that the US considers no viable .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Here is australia we get to do it all online.
Every year the ATO (tax office) releases software that can be used to compile and submit your tax information.
When it runs, it gives you the option to obtain all information it can, including income, health insurance, social security payments, education debts and more obscure things.
This system means my tax return involves running this application, making sure the information is correct, enter in some non-invented deductions and hit submit.
Takes ten minutes, and the return is processed in a few days.
It seems very hard to believe that Australia can manage to make a system that the US considers no viable.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30879964</id>
	<title>In Canada I owned a small limited company.</title>
	<author>JoshDD</author>
	<datestamp>1264359720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>In 2006 I dissolved to company got everything in order forgot about it. Then a couple years later Revenue Canada contacted me about a T-5 slip that hadn't been properly filed, turns out the accountant goofed. Well I got everything in order and it was determined that the gov actually owed me money. Well they went and instead of paying me levied a penalty for late filing, which I paid. Well when it was their turn to pay they said your company doesn't exist any more we can't pay you. Funny how I had to pay them from my own pocket for a company that didn't exist but then they don't pay me what they owe me.</htmltext>
<tokenext>In 2006 I dissolved to company got everything in order forgot about it .
Then a couple years later Revenue Canada contacted me about a T-5 slip that had n't been properly filed , turns out the accountant goofed .
Well I got everything in order and it was determined that the gov actually owed me money .
Well they went and instead of paying me levied a penalty for late filing , which I paid .
Well when it was their turn to pay they said your company does n't exist any more we ca n't pay you .
Funny how I had to pay them from my own pocket for a company that did n't exist but then they do n't pay me what they owe me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In 2006 I dissolved to company got everything in order forgot about it.
Then a couple years later Revenue Canada contacted me about a T-5 slip that hadn't been properly filed, turns out the accountant goofed.
Well I got everything in order and it was determined that the gov actually owed me money.
Well they went and instead of paying me levied a penalty for late filing, which I paid.
Well when it was their turn to pay they said your company doesn't exist any more we can't pay you.
Funny how I had to pay them from my own pocket for a company that didn't exist but then they don't pay me what they owe me.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30899022</id>
	<title>Re:This is how it's done where I'm from...</title>
	<author>Pow.R Toc.H</author>
	<datestamp>1264429560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>In Brazil you download two pieces of software: one for filling with your earnings, assets, properties and deductions and other for transmitting the data.

You have to fill the address form if you're doing your taxes for the first time, and whenever you change addresses. As for marriage, you can declare all the couple's properties in just one form, or spread the properties among the couple.

The software will then calculate if it's better for you to use the "standard deduction" or the full declaration.

All the process can be followed through the web and you can perform corrections either by web site or using the same software - which runs in all operating systems, linux included.</htmltext>
<tokenext>In Brazil you download two pieces of software : one for filling with your earnings , assets , properties and deductions and other for transmitting the data .
You have to fill the address form if you 're doing your taxes for the first time , and whenever you change addresses .
As for marriage , you can declare all the couple 's properties in just one form , or spread the properties among the couple .
The software will then calculate if it 's better for you to use the " standard deduction " or the full declaration .
All the process can be followed through the web and you can perform corrections either by web site or using the same software - which runs in all operating systems , linux included .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In Brazil you download two pieces of software: one for filling with your earnings, assets, properties and deductions and other for transmitting the data.
You have to fill the address form if you're doing your taxes for the first time, and whenever you change addresses.
As for marriage, you can declare all the couple's properties in just one form, or spread the properties among the couple.
The software will then calculate if it's better for you to use the "standard deduction" or the full declaration.
All the process can be followed through the web and you can perform corrections either by web site or using the same software - which runs in all operating systems, linux included.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30879612</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30880128</id>
	<title>It'll never happen for 2 reasons</title>
	<author>dheltzel</author>
	<datestamp>1264360320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>1) It's common sense, and everyone knows how careful the government is to distance itself from that.</p><p>2) It's what the American public wants (except the people who make money of the existing confusion).</p><p>For those 2 reasons, we can be sure that neither party will ever accept this. Except perhaps as a diversion to rally their voters, but then only if they know if has no real chance of getting through.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>1 ) It 's common sense , and everyone knows how careful the government is to distance itself from that.2 ) It 's what the American public wants ( except the people who make money of the existing confusion ) .For those 2 reasons , we can be sure that neither party will ever accept this .
Except perhaps as a diversion to rally their voters , but then only if they know if has no real chance of getting through .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1) It's common sense, and everyone knows how careful the government is to distance itself from that.2) It's what the American public wants (except the people who make money of the existing confusion).For those 2 reasons, we can be sure that neither party will ever accept this.
Except perhaps as a diversion to rally their voters, but then only if they know if has no real chance of getting through.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30879896</id>
	<title>Re:This is how it's done where I'm from...</title>
	<author>danpat</author>
	<datestamp>1264359360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>I had the same problem when I worked in 3 different countries in the space of 18 months.  What made it even worse was that each required you declare your "overseas income" for their tax year, and none of the three countries had tax years that lined up (some when from July-&gt;June, some when from October-&gt;September, the other, Jan-&gt;December).  And on top of that, there were tax treaties between each that allowed for special rates for certain types of income.  You'd get totally screwed if you didn't take advantage of the treaties, but it also required reading said treaties.  Fortunately, many tax treaties are structured the same otherwise it'd be damn near impossible.

<p>I couldn't find a tax professional prepared to help out either.  Most accountants like to keep things within their own borders.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I had the same problem when I worked in 3 different countries in the space of 18 months .
What made it even worse was that each required you declare your " overseas income " for their tax year , and none of the three countries had tax years that lined up ( some when from July- &gt; June , some when from October- &gt; September , the other , Jan- &gt; December ) .
And on top of that , there were tax treaties between each that allowed for special rates for certain types of income .
You 'd get totally screwed if you did n't take advantage of the treaties , but it also required reading said treaties .
Fortunately , many tax treaties are structured the same otherwise it 'd be damn near impossible .
I could n't find a tax professional prepared to help out either .
Most accountants like to keep things within their own borders .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I had the same problem when I worked in 3 different countries in the space of 18 months.
What made it even worse was that each required you declare your "overseas income" for their tax year, and none of the three countries had tax years that lined up (some when from July-&gt;June, some when from October-&gt;September, the other, Jan-&gt;December).
And on top of that, there were tax treaties between each that allowed for special rates for certain types of income.
You'd get totally screwed if you didn't take advantage of the treaties, but it also required reading said treaties.
Fortunately, many tax treaties are structured the same otherwise it'd be damn near impossible.
I couldn't find a tax professional prepared to help out either.
Most accountants like to keep things within their own borders.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30879716</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30886230</id>
	<title>The way it is now</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264356600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>creates the greatest amount of activity in your populace.  It is all being done because of you, for you.  Very indicative.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>creates the greatest amount of activity in your populace .
It is all being done because of you , for you .
Very indicative .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>creates the greatest amount of activity in your populace.
It is all being done because of you, for you.
Very indicative.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30880012</id>
	<title>Because they want to see if you'll lie</title>
	<author>whterbt</author>
	<datestamp>1264359900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This should be blatantly obvious. Of course they already know most of the answers. But they're using this as a test of your honesty. Why should the IRS go through a lot of work to make your return slightly easier, when they're benefiting from having you self-report?

</p><p>If your answers don't match what they already know, they can fine you up the wazoo, charge back interest, etc. Much more profitable and less work.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This should be blatantly obvious .
Of course they already know most of the answers .
But they 're using this as a test of your honesty .
Why should the IRS go through a lot of work to make your return slightly easier , when they 're benefiting from having you self-report ?
If your answers do n't match what they already know , they can fine you up the wazoo , charge back interest , etc .
Much more profitable and less work .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This should be blatantly obvious.
Of course they already know most of the answers.
But they're using this as a test of your honesty.
Why should the IRS go through a lot of work to make your return slightly easier, when they're benefiting from having you self-report?
If your answers don't match what they already know, they can fine you up the wazoo, charge back interest, etc.
Much more profitable and less work.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30883958</id>
	<title>Re:people are lazy</title>
	<author>Planesdragon</author>
	<datestamp>1264338900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>however, the current status quo means that if there is an error, whether honest mistake or malicious, it is usually in favor of the individual, not the government</p></div><p>hah.  HAH!</p><p>Look at how the typical US worker files their taxes.  They send in part of their paycheck all year long, and then at the end file to get some of that money back.  And the way you do that is to add up all of your "income" in the year, subtract out an "exclusion", and then root around in a manual lookup table to find out how much you really owed.</p><p>And the situation isn't any better with a paid preparer: as often as not, they just do the same thing you would do, but with less of a care how big your refund check (or balance due) is.</p><p>Oh, and Intuit--like all the rest of the @#$ers -- jsut wants to keep on stealing money in the form of "Refund Anticipation Loans."</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>however , the current status quo means that if there is an error , whether honest mistake or malicious , it is usually in favor of the individual , not the governmenthah .
HAH ! Look at how the typical US worker files their taxes .
They send in part of their paycheck all year long , and then at the end file to get some of that money back .
And the way you do that is to add up all of your " income " in the year , subtract out an " exclusion " , and then root around in a manual lookup table to find out how much you really owed.And the situation is n't any better with a paid preparer : as often as not , they just do the same thing you would do , but with less of a care how big your refund check ( or balance due ) is.Oh , and Intuit--like all the rest of the @ # $ ers -- jsut wants to keep on stealing money in the form of " Refund Anticipation Loans .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>however, the current status quo means that if there is an error, whether honest mistake or malicious, it is usually in favor of the individual, not the governmenthah.
HAH!Look at how the typical US worker files their taxes.
They send in part of their paycheck all year long, and then at the end file to get some of that money back.
And the way you do that is to add up all of your "income" in the year, subtract out an "exclusion", and then root around in a manual lookup table to find out how much you really owed.And the situation isn't any better with a paid preparer: as often as not, they just do the same thing you would do, but with less of a care how big your refund check (or balance due) is.Oh, and Intuit--like all the rest of the @#$ers -- jsut wants to keep on stealing money in the form of "Refund Anticipation Loans.
"
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30879640</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30880330</id>
	<title>In Soviet Russia...</title>
	<author>Fred The Toaster</author>
	<datestamp>1264361220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>In Soviet Russia taxes prepare you!</htmltext>
<tokenext>In Soviet Russia taxes prepare you !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In Soviet Russia taxes prepare you!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30879612</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30880660</id>
	<title>Yeah but in the US</title>
	<author>Snaller</author>
	<datestamp>1264362720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You don't even know who lives in the country (hence your census), if you don't have such basic info in place, isn't this scheme a bit ambitious?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You do n't even know who lives in the country ( hence your census ) , if you do n't have such basic info in place , is n't this scheme a bit ambitious ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You don't even know who lives in the country (hence your census), if you don't have such basic info in place, isn't this scheme a bit ambitious?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30881178</id>
	<title>Re:Fair Tax</title>
	<author>Edward Teach</author>
	<datestamp>1264365480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Also, the United States corporations and rich people have TRILLIONS of dollars parked off shore to avoid federal taxes. That money could come back home. The United States would go from being a country that corporations avoid because of taxes, to being a country that corporations would LOVE to set up in.  More jobs here.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Also , the United States corporations and rich people have TRILLIONS of dollars parked off shore to avoid federal taxes .
That money could come back home .
The United States would go from being a country that corporations avoid because of taxes , to being a country that corporations would LOVE to set up in .
More jobs here .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Also, the United States corporations and rich people have TRILLIONS of dollars parked off shore to avoid federal taxes.
That money could come back home.
The United States would go from being a country that corporations avoid because of taxes, to being a country that corporations would LOVE to set up in.
More jobs here.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30880898</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30891628</id>
	<title>Re:This is how it's done where I'm from...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264440420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In Canada you can just send in your paper or electronic data and the tax dept does your taxes for you. I think it only applies to personal income tax not corporate. If you want it done accurately though you need to do it yourself.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In Canada you can just send in your paper or electronic data and the tax dept does your taxes for you .
I think it only applies to personal income tax not corporate .
If you want it done accurately though you need to do it yourself .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In Canada you can just send in your paper or electronic data and the tax dept does your taxes for you.
I think it only applies to personal income tax not corporate.
If you want it done accurately though you need to do it yourself.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30879612</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30880368</id>
	<title>Re:This is how it's done where I'm from...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264361400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In Estonia, people spend about 5-10 min to do taxes<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)<br>
&nbsp; All you need to do is login with your ID card (or via bank), confirm that all numbers are OK and click "OK". Forms are all prefilled.You have to add your income from investments and that's it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In Estonia , people spend about 5-10 min to do taxes : )   All you need to do is login with your ID card ( or via bank ) , confirm that all numbers are OK and click " OK " .
Forms are all prefilled.You have to add your income from investments and that 's it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In Estonia, people spend about 5-10 min to do taxes :)
  All you need to do is login with your ID card (or via bank), confirm that all numbers are OK and click "OK".
Forms are all prefilled.You have to add your income from investments and that's it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30879612</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30881244</id>
	<title>I think it's a good idea</title>
	<author>ErichTheRed</author>
	<datestamp>1264365840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>At the Federal level, this would work out pretty nicely. States and US Territories have totally different tax laws and it wouldn't work out there -- some people live in one state and work in another, some states have no tax, etc. Having less paperwork to process would help too. We get a property tax bill in the mail every December, with all of the amounts charged listed on it, and a total due at the bottom. Federal taxes would require some adjustments, but having a starting point would be less of a burden for the average taxpayer.</p><p>I think this would go a long way towards ensuring at least basic tax compliance. When you think about it, the tax system is very voluntary. If you're a wage earner, or get dividends/interest, or sell stocks and get capital gains, the IRS knows about all those transactions. They don't know about all the other stuff you report voluntarily - income from businesses you own, houses you rent, etc.</p><p>Most taxpayers' returns are incredibly simple, and contain some of the following:</p><ul><li>Income from wages, interest, dividends, capital gains, farming, rental property, self-employment</li><li>Deductions for dependents, standard or itemized deduction, Earned Income Credit (a tax reduction for very low wage workers.)</li><li>Tax prepaid through withholdings from your banks and employers</li></ul><p>Your tax due is figured as the income, minus deductions, minus tax already withheld. if the value is negative, you get a refund. If it's positive, you haven't prepaid enough of your tax and need to send in money. With the exception of your deductions and business income, the IRS knows almost all of these numbers based on the reporting from your financial institutions and employer. Why shouldn't they send you a starter return, basically saying "we think you owe this, if you have anything to add or deduct, provide proof and send us a check or collect your refund."</p><p>This might help crack down on the shady tax preparer services out there like H&amp;R Block, Jackson Hewitt and any number of guys working out of their car. They advertise to the poor and ignorant that they'll keep the IRS off their back and get them the biggest refund possible. In reality, someone with basic education in arithmetic can fill in a wage-earner's return. Look at Form 1040EZ on the IRS's website - it's one page. Form 1040 for more complex returns is two pages and neither of these require more than basic math and reading skills. TurboTax is great for filling in the forms, but a lot of people are scared of math, or the government, or filling in forms, and so they run to a tax preparer. If they had a "tax bill" with clear instructions showing how to claim deductions, it would eliminate a lot of needless preparer fees and also reduce the practice of way overwithholding taxes during the year so you get a huge refund. If people had that money during the year, maybe they wouldn't be in debt or be able to save something. As it is, they get a huge refund check and blow it on a TV or other large ticket item.</p><p>But anyway, back to the voluntary part. The IRS has millions of tax returns to process, and only so many revenue officers to do audits. The reality is that they go after the people they're going to get the most noncompliance from - high earners, small business owners and people with significant non-traceable income. For the majority of taxpayers, if you don't report it, and they don't have the numbers from another source, then they don't know about it. If you don't file a return they probably will leave you alone too. The bad part is when the audit does come and you haven't filed a return in 7 years...</p><p>It's also a good idea to simplify the tax code anyway. Limiting loopholes for high earners is a good thing. And remember that I said most tax returns are simple. Some parts of the tax law dealing with the timing of earnings, limits on certain deductions, etc. are very confusing and require a lot of reading to get right. That's a legitimate use of tax preparers...but the vast majority of people would be served well with a pre-filled tax return.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>At the Federal level , this would work out pretty nicely .
States and US Territories have totally different tax laws and it would n't work out there -- some people live in one state and work in another , some states have no tax , etc .
Having less paperwork to process would help too .
We get a property tax bill in the mail every December , with all of the amounts charged listed on it , and a total due at the bottom .
Federal taxes would require some adjustments , but having a starting point would be less of a burden for the average taxpayer.I think this would go a long way towards ensuring at least basic tax compliance .
When you think about it , the tax system is very voluntary .
If you 're a wage earner , or get dividends/interest , or sell stocks and get capital gains , the IRS knows about all those transactions .
They do n't know about all the other stuff you report voluntarily - income from businesses you own , houses you rent , etc.Most taxpayers ' returns are incredibly simple , and contain some of the following : Income from wages , interest , dividends , capital gains , farming , rental property , self-employmentDeductions for dependents , standard or itemized deduction , Earned Income Credit ( a tax reduction for very low wage workers .
) Tax prepaid through withholdings from your banks and employersYour tax due is figured as the income , minus deductions , minus tax already withheld .
if the value is negative , you get a refund .
If it 's positive , you have n't prepaid enough of your tax and need to send in money .
With the exception of your deductions and business income , the IRS knows almost all of these numbers based on the reporting from your financial institutions and employer .
Why should n't they send you a starter return , basically saying " we think you owe this , if you have anything to add or deduct , provide proof and send us a check or collect your refund .
" This might help crack down on the shady tax preparer services out there like H&amp;R Block , Jackson Hewitt and any number of guys working out of their car .
They advertise to the poor and ignorant that they 'll keep the IRS off their back and get them the biggest refund possible .
In reality , someone with basic education in arithmetic can fill in a wage-earner 's return .
Look at Form 1040EZ on the IRS 's website - it 's one page .
Form 1040 for more complex returns is two pages and neither of these require more than basic math and reading skills .
TurboTax is great for filling in the forms , but a lot of people are scared of math , or the government , or filling in forms , and so they run to a tax preparer .
If they had a " tax bill " with clear instructions showing how to claim deductions , it would eliminate a lot of needless preparer fees and also reduce the practice of way overwithholding taxes during the year so you get a huge refund .
If people had that money during the year , maybe they would n't be in debt or be able to save something .
As it is , they get a huge refund check and blow it on a TV or other large ticket item.But anyway , back to the voluntary part .
The IRS has millions of tax returns to process , and only so many revenue officers to do audits .
The reality is that they go after the people they 're going to get the most noncompliance from - high earners , small business owners and people with significant non-traceable income .
For the majority of taxpayers , if you do n't report it , and they do n't have the numbers from another source , then they do n't know about it .
If you do n't file a return they probably will leave you alone too .
The bad part is when the audit does come and you have n't filed a return in 7 years...It 's also a good idea to simplify the tax code anyway .
Limiting loopholes for high earners is a good thing .
And remember that I said most tax returns are simple .
Some parts of the tax law dealing with the timing of earnings , limits on certain deductions , etc .
are very confusing and require a lot of reading to get right .
That 's a legitimate use of tax preparers...but the vast majority of people would be served well with a pre-filled tax return .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>At the Federal level, this would work out pretty nicely.
States and US Territories have totally different tax laws and it wouldn't work out there -- some people live in one state and work in another, some states have no tax, etc.
Having less paperwork to process would help too.
We get a property tax bill in the mail every December, with all of the amounts charged listed on it, and a total due at the bottom.
Federal taxes would require some adjustments, but having a starting point would be less of a burden for the average taxpayer.I think this would go a long way towards ensuring at least basic tax compliance.
When you think about it, the tax system is very voluntary.
If you're a wage earner, or get dividends/interest, or sell stocks and get capital gains, the IRS knows about all those transactions.
They don't know about all the other stuff you report voluntarily - income from businesses you own, houses you rent, etc.Most taxpayers' returns are incredibly simple, and contain some of the following:Income from wages, interest, dividends, capital gains, farming, rental property, self-employmentDeductions for dependents, standard or itemized deduction, Earned Income Credit (a tax reduction for very low wage workers.
)Tax prepaid through withholdings from your banks and employersYour tax due is figured as the income, minus deductions, minus tax already withheld.
if the value is negative, you get a refund.
If it's positive, you haven't prepaid enough of your tax and need to send in money.
With the exception of your deductions and business income, the IRS knows almost all of these numbers based on the reporting from your financial institutions and employer.
Why shouldn't they send you a starter return, basically saying "we think you owe this, if you have anything to add or deduct, provide proof and send us a check or collect your refund.
"This might help crack down on the shady tax preparer services out there like H&amp;R Block, Jackson Hewitt and any number of guys working out of their car.
They advertise to the poor and ignorant that they'll keep the IRS off their back and get them the biggest refund possible.
In reality, someone with basic education in arithmetic can fill in a wage-earner's return.
Look at Form 1040EZ on the IRS's website - it's one page.
Form 1040 for more complex returns is two pages and neither of these require more than basic math and reading skills.
TurboTax is great for filling in the forms, but a lot of people are scared of math, or the government, or filling in forms, and so they run to a tax preparer.
If they had a "tax bill" with clear instructions showing how to claim deductions, it would eliminate a lot of needless preparer fees and also reduce the practice of way overwithholding taxes during the year so you get a huge refund.
If people had that money during the year, maybe they wouldn't be in debt or be able to save something.
As it is, they get a huge refund check and blow it on a TV or other large ticket item.But anyway, back to the voluntary part.
The IRS has millions of tax returns to process, and only so many revenue officers to do audits.
The reality is that they go after the people they're going to get the most noncompliance from - high earners, small business owners and people with significant non-traceable income.
For the majority of taxpayers, if you don't report it, and they don't have the numbers from another source, then they don't know about it.
If you don't file a return they probably will leave you alone too.
The bad part is when the audit does come and you haven't filed a return in 7 years...It's also a good idea to simplify the tax code anyway.
Limiting loopholes for high earners is a good thing.
And remember that I said most tax returns are simple.
Some parts of the tax law dealing with the timing of earnings, limits on certain deductions, etc.
are very confusing and require a lot of reading to get right.
That's a legitimate use of tax preparers...but the vast majority of people would be served well with a pre-filled tax return.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30886526</id>
	<title>On line state tax</title>
	<author>tcgroat</author>
	<datestamp>1264359240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Intuit must really hate Colorado's <a href="https://www.netfile.state.co.us/file2009/Welcome.jsp2" title="state.co.us">Net File system</a> [state.co.us]. It's easy, relatively fast, and costs nothing. You still have to fill in the stupid forms, but it's 90\% just copying the numbers from the equivalent lines of your federal tax forms. Paying Intuit extra to get the Colorado state version simply isn't worth the cost if your tax situation allows you to file online, and almost all individual returns can be filed online.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Intuit must really hate Colorado 's Net File system [ state.co.us ] .
It 's easy , relatively fast , and costs nothing .
You still have to fill in the stupid forms , but it 's 90 \ % just copying the numbers from the equivalent lines of your federal tax forms .
Paying Intuit extra to get the Colorado state version simply is n't worth the cost if your tax situation allows you to file online , and almost all individual returns can be filed online .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Intuit must really hate Colorado's Net File system [state.co.us].
It's easy, relatively fast, and costs nothing.
You still have to fill in the stupid forms, but it's 90\% just copying the numbers from the equivalent lines of your federal tax forms.
Paying Intuit extra to get the Colorado state version simply isn't worth the cost if your tax situation allows you to file online, and almost all individual returns can be filed online.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30881230</id>
	<title>Re:This is how it's done where I'm from...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264365780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The NY Times is actually discussing an article as published by NY and California regarding their easy return systems.  These systems are designed for people to claim the EIC.  These returns are met for people who not actually paid taxes to receive refunds.</p><p>No one in compliance wants an automagic return because the taxpayer might simply assume that the system has been beaten and accept an improper return.  The taxpayer advocate already stated last year that W-2 and 1099 matching is not occuring on a timely basis.</p><p>I find it doubtful that the IRS could handle a secure online system which would have the W-2 and 1099 information available for access online in a pseudo return preparation scheme.  Name variations and social security number issues also contribute to problems.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The NY Times is actually discussing an article as published by NY and California regarding their easy return systems .
These systems are designed for people to claim the EIC .
These returns are met for people who not actually paid taxes to receive refunds.No one in compliance wants an automagic return because the taxpayer might simply assume that the system has been beaten and accept an improper return .
The taxpayer advocate already stated last year that W-2 and 1099 matching is not occuring on a timely basis.I find it doubtful that the IRS could handle a secure online system which would have the W-2 and 1099 information available for access online in a pseudo return preparation scheme .
Name variations and social security number issues also contribute to problems .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The NY Times is actually discussing an article as published by NY and California regarding their easy return systems.
These systems are designed for people to claim the EIC.
These returns are met for people who not actually paid taxes to receive refunds.No one in compliance wants an automagic return because the taxpayer might simply assume that the system has been beaten and accept an improper return.
The taxpayer advocate already stated last year that W-2 and 1099 matching is not occuring on a timely basis.I find it doubtful that the IRS could handle a secure online system which would have the W-2 and 1099 information available for access online in a pseudo return preparation scheme.
Name variations and social security number issues also contribute to problems.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30879612</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30929554</id>
	<title>Re:Fair Tax</title>
	<author>stonewallred</author>
	<datestamp>1264613100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>"The biggest reason for the Revolution in the first place was back-breaking taxes."- ROFLMFAOUIP
That back breaking set of taxes that sparked the American Revolution, had men pledging their lives, honor and fortunes, was a whopping 2\%. Wonder what they would think about the approximately 40\% we pay today?</htmltext>
<tokenext>" The biggest reason for the Revolution in the first place was back-breaking taxes .
" - ROFLMFAOUIP That back breaking set of taxes that sparked the American Revolution , had men pledging their lives , honor and fortunes , was a whopping 2 \ % .
Wonder what they would think about the approximately 40 \ % we pay today ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"The biggest reason for the Revolution in the first place was back-breaking taxes.
"- ROFLMFAOUIP
That back breaking set of taxes that sparked the American Revolution, had men pledging their lives, honor and fortunes, was a whopping 2\%.
Wonder what they would think about the approximately 40\% we pay today?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30880898</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30887030</id>
	<title>Works fine in South Africa</title>
	<author>burisch\_research</author>
	<datestamp>1264451760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The employer submits PAYE data to the South African Revenue Service (SARS). Once registered as a tax payer, all you need to do is sign in to the online portal, and click a button accepting the pre-prepared return. End of story. Tax refund (if applicable) is transferred to your account by EFT within a week. No fuss, no mess, no hassle. What a pleasure.</p><p>If you have additional items to declare, you simply enter the details online, posting supporting documentation if necessary. Again, minimal fuss.</p><p>Strikes me as truly insane that while most of Europe, and 'third-world' countries like SA, can get this right -- the USA, which supposedly is one of the most IT-savvy countries in the world, is still in the dark ages of taxation.</p><p>Seems we have a new category of monopolistic industry in USA -- "Big Tax" !</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The employer submits PAYE data to the South African Revenue Service ( SARS ) .
Once registered as a tax payer , all you need to do is sign in to the online portal , and click a button accepting the pre-prepared return .
End of story .
Tax refund ( if applicable ) is transferred to your account by EFT within a week .
No fuss , no mess , no hassle .
What a pleasure.If you have additional items to declare , you simply enter the details online , posting supporting documentation if necessary .
Again , minimal fuss.Strikes me as truly insane that while most of Europe , and 'third-world ' countries like SA , can get this right -- the USA , which supposedly is one of the most IT-savvy countries in the world , is still in the dark ages of taxation.Seems we have a new category of monopolistic industry in USA -- " Big Tax " !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The employer submits PAYE data to the South African Revenue Service (SARS).
Once registered as a tax payer, all you need to do is sign in to the online portal, and click a button accepting the pre-prepared return.
End of story.
Tax refund (if applicable) is transferred to your account by EFT within a week.
No fuss, no mess, no hassle.
What a pleasure.If you have additional items to declare, you simply enter the details online, posting supporting documentation if necessary.
Again, minimal fuss.Strikes me as truly insane that while most of Europe, and 'third-world' countries like SA, can get this right -- the USA, which supposedly is one of the most IT-savvy countries in the world, is still in the dark ages of taxation.Seems we have a new category of monopolistic industry in USA -- "Big Tax" !</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30879744</id>
	<title>Article is about the USA, UK does this already</title>
	<author>StrawberryFrog</author>
	<datestamp>1264358460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Why, if your needs are simple, can't you just download forms pre-filled with whatever data the IRS has received about you, make any necessary adjustments, and automatically get the IRS calculation of your taxes</i></p><p>But IRS does more than this - if your employment is simple, you don't have to fill in any forms at all.</p><p>oh, wrong country.</p><p>Well, it's a good question - why can't your IRS <b>also</b> do this?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why , if your needs are simple , ca n't you just download forms pre-filled with whatever data the IRS has received about you , make any necessary adjustments , and automatically get the IRS calculation of your taxesBut IRS does more than this - if your employment is simple , you do n't have to fill in any forms at all.oh , wrong country.Well , it 's a good question - why ca n't your IRS also do this ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why, if your needs are simple, can't you just download forms pre-filled with whatever data the IRS has received about you, make any necessary adjustments, and automatically get the IRS calculation of your taxesBut IRS does more than this - if your employment is simple, you don't have to fill in any forms at all.oh, wrong country.Well, it's a good question - why can't your IRS also do this?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30880994</id>
	<title>Re:legitimacy of Taxes</title>
	<author>selven</author>
	<datestamp>1264364340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The state is an organism, and you are a cell in it.</p> </div><p>That attitude is a relic of communism and fascism and has no place in a free society.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>You have some freedom to move in it, but it constrains you somewhat and demands that some of your work work for its purposes too.</p></div><p>You don't understand. You are not a cog in a machine, you are an individual. The government works for YOU. You pay the government a fee, just like you pay a restaurant a fee for the service of bringing you food, and the government helps you. If you live in the forest and use no services, you can pay no taxes.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The state is an organism , and you are a cell in it .
That attitude is a relic of communism and fascism and has no place in a free society.You have some freedom to move in it , but it constrains you somewhat and demands that some of your work work for its purposes too.You do n't understand .
You are not a cog in a machine , you are an individual .
The government works for YOU .
You pay the government a fee , just like you pay a restaurant a fee for the service of bringing you food , and the government helps you .
If you live in the forest and use no services , you can pay no taxes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The state is an organism, and you are a cell in it.
That attitude is a relic of communism and fascism and has no place in a free society.You have some freedom to move in it, but it constrains you somewhat and demands that some of your work work for its purposes too.You don't understand.
You are not a cog in a machine, you are an individual.
The government works for YOU.
You pay the government a fee, just like you pay a restaurant a fee for the service of bringing you food, and the government helps you.
If you live in the forest and use no services, you can pay no taxes.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30880656</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30879730</id>
	<title>It's very possible</title>
	<author>JoostT</author>
	<datestamp>1264358340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>At least in the Netherlands. We have digital form, that downloads the data the goverment posseses when you start it up with your social security number. The conflict of interest line is bullshit to me: You only get the figures the goverment got from banks and employers, nothing more (or less). Works like a charm, I get my taxes done (and those of my wife) in about an hour. (And businesses are required to use a digital tax return and all vendors of accounting software can file a tax return from within the accounting software, this is not exactly rocketscience. Intuit should be the one asking for a facillity to make this possible in their program)</p><p>Joost</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>At least in the Netherlands .
We have digital form , that downloads the data the goverment posseses when you start it up with your social security number .
The conflict of interest line is bullshit to me : You only get the figures the goverment got from banks and employers , nothing more ( or less ) .
Works like a charm , I get my taxes done ( and those of my wife ) in about an hour .
( And businesses are required to use a digital tax return and all vendors of accounting software can file a tax return from within the accounting software , this is not exactly rocketscience .
Intuit should be the one asking for a facillity to make this possible in their program ) Joost</tokentext>
<sentencetext>At least in the Netherlands.
We have digital form, that downloads the data the goverment posseses when you start it up with your social security number.
The conflict of interest line is bullshit to me: You only get the figures the goverment got from banks and employers, nothing more (or less).
Works like a charm, I get my taxes done (and those of my wife) in about an hour.
(And businesses are required to use a digital tax return and all vendors of accounting software can file a tax return from within the accounting software, this is not exactly rocketscience.
Intuit should be the one asking for a facillity to make this possible in their program)Joost</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30881958</id>
	<title>Re:This is how it's done where I'm from...</title>
	<author>jonbryce</author>
	<datestamp>1264326660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You would need an accountant for each country.  As an accountant myself, it is hard enough to keep on top of the requirements for one country (UK in my case), never mind all the others.</p><p>I have some very limited experience of dealing with tax issues in Florida.  Not only are the rules for calculating tax different there, but the rules for calculating how much taxable income you earned is different.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You would need an accountant for each country .
As an accountant myself , it is hard enough to keep on top of the requirements for one country ( UK in my case ) , never mind all the others.I have some very limited experience of dealing with tax issues in Florida .
Not only are the rules for calculating tax different there , but the rules for calculating how much taxable income you earned is different .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You would need an accountant for each country.
As an accountant myself, it is hard enough to keep on top of the requirements for one country (UK in my case), never mind all the others.I have some very limited experience of dealing with tax issues in Florida.
Not only are the rules for calculating tax different there, but the rules for calculating how much taxable income you earned is different.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30879896</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30880146</id>
	<title>Re:Increases Fraud</title>
	<author>Comatose51</author>
	<datestamp>1264360380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Your point isn't bad but I think if you were the type that have serious finances to hide, you wouldn't be the type that would volunteer that kind of information regardless of pre-filled or not.  What I mean is that under the current system, you wouldn't reveal that information anyways if you had gone out of your way to hide it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Your point is n't bad but I think if you were the type that have serious finances to hide , you would n't be the type that would volunteer that kind of information regardless of pre-filled or not .
What I mean is that under the current system , you would n't reveal that information anyways if you had gone out of your way to hide it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Your point isn't bad but I think if you were the type that have serious finances to hide, you wouldn't be the type that would volunteer that kind of information regardless of pre-filled or not.
What I mean is that under the current system, you wouldn't reveal that information anyways if you had gone out of your way to hide it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30879842</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30880744</id>
	<title>Re:Tsk, tsk...</title>
	<author>smellotron</author>
	<datestamp>1264363020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Everybody's hot and bothered about the HOW, begging the question of the LEGITIMACY of taxes in the first place.</p></div>
</blockquote><p>
I like having roads and police officers and fire departments and ambulances and education being provided for <em>everyone</em>.  That money's gotta come from somewhere, and no matter when it comes from, it's going to be called "tax".
</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Everybody 's hot and bothered about the HOW , begging the question of the LEGITIMACY of taxes in the first place .
I like having roads and police officers and fire departments and ambulances and education being provided for everyone .
That money 's got ta come from somewhere , and no matter when it comes from , it 's going to be called " tax " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Everybody's hot and bothered about the HOW, begging the question of the LEGITIMACY of taxes in the first place.
I like having roads and police officers and fire departments and ambulances and education being provided for everyone.
That money's gotta come from somewhere, and no matter when it comes from, it's going to be called "tax".

	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30880068</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.31014952</id>
	<title>Re:Intuit are evil ...</title>
	<author>wwphx</author>
	<datestamp>1264933020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If you're on a Mac, you might check out iBank (http://www.iggsoftware.com/).  I don't know what alternatives exist in the Windows sphere.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If you 're on a Mac , you might check out iBank ( http : //www.iggsoftware.com/ ) .
I do n't know what alternatives exist in the Windows sphere .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you're on a Mac, you might check out iBank (http://www.iggsoftware.com/).
I don't know what alternatives exist in the Windows sphere.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30880668</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30882482</id>
	<title>Re:people are lazy</title>
	<author>Bert64</author>
	<datestamp>1264329600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If the government makes an error, then they will make the same error when reviewing whatever tax returns you file under the current system...<br>Then you will be faced with an audit, and having to prove them wrong.</p><p>Anyone who wants to argue with the government is still free to do so, and audits could still be performed at random or based on suspicious filings. Most people have relatively simple affairs, and the government should get their taxes just right saving everyone a lot of hassle.</p><p>Intuit is just looking to protect their revenue stream at the expense of both taxpayers and the government.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If the government makes an error , then they will make the same error when reviewing whatever tax returns you file under the current system...Then you will be faced with an audit , and having to prove them wrong.Anyone who wants to argue with the government is still free to do so , and audits could still be performed at random or based on suspicious filings .
Most people have relatively simple affairs , and the government should get their taxes just right saving everyone a lot of hassle.Intuit is just looking to protect their revenue stream at the expense of both taxpayers and the government .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If the government makes an error, then they will make the same error when reviewing whatever tax returns you file under the current system...Then you will be faced with an audit, and having to prove them wrong.Anyone who wants to argue with the government is still free to do so, and audits could still be performed at random or based on suspicious filings.
Most people have relatively simple affairs, and the government should get their taxes just right saving everyone a lot of hassle.Intuit is just looking to protect their revenue stream at the expense of both taxpayers and the government.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30879640</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30879638</id>
	<title>works fine in Sweden</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264357920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>pre-filled tax forms that you only have to sign and return have worked well here in Sweden for years, no conflict of interest at all. A couple of years ago, they even started with an SMS option, where you just can "ok" your pre filled tax form with an SMS code. <br> <br> If you want to add information, you can just fill in your own form and send it in, but I think its pretty common to just use the pre-filled tax form.</htmltext>
<tokenext>pre-filled tax forms that you only have to sign and return have worked well here in Sweden for years , no conflict of interest at all .
A couple of years ago , they even started with an SMS option , where you just can " ok " your pre filled tax form with an SMS code .
If you want to add information , you can just fill in your own form and send it in , but I think its pretty common to just use the pre-filled tax form .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>pre-filled tax forms that you only have to sign and return have worked well here in Sweden for years, no conflict of interest at all.
A couple of years ago, they even started with an SMS option, where you just can "ok" your pre filled tax form with an SMS code.
If you want to add information, you can just fill in your own form and send it in, but I think its pretty common to just use the pre-filled tax form.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30882080</id>
	<title>Re:UK Tax Returns</title>
	<author>redbadger27</author>
	<datestamp>1264327440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>even if you are higher-rate tax-payer you do not necessarily need to fill out a tax return form.  It's normally only if you are both a higher-rate tax-payer AND have more than one source of income (more than your PAYE source) e.g. significant savings/investment income which is usually taxed at standard rate at source, a second job, property income, pension income etc etc</p><p>When I became a higher-rate tax payer they asked me to fill out a form every year for about 10 years until it dawned on them it probably cost them more to process my form than they got from the additional tax I paid on my limited savings.  So they sent me a letter effectively saying "please don't send us another tax return unless we ask you to or unless your circumstances change".  Suits me!</p><p>See, sometimes governments do act sensibly! (only took them 10 years to notice!)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>even if you are higher-rate tax-payer you do not necessarily need to fill out a tax return form .
It 's normally only if you are both a higher-rate tax-payer AND have more than one source of income ( more than your PAYE source ) e.g .
significant savings/investment income which is usually taxed at standard rate at source , a second job , property income , pension income etc etcWhen I became a higher-rate tax payer they asked me to fill out a form every year for about 10 years until it dawned on them it probably cost them more to process my form than they got from the additional tax I paid on my limited savings .
So they sent me a letter effectively saying " please do n't send us another tax return unless we ask you to or unless your circumstances change " .
Suits me ! See , sometimes governments do act sensibly !
( only took them 10 years to notice !
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>even if you are higher-rate tax-payer you do not necessarily need to fill out a tax return form.
It's normally only if you are both a higher-rate tax-payer AND have more than one source of income (more than your PAYE source) e.g.
significant savings/investment income which is usually taxed at standard rate at source, a second job, property income, pension income etc etcWhen I became a higher-rate tax payer they asked me to fill out a form every year for about 10 years until it dawned on them it probably cost them more to process my form than they got from the additional tax I paid on my limited savings.
So they sent me a letter effectively saying "please don't send us another tax return unless we ask you to or unless your circumstances change".
Suits me!See, sometimes governments do act sensibly!
(only took them 10 years to notice!
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30879878</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30881010</id>
	<title>Re:This is how it's done where I'm from...</title>
	<author>priegog</author>
	<datestamp>1264364460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yup, same thing here in Spain...
What I wonder is what do these people who speak against this sort of progress (National Healthcare, pre-filled tax sheets, etc) think about Europe (or the rest of the industrialized world, for that matter)?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yup , same thing here in Spain.. . What I wonder is what do these people who speak against this sort of progress ( National Healthcare , pre-filled tax sheets , etc ) think about Europe ( or the rest of the industrialized world , for that matter ) ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yup, same thing here in Spain...
What I wonder is what do these people who speak against this sort of progress (National Healthcare, pre-filled tax sheets, etc) think about Europe (or the rest of the industrialized world, for that matter)?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30879612</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30879624</id>
	<title>In Holland they already do</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264357860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In Holland they already do that. You only have to change everything that you think is incorrect.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In Holland they already do that .
You only have to change everything that you think is incorrect .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In Holland they already do that.
You only have to change everything that you think is incorrect.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30880234</id>
	<title>Re:This is how it's done where I'm from...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264360740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>I've been saying this since I started paying taxes... <br> <br>

I make X number of dollars, which means I owe Y\% of that in tax, I've had Z dollars withheld from paychecks, so I owe at this time X*Y\%-Z.  Send me a bill or a refund.  Why they make it so complicated, I have no idea.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've been saying this since I started paying taxes.. . I make X number of dollars , which means I owe Y \ % of that in tax , I 've had Z dollars withheld from paychecks , so I owe at this time X * Y \ % -Z .
Send me a bill or a refund .
Why they make it so complicated , I have no idea .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've been saying this since I started paying taxes...  

I make X number of dollars, which means I owe Y\% of that in tax, I've had Z dollars withheld from paychecks, so I owe at this time X*Y\%-Z.
Send me a bill or a refund.
Why they make it so complicated, I have no idea.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30879612</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30881782</id>
	<title>Re:Just have an energy tax</title>
	<author>bnenning</author>
	<datestamp>1264325400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It should be a tax on pollution rather than energy in general, but yes that's a good idea. We should tax things that are bad or at least neutral, but our current system taxes good things like salaries, investments, and profits.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It should be a tax on pollution rather than energy in general , but yes that 's a good idea .
We should tax things that are bad or at least neutral , but our current system taxes good things like salaries , investments , and profits .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It should be a tax on pollution rather than energy in general, but yes that's a good idea.
We should tax things that are bad or at least neutral, but our current system taxes good things like salaries, investments, and profits.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30880150</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30879878</id>
	<title>UK Tax Returns</title>
	<author>nanoakron</author>
	<datestamp>1264359180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Here in the UK, most people pay tax through the PAYE (Pay-As-You-Earn) scheme. The only people who regularly don't are the self-employed.</p><p>This means that the majority of the working population NEVER need to file tax returns.</p><p>However, some people do regularly file tax returns -</p><p>1. People asked to do so through random audit<br>2. If you are considered a 'high-rate' taxpayer (meaning you earn more than about &pound;36,000pa).</p><p>But, you can elect to file a tax return even if you earn less than the 'high-rate', and you can often get some money back for overpayments.</p><p>I still can't believe the amount of hassle you have to go through in the US each year when it comes to tax-time.</p><p>-Nano.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Here in the UK , most people pay tax through the PAYE ( Pay-As-You-Earn ) scheme .
The only people who regularly do n't are the self-employed.This means that the majority of the working population NEVER need to file tax returns.However , some people do regularly file tax returns -1 .
People asked to do so through random audit2 .
If you are considered a 'high-rate ' taxpayer ( meaning you earn more than about   36,000pa ) .But , you can elect to file a tax return even if you earn less than the 'high-rate ' , and you can often get some money back for overpayments.I still ca n't believe the amount of hassle you have to go through in the US each year when it comes to tax-time.-Nano .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Here in the UK, most people pay tax through the PAYE (Pay-As-You-Earn) scheme.
The only people who regularly don't are the self-employed.This means that the majority of the working population NEVER need to file tax returns.However, some people do regularly file tax returns -1.
People asked to do so through random audit2.
If you are considered a 'high-rate' taxpayer (meaning you earn more than about £36,000pa).But, you can elect to file a tax return even if you earn less than the 'high-rate', and you can often get some money back for overpayments.I still can't believe the amount of hassle you have to go through in the US each year when it comes to tax-time.-Nano.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30880656</id>
	<title>Re:legitimacy of Taxes</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264362660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Legitimacy is not a terribly useful or operational concept, being so subjective.</p><p>Tax is a compelled flow of work or work product from a semi-autonomous part (person/corporation) to a whole (government organization). It says to the part "You will direct to me in a usable form a fractional part of the result of your use of energy." The social contract trades this energy tribute for security and norms-enforcement services, and other globally organized services provided back to parts to tame their environment and lower their energy requirements for surviving in it.<br>The social contract is enforced with the grudging assent of the majority of the parts, because it enables prevention of energy-wasting social friction, and assists in the regulation of trust-and-convention-based economic co-operation among the parts. That regulated economic cooperation generates more wealth, which, through the tax portion, empowers the whole in a (virtuous) circle. The state is an organism, and you are a cell in it. You have some freedom to move in it, but it constrains you somewhat and demands that some of your work work for its purposes too. It is all for your own good (on average, measured as energy requirements per unit of survival/reproduction probability for the parts.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Legitimacy is not a terribly useful or operational concept , being so subjective.Tax is a compelled flow of work or work product from a semi-autonomous part ( person/corporation ) to a whole ( government organization ) .
It says to the part " You will direct to me in a usable form a fractional part of the result of your use of energy .
" The social contract trades this energy tribute for security and norms-enforcement services , and other globally organized services provided back to parts to tame their environment and lower their energy requirements for surviving in it.The social contract is enforced with the grudging assent of the majority of the parts , because it enables prevention of energy-wasting social friction , and assists in the regulation of trust-and-convention-based economic co-operation among the parts .
That regulated economic cooperation generates more wealth , which , through the tax portion , empowers the whole in a ( virtuous ) circle .
The state is an organism , and you are a cell in it .
You have some freedom to move in it , but it constrains you somewhat and demands that some of your work work for its purposes too .
It is all for your own good ( on average , measured as energy requirements per unit of survival/reproduction probability for the parts .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Legitimacy is not a terribly useful or operational concept, being so subjective.Tax is a compelled flow of work or work product from a semi-autonomous part (person/corporation) to a whole (government organization).
It says to the part "You will direct to me in a usable form a fractional part of the result of your use of energy.
" The social contract trades this energy tribute for security and norms-enforcement services, and other globally organized services provided back to parts to tame their environment and lower their energy requirements for surviving in it.The social contract is enforced with the grudging assent of the majority of the parts, because it enables prevention of energy-wasting social friction, and assists in the regulation of trust-and-convention-based economic co-operation among the parts.
That regulated economic cooperation generates more wealth, which, through the tax portion, empowers the whole in a (virtuous) circle.
The state is an organism, and you are a cell in it.
You have some freedom to move in it, but it constrains you somewhat and demands that some of your work work for its purposes too.
It is all for your own good (on average, measured as energy requirements per unit of survival/reproduction probability for the parts.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30880068</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30884604</id>
	<title>Re:Fair Tax</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264343760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A consumption tax, even with refunds/credits for "the poor", is still an unfair tax (and with refunds it is a difficult tax, and one up for abuse by the government in power handing out the refunds/credits).</p><p>Instead, a wealth tax - and only a wealth tax - is the fairest of all, because it drives capitalism, and capitalism drives wealth. If all assets - be they cash, stocks, bonds, or property of any kind - were taxed, people would only pay according to what they managed to accumulate. If you only had a rented apartment and chattel, you'd have nothing to pay. You could spend all your money, drive capitalism, and pay no tax. The owners of the companies you buy from would make more money, and would either have to spend it (once again driving capitalism) or pay taxes on the savings (once only - whether in a corporation or distributed as dividends). This is the fairest, most dynamic system, and the most appropriate for the type of economy we have chosen to live under.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A consumption tax , even with refunds/credits for " the poor " , is still an unfair tax ( and with refunds it is a difficult tax , and one up for abuse by the government in power handing out the refunds/credits ) .Instead , a wealth tax - and only a wealth tax - is the fairest of all , because it drives capitalism , and capitalism drives wealth .
If all assets - be they cash , stocks , bonds , or property of any kind - were taxed , people would only pay according to what they managed to accumulate .
If you only had a rented apartment and chattel , you 'd have nothing to pay .
You could spend all your money , drive capitalism , and pay no tax .
The owners of the companies you buy from would make more money , and would either have to spend it ( once again driving capitalism ) or pay taxes on the savings ( once only - whether in a corporation or distributed as dividends ) .
This is the fairest , most dynamic system , and the most appropriate for the type of economy we have chosen to live under .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A consumption tax, even with refunds/credits for "the poor", is still an unfair tax (and with refunds it is a difficult tax, and one up for abuse by the government in power handing out the refunds/credits).Instead, a wealth tax - and only a wealth tax - is the fairest of all, because it drives capitalism, and capitalism drives wealth.
If all assets - be they cash, stocks, bonds, or property of any kind - were taxed, people would only pay according to what they managed to accumulate.
If you only had a rented apartment and chattel, you'd have nothing to pay.
You could spend all your money, drive capitalism, and pay no tax.
The owners of the companies you buy from would make more money, and would either have to spend it (once again driving capitalism) or pay taxes on the savings (once only - whether in a corporation or distributed as dividends).
This is the fairest, most dynamic system, and the most appropriate for the type of economy we have chosen to live under.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30880788</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30879944</id>
	<title>Re:Conflict?</title>
	<author>nbauman</author>
	<datestamp>1264359600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/all\_summary.php?id=D000026667&amp;nid=3868" title="opensecrets.org">http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/all\_summary.php?id=D000026667&amp;nid=3868</a> [opensecrets.org]</p><p>Intuit Inc</p><p>Rank: 598th<br>2008 total combined contributions: $818,259<br>2008 federal-level contributions: $394,475<br>2008 state-level contributions: $423,784</p><p>That's a pretty good return on the dollar.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //www.opensecrets.org/orgs/all \ _summary.php ? id = D000026667&amp;nid = 3868 [ opensecrets.org ] Intuit IncRank : 598th2008 total combined contributions : $ 818,2592008 federal-level contributions : $ 394,4752008 state-level contributions : $ 423,784That 's a pretty good return on the dollar .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/all\_summary.php?id=D000026667&amp;nid=3868 [opensecrets.org]Intuit IncRank: 598th2008 total combined contributions: $818,2592008 federal-level contributions: $394,4752008 state-level contributions: $423,784That's a pretty good return on the dollar.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30879772</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30880258</id>
	<title>Intuit Isn't the Only Problem</title>
	<author>CodeBuster</author>
	<datestamp>1264360920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>The tax filing and preparation industry, of which Intuit is a part, has long been an obstacle to any change in the tax code that would serve to simplify and reduce the need for their services. However, they are far from the only special interest group with an incentive to keep the US Tax code as complex, opaque, and unintuitive as possible. The tax attorneys who help the wealthy arrange their affairs to minimize taxes under the complex rules, the Federal Law Enforcement agencies who periodically use the tax code as a tool to prosecute those who they cannot otherwise charge (i.e. organized crime, income from illegal activities, etc) and of course the tax accountants who work at all levels as guides through the byzantine labyrinth of the US tax codes. Each of these groups, and especially the attorneys (who are the number 1 contributors to the Democratic Party btw), lobbies vigorously against any change in the law which they perceive to be a threat to their ongoing and profitable stream of revenue. Few things in life are as certain as death and taxes after all and one would be hard pressed to think of a more stable source of revenue, as an attorney or tax industry insider, than a system mandated by the Federal Government that every American must use at least once per year.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The tax filing and preparation industry , of which Intuit is a part , has long been an obstacle to any change in the tax code that would serve to simplify and reduce the need for their services .
However , they are far from the only special interest group with an incentive to keep the US Tax code as complex , opaque , and unintuitive as possible .
The tax attorneys who help the wealthy arrange their affairs to minimize taxes under the complex rules , the Federal Law Enforcement agencies who periodically use the tax code as a tool to prosecute those who they can not otherwise charge ( i.e .
organized crime , income from illegal activities , etc ) and of course the tax accountants who work at all levels as guides through the byzantine labyrinth of the US tax codes .
Each of these groups , and especially the attorneys ( who are the number 1 contributors to the Democratic Party btw ) , lobbies vigorously against any change in the law which they perceive to be a threat to their ongoing and profitable stream of revenue .
Few things in life are as certain as death and taxes after all and one would be hard pressed to think of a more stable source of revenue , as an attorney or tax industry insider , than a system mandated by the Federal Government that every American must use at least once per year .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The tax filing and preparation industry, of which Intuit is a part, has long been an obstacle to any change in the tax code that would serve to simplify and reduce the need for their services.
However, they are far from the only special interest group with an incentive to keep the US Tax code as complex, opaque, and unintuitive as possible.
The tax attorneys who help the wealthy arrange their affairs to minimize taxes under the complex rules, the Federal Law Enforcement agencies who periodically use the tax code as a tool to prosecute those who they cannot otherwise charge (i.e.
organized crime, income from illegal activities, etc) and of course the tax accountants who work at all levels as guides through the byzantine labyrinth of the US tax codes.
Each of these groups, and especially the attorneys (who are the number 1 contributors to the Democratic Party btw), lobbies vigorously against any change in the law which they perceive to be a threat to their ongoing and profitable stream of revenue.
Few things in life are as certain as death and taxes after all and one would be hard pressed to think of a more stable source of revenue, as an attorney or tax industry insider, than a system mandated by the Federal Government that every American must use at least once per year.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30883996</id>
	<title>Re:Conflict?</title>
	<author>demonlapin</author>
	<datestamp>1264339200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You are correct. The requirement that you use some other provider to submit info to the IRS was what kept me from using the free services in the past, when I was poor enough to qualify.  Now I no longer qualify, but I haven't had a big income long enough to have accumulated a complicated tax situation (it's all W2 income, I have a house and student loans but no kids or current education expenses).</htmltext>
<tokenext>You are correct .
The requirement that you use some other provider to submit info to the IRS was what kept me from using the free services in the past , when I was poor enough to qualify .
Now I no longer qualify , but I have n't had a big income long enough to have accumulated a complicated tax situation ( it 's all W2 income , I have a house and student loans but no kids or current education expenses ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You are correct.
The requirement that you use some other provider to submit info to the IRS was what kept me from using the free services in the past, when I was poor enough to qualify.
Now I no longer qualify, but I haven't had a big income long enough to have accumulated a complicated tax situation (it's all W2 income, I have a house and student loans but no kids or current education expenses).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30882252</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30885152</id>
	<title>Re:Conflict?</title>
	<author>zippthorne</author>
	<datestamp>1264347300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yeah, the phone company sends a bill, and if you pay it in full you've satisfied your obligation.  The government doesn't sent a bill, but you're supposed to figure it out all on your own, and if you make any mistakes, you might be liable for far more than your mistake was worth.</p><p>Government already has a mondo conflict of interest: writing the tax laws and collecting the taxes...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , the phone company sends a bill , and if you pay it in full you 've satisfied your obligation .
The government does n't sent a bill , but you 're supposed to figure it out all on your own , and if you make any mistakes , you might be liable for far more than your mistake was worth.Government already has a mondo conflict of interest : writing the tax laws and collecting the taxes.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, the phone company sends a bill, and if you pay it in full you've satisfied your obligation.
The government doesn't sent a bill, but you're supposed to figure it out all on your own, and if you make any mistakes, you might be liable for far more than your mistake was worth.Government already has a mondo conflict of interest: writing the tax laws and collecting the taxes...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30880112</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30880018</id>
	<title>In US private companies do this, only gov't can't</title>
	<author>perpenso</author>
	<datestamp>1264359900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>In the US private companies are able to fill in your data electronically.  Your employer, banks, etc can download their data (essentially the forms the IRS has them mail to you) directly into your tax preparation software.  It is only the gov't that finds such things infeasible.<br>

<br>
--<br>
<a href="http://www.perpenso.com/calc/" title="perpenso.com" rel="nofollow">Perpenso Calc</a> [perpenso.com] for iPhone and iPod touch, scientific and bill/tip calculator, fractions, complex numbers, RPN</htmltext>
<tokenext>In the US private companies are able to fill in your data electronically .
Your employer , banks , etc can download their data ( essentially the forms the IRS has them mail to you ) directly into your tax preparation software .
It is only the gov't that finds such things infeasible .
-- Perpenso Calc [ perpenso.com ] for iPhone and iPod touch , scientific and bill/tip calculator , fractions , complex numbers , RPN</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In the US private companies are able to fill in your data electronically.
Your employer, banks, etc can download their data (essentially the forms the IRS has them mail to you) directly into your tax preparation software.
It is only the gov't that finds such things infeasible.
--
Perpenso Calc [perpenso.com] for iPhone and iPod touch, scientific and bill/tip calculator, fractions, complex numbers, RPN</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30879612</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30879888</id>
	<title>Re:people are lazy</title>
	<author>AnonymousCactus</author>
	<datestamp>1264359300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
I have no problem with people paying more if they are lazy.
</p><p>
I'm also pragmatic - most people are probably too lazy to truly review the the information sent to them anyway.
</p><p>
Do you double-check your W2's against your pay stubs?  Most people don't.
</p><p>
It might end up being more fair, if the government does it, they might end up being responsible for ensuring you don't get totally screwed.  Right now, you're the only one responsible for that.
</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have no problem with people paying more if they are lazy .
I 'm also pragmatic - most people are probably too lazy to truly review the the information sent to them anyway .
Do you double-check your W2 's against your pay stubs ?
Most people do n't .
It might end up being more fair , if the government does it , they might end up being responsible for ensuring you do n't get totally screwed .
Right now , you 're the only one responsible for that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
I have no problem with people paying more if they are lazy.
I'm also pragmatic - most people are probably too lazy to truly review the the information sent to them anyway.
Do you double-check your W2's against your pay stubs?
Most people don't.
It might end up being more fair, if the government does it, they might end up being responsible for ensuring you don't get totally screwed.
Right now, you're the only one responsible for that.
</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30879640</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30879772</id>
	<title>Re:Conflict?</title>
	<author>timeOday</author>
	<datestamp>1264358700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Oh yes, the tax preparation services will fight this tooth and nail.

<p>
Almost every year about this time I post some sort of rant about how wasteful it is that we don't even have a free, official online tax-filing website.  It would save filers tons of time, it would save the IRS tons of money.  But the tax preparers don't care about that (after all, $1 of intentional government inefficiency is 25 cents of income for them) and somehow, though I can't figure out how, this tiny special interest has the power to dictate government policy.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Oh yes , the tax preparation services will fight this tooth and nail .
Almost every year about this time I post some sort of rant about how wasteful it is that we do n't even have a free , official online tax-filing website .
It would save filers tons of time , it would save the IRS tons of money .
But the tax preparers do n't care about that ( after all , $ 1 of intentional government inefficiency is 25 cents of income for them ) and somehow , though I ca n't figure out how , this tiny special interest has the power to dictate government policy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oh yes, the tax preparation services will fight this tooth and nail.
Almost every year about this time I post some sort of rant about how wasteful it is that we don't even have a free, official online tax-filing website.
It would save filers tons of time, it would save the IRS tons of money.
But the tax preparers don't care about that (after all, $1 of intentional government inefficiency is 25 cents of income for them) and somehow, though I can't figure out how, this tiny special interest has the power to dictate government policy.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30879616</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30881282</id>
	<title>There's a way to find out what IRS knows.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264365960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We could all file FOIA requests.  In fact, that would be an excellent way to bring the IRS to a grinding halt, since they have to respond to them (it's the law).  If you just had a hundred thousand taxpayers filing FOIA requsts, IRS probably wouldn't have the manpower to conduct any audits.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We could all file FOIA requests .
In fact , that would be an excellent way to bring the IRS to a grinding halt , since they have to respond to them ( it 's the law ) .
If you just had a hundred thousand taxpayers filing FOIA requsts , IRS probably would n't have the manpower to conduct any audits .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We could all file FOIA requests.
In fact, that would be an excellent way to bring the IRS to a grinding halt, since they have to respond to them (it's the law).
If you just had a hundred thousand taxpayers filing FOIA requsts, IRS probably wouldn't have the manpower to conduct any audits.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30882794</id>
	<title>Re:An invitation to defraud</title>
	<author>Bert64</author>
	<datestamp>1264331340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In the UK at least, you can only claim for travel to somewhere other than your normal place of work, where your normal place of work is detailed in your employment contract and must be where you spend more "working" time than any other single location.</p><p>Generally if you travel to other places for work purposes, the company will reimburse your travel costs anyway, and you are not liable for tax based on things you bought solely for work purposes (train tickets etc).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In the UK at least , you can only claim for travel to somewhere other than your normal place of work , where your normal place of work is detailed in your employment contract and must be where you spend more " working " time than any other single location.Generally if you travel to other places for work purposes , the company will reimburse your travel costs anyway , and you are not liable for tax based on things you bought solely for work purposes ( train tickets etc ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In the UK at least, you can only claim for travel to somewhere other than your normal place of work, where your normal place of work is detailed in your employment contract and must be where you spend more "working" time than any other single location.Generally if you travel to other places for work purposes, the company will reimburse your travel costs anyway, and you are not liable for tax based on things you bought solely for work purposes (train tickets etc).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30879914</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30880416</id>
	<title>Re:people are lazy</title>
	<author>pentalive</author>
	<datestamp>1264361580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>...accepting the government's proposal unseen, rather than reviewing it for mistakes</p></div><p>With the complexity of the tax code, you might not even know if the government had made a 'mistake' and forgot
some deduction you were entitled to or used the wrong number in some place.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>...accepting the government 's proposal unseen , rather than reviewing it for mistakesWith the complexity of the tax code , you might not even know if the government had made a 'mistake ' and forgot some deduction you were entitled to or used the wrong number in some place .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...accepting the government's proposal unseen, rather than reviewing it for mistakesWith the complexity of the tax code, you might not even know if the government had made a 'mistake' and forgot
some deduction you were entitled to or used the wrong number in some place.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30879640</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30879716</id>
	<title>Re:This is how it's done where I'm from...</title>
	<author>nedlohs</author>
	<datestamp>1264358340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Just wait until you do what I did and live in 4 different states in a year... Seriously 5 tax returns, some owed me, I owed some.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just wait until you do what I did and live in 4 different states in a year... Seriously 5 tax returns , some owed me , I owed some .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just wait until you do what I did and live in 4 different states in a year... Seriously 5 tax returns, some owed me, I owed some.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30879612</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30883890</id>
	<title>Re:UK Tax Returns</title>
	<author>ameoba</author>
	<datestamp>1264338480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Most people in the US also have taxes taken out of their paychecks throughout the year.  Filing your taxes at the end of the year just handles over/under-payment &amp; accounts from other sources of income and various sorts of deductions.  People make a big deal about it but, in all honesty, I've never had to spend more than about an hour on the process (single, one regular job, no significant investments).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Most people in the US also have taxes taken out of their paychecks throughout the year .
Filing your taxes at the end of the year just handles over/under-payment &amp; accounts from other sources of income and various sorts of deductions .
People make a big deal about it but , in all honesty , I 've never had to spend more than about an hour on the process ( single , one regular job , no significant investments ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Most people in the US also have taxes taken out of their paychecks throughout the year.
Filing your taxes at the end of the year just handles over/under-payment &amp; accounts from other sources of income and various sorts of deductions.
People make a big deal about it but, in all honesty, I've never had to spend more than about an hour on the process (single, one regular job, no significant investments).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30879878</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30881322</id>
	<title>I can give you a "for instance"</title>
	<author>smchris</author>
	<datestamp>1264366140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>But, on second thought, why bother with details?  I can't imagine the real-life combinatorics and the job programming that puppy of a database.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But , on second thought , why bother with details ?
I ca n't imagine the real-life combinatorics and the job programming that puppy of a database .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But, on second thought, why bother with details?
I can't imagine the real-life combinatorics and the job programming that puppy of a database.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30887906</id>
	<title>Re:</title>
	<author>clint999</author>
	<datestamp>1264419000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>In Finland you get a pre-filled tax sheet in the mail, you only have to return it if there are any changes you need to make. I'm currently living in the US, I find the amount of crap you need to go through to get your affairs in order absolutely stunning.Yeah, but we don't have to eat pickled herring, so it comes out even, really. And our movies are actually fun to watch.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>In Finland you get a pre-filled tax sheet in the mail , you only have to return it if there are any changes you need to make .
I 'm currently living in the US , I find the amount of crap you need to go through to get your affairs in order absolutely stunning.Yeah , but we do n't have to eat pickled herring , so it comes out even , really .
And our movies are actually fun to watch .
: )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In Finland you get a pre-filled tax sheet in the mail, you only have to return it if there are any changes you need to make.
I'm currently living in the US, I find the amount of crap you need to go through to get your affairs in order absolutely stunning.Yeah, but we don't have to eat pickled herring, so it comes out even, really.
And our movies are actually fun to watch.
:)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30879712</id>
	<title>Private monopoly?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264358280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't understand why americans (or at least some of them) defend that their own government, an organization which should at least in principle defend their own best interests, should just avoid providing any service which is remotely related to any offering made by a private entity.  I mean, if you happened to get together with a group of friends and decided to provide a service for free and some company happened to already provide it for a price would it made any sense to get people complain and whine about your free service just because a private company is already providing it?  That doesn't make sense to me.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't understand why americans ( or at least some of them ) defend that their own government , an organization which should at least in principle defend their own best interests , should just avoid providing any service which is remotely related to any offering made by a private entity .
I mean , if you happened to get together with a group of friends and decided to provide a service for free and some company happened to already provide it for a price would it made any sense to get people complain and whine about your free service just because a private company is already providing it ?
That does n't make sense to me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't understand why americans (or at least some of them) defend that their own government, an organization which should at least in principle defend their own best interests, should just avoid providing any service which is remotely related to any offering made by a private entity.
I mean, if you happened to get together with a group of friends and decided to provide a service for free and some company happened to already provide it for a price would it made any sense to get people complain and whine about your free service just because a private company is already providing it?
That doesn't make sense to me.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30879642</id>
	<title>We've had that for years in Norway</title>
	<author>TickTEC</author>
	<datestamp>1264357980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Here in Norway, if you feel you have nothing to add, you don't even have to return the papers.
Just sit back and relax.

I've never had to fill out anything.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Here in Norway , if you feel you have nothing to add , you do n't even have to return the papers .
Just sit back and relax .
I 've never had to fill out anything .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Here in Norway, if you feel you have nothing to add, you don't even have to return the papers.
Just sit back and relax.
I've never had to fill out anything.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30880084</id>
	<title>Re:Why they shouldn't..</title>
	<author>Zippy\_wonderslug</author>
	<datestamp>1264360140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What's the problem then? I see a boom in the population of the New England states with smaller ZIP Codes. Screw California and those digits that start with 9.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What 's the problem then ?
I see a boom in the population of the New England states with smaller ZIP Codes .
Screw California and those digits that start with 9 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What's the problem then?
I see a boom in the population of the New England states with smaller ZIP Codes.
Screw California and those digits that start with 9.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30879604</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30890124</id>
	<title>Re:This is how it's done where I'm from...</title>
	<author>ailnlv</author>
	<datestamp>1264435320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In Chile you open your browser, log in, click next a few times and then about two months later you get your tax return in your bank account and an email telling you that it's done.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In Chile you open your browser , log in , click next a few times and then about two months later you get your tax return in your bank account and an email telling you that it 's done .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In Chile you open your browser, log in, click next a few times and then about two months later you get your tax return in your bank account and an email telling you that it's done.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30879612</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30881812</id>
	<title>Re:Tsk, tsk...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264325640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Thank you thank you for using the term "begging the question" correctly, it's so tiresome to see people using it to mean "raising the question".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Thank you thank you for using the term " begging the question " correctly , it 's so tiresome to see people using it to mean " raising the question " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Thank you thank you for using the term "begging the question" correctly, it's so tiresome to see people using it to mean "raising the question".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30880068</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30885604</id>
	<title>Just shows corruption</title>
	<author>Billly Gates</author>
	<datestamp>1264351320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It is absolutely disgusting and shows yet again how corrupt and ineffective the American government is. What happened in Massachusetts shows how upset we are with American insurance companies, banks, and now this.</p><p>Vote out the incumbents in 2010!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It is absolutely disgusting and shows yet again how corrupt and ineffective the American government is .
What happened in Massachusetts shows how upset we are with American insurance companies , banks , and now this.Vote out the incumbents in 2010 !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It is absolutely disgusting and shows yet again how corrupt and ineffective the American government is.
What happened in Massachusetts shows how upset we are with American insurance companies, banks, and now this.Vote out the incumbents in 2010!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30880888</id>
	<title>Re:Tsk, tsk...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264363740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well, y'know, most of us are kind of content with having police, roads, public schools and so on. Some of us even think that taking from the rich to help the poor isn't so immoral.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , y'know , most of us are kind of content with having police , roads , public schools and so on .
Some of us even think that taking from the rich to help the poor is n't so immoral .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, y'know, most of us are kind of content with having police, roads, public schools and so on.
Some of us even think that taking from the rich to help the poor isn't so immoral.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30880068</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30880726</id>
	<title>Re:This is how it's done where I'm from...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264362960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There year I moved here I had to file forms for three of us in 9 jurisdictions.  That was 27 forms all subtly different and Intuit got most of them wrong.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There year I moved here I had to file forms for three of us in 9 jurisdictions .
That was 27 forms all subtly different and Intuit got most of them wrong .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There year I moved here I had to file forms for three of us in 9 jurisdictions.
That was 27 forms all subtly different and Intuit got most of them wrong.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30879716</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30880898</id>
	<title>Re:Fair Tax</title>
	<author>jimrthy</author>
	<datestamp>1264363740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It sounds like a good idea, but it's still snake oil.

1) It's written deceptively.  Everyone I know thinks 8\% sales tax means a $100 item costs $108.  8\% under the "fair tax" would cost ~$108.696.  It's been a while since I actually ran the numbers, but it's something like that.
2) The numbers are deceptively low.  It needs to be at least double what they're marketing it as to get into the ballpark of what people are paying as income tax now
3) You've already pointed out its biggest weakness: people are only taxed on what they spend.  When we go into a recession, people spend less.  Government income drops. Deficits rise, because government will never willingly cut its costs.  They require a stable tax base in order to maintain the charade of their utility.
4) Although it repeals all other forms of immediate taxation, it doesn't do anything to stop Congress from turning right back around and slapping those taxes right back down on us.  Which is exactly what would happen.  Unless it repeals the 16th Amendment, it's just another tax tacked onto what we're [Americans] are already paying.

The biggest reason for the Revolution in the first place was back-breaking taxes.  We're paying *way* more now than we were then.  The vast majority of us are paying more than medieval serfs did.  And all we're getting in return is wars in foreign lands that don't concern us and full body scans at the airports by idiots who are too stupid to manage a job in the real world.  Oh, and the highest per capita prison population on the planet (almost all for victimless crimes).

Why do we put up with it?


One friend has told me that he doesn't care, since he doesn't believe it affects him all that much.  Sadly, I think his apathy is the perfect example.  "The land of the free and the home of the brave" seems to have turned into "The land of flee and home of the slave," and we just seem to care about it all that much.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It sounds like a good idea , but it 's still snake oil .
1 ) It 's written deceptively .
Everyone I know thinks 8 \ % sales tax means a $ 100 item costs $ 108 .
8 \ % under the " fair tax " would cost ~ $ 108.696 .
It 's been a while since I actually ran the numbers , but it 's something like that .
2 ) The numbers are deceptively low .
It needs to be at least double what they 're marketing it as to get into the ballpark of what people are paying as income tax now 3 ) You 've already pointed out its biggest weakness : people are only taxed on what they spend .
When we go into a recession , people spend less .
Government income drops .
Deficits rise , because government will never willingly cut its costs .
They require a stable tax base in order to maintain the charade of their utility .
4 ) Although it repeals all other forms of immediate taxation , it does n't do anything to stop Congress from turning right back around and slapping those taxes right back down on us .
Which is exactly what would happen .
Unless it repeals the 16th Amendment , it 's just another tax tacked onto what we 're [ Americans ] are already paying .
The biggest reason for the Revolution in the first place was back-breaking taxes .
We 're paying * way * more now than we were then .
The vast majority of us are paying more than medieval serfs did .
And all we 're getting in return is wars in foreign lands that do n't concern us and full body scans at the airports by idiots who are too stupid to manage a job in the real world .
Oh , and the highest per capita prison population on the planet ( almost all for victimless crimes ) .
Why do we put up with it ?
One friend has told me that he does n't care , since he does n't believe it affects him all that much .
Sadly , I think his apathy is the perfect example .
" The land of the free and the home of the brave " seems to have turned into " The land of flee and home of the slave , " and we just seem to care about it all that much .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It sounds like a good idea, but it's still snake oil.
1) It's written deceptively.
Everyone I know thinks 8\% sales tax means a $100 item costs $108.
8\% under the "fair tax" would cost ~$108.696.
It's been a while since I actually ran the numbers, but it's something like that.
2) The numbers are deceptively low.
It needs to be at least double what they're marketing it as to get into the ballpark of what people are paying as income tax now
3) You've already pointed out its biggest weakness: people are only taxed on what they spend.
When we go into a recession, people spend less.
Government income drops.
Deficits rise, because government will never willingly cut its costs.
They require a stable tax base in order to maintain the charade of their utility.
4) Although it repeals all other forms of immediate taxation, it doesn't do anything to stop Congress from turning right back around and slapping those taxes right back down on us.
Which is exactly what would happen.
Unless it repeals the 16th Amendment, it's just another tax tacked onto what we're [Americans] are already paying.
The biggest reason for the Revolution in the first place was back-breaking taxes.
We're paying *way* more now than we were then.
The vast majority of us are paying more than medieval serfs did.
And all we're getting in return is wars in foreign lands that don't concern us and full body scans at the airports by idiots who are too stupid to manage a job in the real world.
Oh, and the highest per capita prison population on the planet (almost all for victimless crimes).
Why do we put up with it?
One friend has told me that he doesn't care, since he doesn't believe it affects him all that much.
Sadly, I think his apathy is the perfect example.
"The land of the free and the home of the brave" seems to have turned into "The land of flee and home of the slave," and we just seem to care about it all that much.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30879886</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30881528</id>
	<title>Re:Tsk, tsk...</title>
	<author>Facegarden</author>
	<datestamp>1264324140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Everybody's hot and bothered about the HOW, begging the question of the LEGITIMACY of taxes in the first place...</p></div><p>That's because that's a MUCH bigger question. People have been fighting the legitimacy of taxes for hundreds of years. That's not one with an easy answer (just go with that part) but having the government tell us what taxes we owe should make sense to EVERYONE. They certainly know if I get it wrong, so why the hell do I need to do it at all? I'm 25 and have filed taxes since I was 16. I've never needed to do anything but the basic stuff, aside from some education credits i got in college. I seriously wish they would just tell me what they thought i owed, and I could just verify if that is correct or not.</p><p>If intuit becomes irrelevant because of it, that's their own fucking fault. And honestly if they know how to adapt they'll be fine. They can offer more tax education services and help people with complex issues file their taxes. Of course they'd probably lose 98\% of their business, but that's the price of progress. Downsize and keep moving on. Sure they don't want it, but we sure as hell shouldn't have a less efficient country just to support obsolete businesses.<br>-Taylor</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Everybody 's hot and bothered about the HOW , begging the question of the LEGITIMACY of taxes in the first place...That 's because that 's a MUCH bigger question .
People have been fighting the legitimacy of taxes for hundreds of years .
That 's not one with an easy answer ( just go with that part ) but having the government tell us what taxes we owe should make sense to EVERYONE .
They certainly know if I get it wrong , so why the hell do I need to do it at all ?
I 'm 25 and have filed taxes since I was 16 .
I 've never needed to do anything but the basic stuff , aside from some education credits i got in college .
I seriously wish they would just tell me what they thought i owed , and I could just verify if that is correct or not.If intuit becomes irrelevant because of it , that 's their own fucking fault .
And honestly if they know how to adapt they 'll be fine .
They can offer more tax education services and help people with complex issues file their taxes .
Of course they 'd probably lose 98 \ % of their business , but that 's the price of progress .
Downsize and keep moving on .
Sure they do n't want it , but we sure as hell should n't have a less efficient country just to support obsolete businesses.-Taylor</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Everybody's hot and bothered about the HOW, begging the question of the LEGITIMACY of taxes in the first place...That's because that's a MUCH bigger question.
People have been fighting the legitimacy of taxes for hundreds of years.
That's not one with an easy answer (just go with that part) but having the government tell us what taxes we owe should make sense to EVERYONE.
They certainly know if I get it wrong, so why the hell do I need to do it at all?
I'm 25 and have filed taxes since I was 16.
I've never needed to do anything but the basic stuff, aside from some education credits i got in college.
I seriously wish they would just tell me what they thought i owed, and I could just verify if that is correct or not.If intuit becomes irrelevant because of it, that's their own fucking fault.
And honestly if they know how to adapt they'll be fine.
They can offer more tax education services and help people with complex issues file their taxes.
Of course they'd probably lose 98\% of their business, but that's the price of progress.
Downsize and keep moving on.
Sure they don't want it, but we sure as hell shouldn't have a less efficient country just to support obsolete businesses.-Taylor
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30880068</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30882464</id>
	<title>Re:people are lazy</title>
	<author>hedwards</author>
	<datestamp>1264329480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You make it sound like some sort of conspiracy. You'd still have the ability to go through and make corrections to it as you do now. Anybody that would be paying that much more on the new scheme was probably not doing a very good job of preparing their taxes previously. Suggesting that you stealing from me is OK, because ZOMG government taxation is childish at best.<br> <br>

Ultimately with the amount of money that the GoP has been willing to waste on stupid iniatives like the wars in Afghanistan and IRaq, not to mention abstinence only sex ed and tax breaks to the rich, conservatives have no right to complain about taxation rates being too low.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You make it sound like some sort of conspiracy .
You 'd still have the ability to go through and make corrections to it as you do now .
Anybody that would be paying that much more on the new scheme was probably not doing a very good job of preparing their taxes previously .
Suggesting that you stealing from me is OK , because ZOMG government taxation is childish at best .
Ultimately with the amount of money that the GoP has been willing to waste on stupid iniatives like the wars in Afghanistan and IRaq , not to mention abstinence only sex ed and tax breaks to the rich , conservatives have no right to complain about taxation rates being too low .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You make it sound like some sort of conspiracy.
You'd still have the ability to go through and make corrections to it as you do now.
Anybody that would be paying that much more on the new scheme was probably not doing a very good job of preparing their taxes previously.
Suggesting that you stealing from me is OK, because ZOMG government taxation is childish at best.
Ultimately with the amount of money that the GoP has been willing to waste on stupid iniatives like the wars in Afghanistan and IRaq, not to mention abstinence only sex ed and tax breaks to the rich, conservatives have no right to complain about taxation rates being too low.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30879640</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30883072</id>
	<title>Intuit has a valid point.</title>
	<author>Lord Kano</author>
	<datestamp>1264333380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It IS a conflict of interest for the Government to be involved in the preparation of tax returns. I don't know about you, but I don't want people with guns and the authority to use them to be the ones who tell me how much I am supposed to pay in taxes or how much I overpaid and they're giving back to me.</p><p>LK</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It IS a conflict of interest for the Government to be involved in the preparation of tax returns .
I do n't know about you , but I do n't want people with guns and the authority to use them to be the ones who tell me how much I am supposed to pay in taxes or how much I overpaid and they 're giving back to me.LK</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It IS a conflict of interest for the Government to be involved in the preparation of tax returns.
I don't know about you, but I don't want people with guns and the authority to use them to be the ones who tell me how much I am supposed to pay in taxes or how much I overpaid and they're giving back to me.LK</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30879826</id>
	<title>How could they justify an audit?</title>
	<author>LynnwoodRooster</author>
	<datestamp>1264358940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>After all, if the Government makes all the claims about you, and fills out your form, how can they hold you liable for their mistakes?  Makes getting people charged with tax fraud and perjury and threatening them with jail time if they do not pay up the dollars demanded pretty hard...</htmltext>
<tokenext>After all , if the Government makes all the claims about you , and fills out your form , how can they hold you liable for their mistakes ?
Makes getting people charged with tax fraud and perjury and threatening them with jail time if they do not pay up the dollars demanded pretty hard.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>After all, if the Government makes all the claims about you, and fills out your form, how can they hold you liable for their mistakes?
Makes getting people charged with tax fraud and perjury and threatening them with jail time if they do not pay up the dollars demanded pretty hard...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30897518</id>
	<title>Re:Conflict?</title>
	<author>Unequivocal</author>
	<datestamp>1264421520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'd love to see a tax on wealth as well as income, and throw away capital gains. Taxing wealth (assets) would encourage assets to be wisely invested to generate returns. It would also prevent rich people from sitting on their money, and it would tax according to your total net worth, rather than how much money you make (rewarding smart investments).</p><p>The Atlantic had an argument a while back on taxing only the unimproved value of land, which has merits also, but would be more radical politically.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'd love to see a tax on wealth as well as income , and throw away capital gains .
Taxing wealth ( assets ) would encourage assets to be wisely invested to generate returns .
It would also prevent rich people from sitting on their money , and it would tax according to your total net worth , rather than how much money you make ( rewarding smart investments ) .The Atlantic had an argument a while back on taxing only the unimproved value of land , which has merits also , but would be more radical politically .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'd love to see a tax on wealth as well as income, and throw away capital gains.
Taxing wealth (assets) would encourage assets to be wisely invested to generate returns.
It would also prevent rich people from sitting on their money, and it would tax according to your total net worth, rather than how much money you make (rewarding smart investments).The Atlantic had an argument a while back on taxing only the unimproved value of land, which has merits also, but would be more radical politically.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30880868</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30881524</id>
	<title>Re:Fair Tax</title>
	<author>bloobloo</author>
	<datestamp>1264324080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In a recession, spending doesn't necessarily go down. People will actually spend more on consumer durables as the utility they receive from them is greater than the (tiny) interest that they would get in the bank.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In a recession , spending does n't necessarily go down .
People will actually spend more on consumer durables as the utility they receive from them is greater than the ( tiny ) interest that they would get in the bank .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In a recession, spending doesn't necessarily go down.
People will actually spend more on consumer durables as the utility they receive from them is greater than the (tiny) interest that they would get in the bank.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30880898</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30883708</id>
	<title>Re:Intuit Isn't the Only Problem</title>
	<author>rcharbon</author>
	<datestamp>1264337280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>When a lot of money is involved, change is hard.  See "Health care, U.S.".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>When a lot of money is involved , change is hard .
See " Health care , U.S. " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When a lot of money is involved, change is hard.
See "Health care, U.S.".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30880258</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30880194</id>
	<title>What do you think happens today?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264360560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Look, it's not like the government takes <i>my</i> word for it on most of the numbers I submit, anyway.  If I put in the wrong number from my W-2 or W-9, they replace it with the right number, and either send me the bill or deduct from my account if I underpaid.  So if they were consistently lousy with their records, this would be happening all the time.</p><p>I once got a letter from the IRS informing me that I didn't report interest income from a bank account I forgot about because it had so little money in it, so since I'd payed by direct deposit they just deducted the $0.15 from my account.</p><p>Another time I got a digit wrong on my W-2 amount, and the IRS informed me that they'd corrected the amount and <i>credited</i> me with the $400 I didn't need to pay, and if I thought this was an error to please call them (even if I thought it was, would I?)  They do the same thing for math errors you make.</p><p>Anyway, my point is, for most of the basic things that you put on a 1040 in a boring year, the government <i>already knows</i> and more to the point <i>already considers the numbers they have to be authoritative</i> unless disputed.</p><p>So...  My employer and banks still send me the tax info they usually do, the gov sends me their numbers and calculated tax liability, and if it's all right -- which it probably will be, the gov gets their numbers from the same banks and employers I do after all -- then I just pay it and am done with it.  If it's not you do the 1040-Difficult like normal.  I'm not seeing the huge problem here.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Look , it 's not like the government takes my word for it on most of the numbers I submit , anyway .
If I put in the wrong number from my W-2 or W-9 , they replace it with the right number , and either send me the bill or deduct from my account if I underpaid .
So if they were consistently lousy with their records , this would be happening all the time.I once got a letter from the IRS informing me that I did n't report interest income from a bank account I forgot about because it had so little money in it , so since I 'd payed by direct deposit they just deducted the $ 0.15 from my account.Another time I got a digit wrong on my W-2 amount , and the IRS informed me that they 'd corrected the amount and credited me with the $ 400 I did n't need to pay , and if I thought this was an error to please call them ( even if I thought it was , would I ?
) They do the same thing for math errors you make.Anyway , my point is , for most of the basic things that you put on a 1040 in a boring year , the government already knows and more to the point already considers the numbers they have to be authoritative unless disputed.So... My employer and banks still send me the tax info they usually do , the gov sends me their numbers and calculated tax liability , and if it 's all right -- which it probably will be , the gov gets their numbers from the same banks and employers I do after all -- then I just pay it and am done with it .
If it 's not you do the 1040-Difficult like normal .
I 'm not seeing the huge problem here .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Look, it's not like the government takes my word for it on most of the numbers I submit, anyway.
If I put in the wrong number from my W-2 or W-9, they replace it with the right number, and either send me the bill or deduct from my account if I underpaid.
So if they were consistently lousy with their records, this would be happening all the time.I once got a letter from the IRS informing me that I didn't report interest income from a bank account I forgot about because it had so little money in it, so since I'd payed by direct deposit they just deducted the $0.15 from my account.Another time I got a digit wrong on my W-2 amount, and the IRS informed me that they'd corrected the amount and credited me with the $400 I didn't need to pay, and if I thought this was an error to please call them (even if I thought it was, would I?
)  They do the same thing for math errors you make.Anyway, my point is, for most of the basic things that you put on a 1040 in a boring year, the government already knows and more to the point already considers the numbers they have to be authoritative unless disputed.So...  My employer and banks still send me the tax info they usually do, the gov sends me their numbers and calculated tax liability, and if it's all right -- which it probably will be, the gov gets their numbers from the same banks and employers I do after all -- then I just pay it and am done with it.
If it's not you do the 1040-Difficult like normal.
I'm not seeing the huge problem here.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30879604</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30880670</id>
	<title>Re:What do you think happens today?</title>
	<author>TheRaven64</author>
	<datestamp>1264362720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Last year I made an error in my tax return.  Someone from HMRC (I'm in the UK) telephoned me, told me that they thought the numbers were wrong and told me what they should have been.  Given that they obviously already had these numbers, I didn't understand why they couldn't just print me a draft version and ask me to amend anything that I thought was wrong.  They don't even do this on the online version; I have to provide all of the information myself, even when it's things that they already have.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Last year I made an error in my tax return .
Someone from HMRC ( I 'm in the UK ) telephoned me , told me that they thought the numbers were wrong and told me what they should have been .
Given that they obviously already had these numbers , I did n't understand why they could n't just print me a draft version and ask me to amend anything that I thought was wrong .
They do n't even do this on the online version ; I have to provide all of the information myself , even when it 's things that they already have .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Last year I made an error in my tax return.
Someone from HMRC (I'm in the UK) telephoned me, told me that they thought the numbers were wrong and told me what they should have been.
Given that they obviously already had these numbers, I didn't understand why they couldn't just print me a draft version and ask me to amend anything that I thought was wrong.
They don't even do this on the online version; I have to provide all of the information myself, even when it's things that they already have.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30880194</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30880456</id>
	<title>Re:Fair Tax</title>
	<author>smellotron</author>
	<datestamp>1264361760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Why tax productive work? Why not tax consumption?</p></div></blockquote><p>

Probably because consumption-based taxes are regressive, <em>heavily</em> favoring the extremely wealthy as their consumption will be a lower percentage of their overall income.  Favoring them only makes sense if you believe that wealth is linearly proportional to effort/work/value.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why tax productive work ?
Why not tax consumption ?
Probably because consumption-based taxes are regressive , heavily favoring the extremely wealthy as their consumption will be a lower percentage of their overall income .
Favoring them only makes sense if you believe that wealth is linearly proportional to effort/work/value .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why tax productive work?
Why not tax consumption?
Probably because consumption-based taxes are regressive, heavily favoring the extremely wealthy as their consumption will be a lower percentage of their overall income.
Favoring them only makes sense if you believe that wealth is linearly proportional to effort/work/value.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30879886</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30882766</id>
	<title>Re:Conflict?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264331100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I get a personal property tax form from my county that identifies my vehicle. I also send them a check. Where's Intuit to fight that battle for me? Oh, wait they don't have a financial interest in my personal property tax. Ahh yes, "it's the principle."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I get a personal property tax form from my county that identifies my vehicle .
I also send them a check .
Where 's Intuit to fight that battle for me ?
Oh , wait they do n't have a financial interest in my personal property tax .
Ahh yes , " it 's the principle .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I get a personal property tax form from my county that identifies my vehicle.
I also send them a check.
Where's Intuit to fight that battle for me?
Oh, wait they don't have a financial interest in my personal property tax.
Ahh yes, "it's the principle.
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30879616</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30880032</id>
	<title>Simplified filing.</title>
	<author>Retief-CDT</author>
	<datestamp>1264359960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Back years ago there was a push to have simplified tax filing. It lasted for only a short time for reasons that never were explained. I used HRB filing software and instead of printing out all the form data you could chose to print out only the amounts on a one page return, sign and mail. It was much easier than what was to come of printing out reams worth of paper ( I had a small business then). Initially the 1040EZ back then was in truth "Easy" and the 1040A was fairly straight forward. Not anymore.</p><p>
&nbsp; Every year there is talk about making filing better and every year it gets more complicated. It should be able to simply be done without having to pay a preparer for the majority of people.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Back years ago there was a push to have simplified tax filing .
It lasted for only a short time for reasons that never were explained .
I used HRB filing software and instead of printing out all the form data you could chose to print out only the amounts on a one page return , sign and mail .
It was much easier than what was to come of printing out reams worth of paper ( I had a small business then ) .
Initially the 1040EZ back then was in truth " Easy " and the 1040A was fairly straight forward .
Not anymore .
  Every year there is talk about making filing better and every year it gets more complicated .
It should be able to simply be done without having to pay a preparer for the majority of people .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Back years ago there was a push to have simplified tax filing.
It lasted for only a short time for reasons that never were explained.
I used HRB filing software and instead of printing out all the form data you could chose to print out only the amounts on a one page return, sign and mail.
It was much easier than what was to come of printing out reams worth of paper ( I had a small business then).
Initially the 1040EZ back then was in truth "Easy" and the 1040A was fairly straight forward.
Not anymore.
  Every year there is talk about making filing better and every year it gets more complicated.
It should be able to simply be done without having to pay a preparer for the majority of people.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30880134</id>
	<title>10,000 pages of UK tax regulations</title>
	<author>Colin Smith</author>
	<datestamp>1264360320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>e.g.<br><a href="http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200607/cmhansrd/cm070220/debtext/70220-0013.htm" title="parliament.uk">http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200607/cmhansrd/cm070220/debtext/70220-0013.htm</a> [parliament.uk]</p><p>All laws, including tax law, should have a mandatory maximum validity period.<br>
&nbsp;</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>e.g.http : //www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200607/cmhansrd/cm070220/debtext/70220-0013.htm [ parliament.uk ] All laws , including tax law , should have a mandatory maximum validity period .
 </tokentext>
<sentencetext>e.g.http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200607/cmhansrd/cm070220/debtext/70220-0013.htm [parliament.uk]All laws, including tax law, should have a mandatory maximum validity period.
 </sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30879612</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30891024</id>
	<title>Re:Why they shouldn't..</title>
	<author>mea37</author>
	<datestamp>1264438680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You do understand that if the information you manually enter doesn't match the info the IRS has, on a consistent and significant basis, then they have the power to audit you, right?</p><p>In other words, if they're as bad at keeping track of data as you claim, then you're already subject to the same negative consequences as if they told you up front "this is what we think we know".  The difference is, if they gave you the option of looking at a pre-filled form, you'd have some warning about discrepancies.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You do understand that if the information you manually enter does n't match the info the IRS has , on a consistent and significant basis , then they have the power to audit you , right ? In other words , if they 're as bad at keeping track of data as you claim , then you 're already subject to the same negative consequences as if they told you up front " this is what we think we know " .
The difference is , if they gave you the option of looking at a pre-filled form , you 'd have some warning about discrepancies .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You do understand that if the information you manually enter doesn't match the info the IRS has, on a consistent and significant basis, then they have the power to audit you, right?In other words, if they're as bad at keeping track of data as you claim, then you're already subject to the same negative consequences as if they told you up front "this is what we think we know".
The difference is, if they gave you the option of looking at a pre-filled form, you'd have some warning about discrepancies.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30879604</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30880556</id>
	<title>Speaking of Intuit...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264362180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Despite the success of the pilot, meager funds have been allotted for the program due to the strength of its political opponents -- 'principally, Intuit' [...]</p></div><p>Oh gosh, that reminds me that it's time again to hunt the torrents for a pirated copy of TurboTax.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Despite the success of the pilot , meager funds have been allotted for the program due to the strength of its political opponents -- 'principally , Intuit ' [ ... ] Oh gosh , that reminds me that it 's time again to hunt the torrents for a pirated copy of TurboTax .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Despite the success of the pilot, meager funds have been allotted for the program due to the strength of its political opponents -- 'principally, Intuit' [...]Oh gosh, that reminds me that it's time again to hunt the torrents for a pirated copy of TurboTax.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30880388</id>
	<title>The IRS provides free filing...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264361460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>To all those who don't realize that you CAN file your taxes for free in the US:</p><p><a href="http://www.irs.gov/efile/article/0,,id=118986,00.html" title="irs.gov" rel="nofollow">http://www.irs.gov/efile/article/0,,id=118986,00.html</a> [irs.gov]</p><p>There are 20 states which also participate in this program- allowing you to file state returns for free as well.</p><p>AL, AR, AZ, GA, IA, ID, KY, MI, MN, MO, MS, NY, NC, ND, OK, OR, RI, SC, VT, WV</p><p>The group responsible for this program is the Free File Alliance</p><p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free\_File\_Alliance" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free\_File\_Alliance</a> [wikipedia.org]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>To all those who do n't realize that you CAN file your taxes for free in the US : http : //www.irs.gov/efile/article/0,,id = 118986,00.html [ irs.gov ] There are 20 states which also participate in this program- allowing you to file state returns for free as well.AL , AR , AZ , GA , IA , ID , KY , MI , MN , MO , MS , NY , NC , ND , OK , OR , RI , SC , VT , WVThe group responsible for this program is the Free File Alliancehttp : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free \ _File \ _Alliance [ wikipedia.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>To all those who don't realize that you CAN file your taxes for free in the US:http://www.irs.gov/efile/article/0,,id=118986,00.html [irs.gov]There are 20 states which also participate in this program- allowing you to file state returns for free as well.AL, AR, AZ, GA, IA, ID, KY, MI, MN, MO, MS, NY, NC, ND, OK, OR, RI, SC, VT, WVThe group responsible for this program is the Free File Alliancehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free\_File\_Alliance [wikipedia.org]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30881868</id>
	<title>New Zealand annual tax returns</title>
	<author>lizardb0y</author>
	<datestamp>1264326000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In <a href="http://www.newzealand.com/International/" title="newzealand.com" rel="nofollow">New Zealand</a> [newzealand.com] our <a href="http://www.ird.govt.nz/" title="ird.govt.nz" rel="nofollow">Inland Revenue Department</a> [ird.govt.nz] does this for all employed salary earners.  If all of your income is from salary and bank interest you never even see an annual tax return.  They even write-off small amounts owing.   You do have the option of completing a tax return manually if desired, or if you have some income unaccounted for.</p><p>If you are self employed, or have income from sources that do not automatically deduct income tax then you do need to fill out a return, but it's relatively easy to do so.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In New Zealand [ newzealand.com ] our Inland Revenue Department [ ird.govt.nz ] does this for all employed salary earners .
If all of your income is from salary and bank interest you never even see an annual tax return .
They even write-off small amounts owing .
You do have the option of completing a tax return manually if desired , or if you have some income unaccounted for.If you are self employed , or have income from sources that do not automatically deduct income tax then you do need to fill out a return , but it 's relatively easy to do so .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In New Zealand [newzealand.com] our Inland Revenue Department [ird.govt.nz] does this for all employed salary earners.
If all of your income is from salary and bank interest you never even see an annual tax return.
They even write-off small amounts owing.
You do have the option of completing a tax return manually if desired, or if you have some income unaccounted for.If you are self employed, or have income from sources that do not automatically deduct income tax then you do need to fill out a return, but it's relatively easy to do so.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30880466</id>
	<title>It will increase correctly filed  taxes for most!</title>
	<author>JakFrost</author>
	<datestamp>1264361820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You forget that you take responsibility for what is on the form, even if it is pre-filled the moment you sign it.  There's nothing stopping the government from sending you a blank or zero form and you'll just sign it and send it in thinking that you won't get prosecuted for the offshore tax haven account that you have.  They'll still go after you no matter what.</p><p><b>Less Fraud, More Correct Taxes</b></p><p>There will be no increase of fraud due to this but I predict that most people will actually send their taxes in quicker and more of them will be more correct than the current numbers.  We already have the IRS eFile system to let you do the web form part but they are all blank.  It would be nice if they were pre-filled in with your information already.  You'll just glance at it, take your Standard Deduction instead of Itemized Deduction for most people, type in your bank account or credit card number to pay or receive payment.  You wouldn't have to look for or dig out those W2 or 1099 forms trying to figure out all the income.</p><p><b>Special Interests At Work</b></p><p>The simple point is that in the United States the government is run by "special interest" groups.  The founding fathers, especially Thomas Jefferson and James Madison warned us about the dire effects that special interest groups will have on the government if they are allowed to mass their money and influence the rule of the country.  It's all in their speeches that we all should have been forced to read in elementary and high school history and civics courses.  America's educational failure.</p><p>Now what do we have, a special interest part such as Intuit who is responsible for the Turbo Tax software and their electronic filing service trying to prevent the government from offering a pre-filled tax form service to the people.  Just imagine how quickly Intuit would change its mind if the government approached them and told them that they would be the sole company responsible for getting people's taxes filed and I can guarantee that the first year you'll be presented with almost completed and pre-filled forms once your type in your Tax ID number.</p><p><b>Educational Gaming</b></p><p>We need a multi-genra massively multi-player video game where at first you play a First Person Shooter with friends as a team of The Founding Fathers and you first kick the British out of the colonies, then it switches to Real Time Strategy game where you maneuver the troops during the colonial war, and later it switches to a Civilization type diplomatic game where you negotiate terms of the new constitution and treaties with European countries.  It'd be a nice way to have kids experience a modern way of what the history taught us.  Sprinkle in a good load of historic facts in the game and you'll have kids arguing their view points because of the game.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You forget that you take responsibility for what is on the form , even if it is pre-filled the moment you sign it .
There 's nothing stopping the government from sending you a blank or zero form and you 'll just sign it and send it in thinking that you wo n't get prosecuted for the offshore tax haven account that you have .
They 'll still go after you no matter what.Less Fraud , More Correct TaxesThere will be no increase of fraud due to this but I predict that most people will actually send their taxes in quicker and more of them will be more correct than the current numbers .
We already have the IRS eFile system to let you do the web form part but they are all blank .
It would be nice if they were pre-filled in with your information already .
You 'll just glance at it , take your Standard Deduction instead of Itemized Deduction for most people , type in your bank account or credit card number to pay or receive payment .
You would n't have to look for or dig out those W2 or 1099 forms trying to figure out all the income.Special Interests At WorkThe simple point is that in the United States the government is run by " special interest " groups .
The founding fathers , especially Thomas Jefferson and James Madison warned us about the dire effects that special interest groups will have on the government if they are allowed to mass their money and influence the rule of the country .
It 's all in their speeches that we all should have been forced to read in elementary and high school history and civics courses .
America 's educational failure.Now what do we have , a special interest part such as Intuit who is responsible for the Turbo Tax software and their electronic filing service trying to prevent the government from offering a pre-filled tax form service to the people .
Just imagine how quickly Intuit would change its mind if the government approached them and told them that they would be the sole company responsible for getting people 's taxes filed and I can guarantee that the first year you 'll be presented with almost completed and pre-filled forms once your type in your Tax ID number.Educational GamingWe need a multi-genra massively multi-player video game where at first you play a First Person Shooter with friends as a team of The Founding Fathers and you first kick the British out of the colonies , then it switches to Real Time Strategy game where you maneuver the troops during the colonial war , and later it switches to a Civilization type diplomatic game where you negotiate terms of the new constitution and treaties with European countries .
It 'd be a nice way to have kids experience a modern way of what the history taught us .
Sprinkle in a good load of historic facts in the game and you 'll have kids arguing their view points because of the game .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You forget that you take responsibility for what is on the form, even if it is pre-filled the moment you sign it.
There's nothing stopping the government from sending you a blank or zero form and you'll just sign it and send it in thinking that you won't get prosecuted for the offshore tax haven account that you have.
They'll still go after you no matter what.Less Fraud, More Correct TaxesThere will be no increase of fraud due to this but I predict that most people will actually send their taxes in quicker and more of them will be more correct than the current numbers.
We already have the IRS eFile system to let you do the web form part but they are all blank.
It would be nice if they were pre-filled in with your information already.
You'll just glance at it, take your Standard Deduction instead of Itemized Deduction for most people, type in your bank account or credit card number to pay or receive payment.
You wouldn't have to look for or dig out those W2 or 1099 forms trying to figure out all the income.Special Interests At WorkThe simple point is that in the United States the government is run by "special interest" groups.
The founding fathers, especially Thomas Jefferson and James Madison warned us about the dire effects that special interest groups will have on the government if they are allowed to mass their money and influence the rule of the country.
It's all in their speeches that we all should have been forced to read in elementary and high school history and civics courses.
America's educational failure.Now what do we have, a special interest part such as Intuit who is responsible for the Turbo Tax software and their electronic filing service trying to prevent the government from offering a pre-filled tax form service to the people.
Just imagine how quickly Intuit would change its mind if the government approached them and told them that they would be the sole company responsible for getting people's taxes filed and I can guarantee that the first year you'll be presented with almost completed and pre-filled forms once your type in your Tax ID number.Educational GamingWe need a multi-genra massively multi-player video game where at first you play a First Person Shooter with friends as a team of The Founding Fathers and you first kick the British out of the colonies, then it switches to Real Time Strategy game where you maneuver the troops during the colonial war, and later it switches to a Civilization type diplomatic game where you negotiate terms of the new constitution and treaties with European countries.
It'd be a nice way to have kids experience a modern way of what the history taught us.
Sprinkle in a good load of historic facts in the game and you'll have kids arguing their view points because of the game.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30879842</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30892968</id>
	<title>Re:Conflict?</title>
	<author>Wireless Joe</author>
	<datestamp>1264445400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>So Intuit doesn't prepare their own taxes?</htmltext>
<tokenext>So Intuit does n't prepare their own taxes ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So Intuit doesn't prepare their own taxes?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30879616</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30883010</id>
	<title>Re:Conflict?</title>
	<author>Artifakt</author>
	<datestamp>1264332840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>we don't even have a free, official online tax-filing website.</i></p><p>www.irs.gov  - look for links to free online filing right on the IRS's main page. By the way, I AM a paid preparer, and if you'd walked into my office or called with that question, I would have given you the same answer, and if you were there in person, I would have clicked the link and showed you. I'm assuming you are a US citizen since you specifically said IRS. Most preparers I know feel the same way - if you can do it right yourself, by all means go for it. I have had some very good clients who came to me specifically to learn how to deal with a new situation so they could go back to filing it themselves the next year.<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; The IRS says that persons filing by the free services frequently make mistakes that are immediately detected (such as claiming a child that has already been claimed by someone else if you go by SSN) about 8\% of the time. They see transcription errors on paper copies much more frequently than that, possibly as high as 25\%. The filers also usually wait a week or more before they check back and find out they need to correct anything. So no, the government doesn't think more free filing would save the IRS tons of money, or even a little. It's not because we have lobbied them into it, it's because they have run the numbers, and even the fly by night firms generally have much better accuracy than what they see from people filing themselves. A paid tax preparer who made as many mistakes per form as the typical on line filer does would be barred by the IRS for 10 years from being a paid preparer, after their very first year.<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; My firm will also check a personally filed return for accuracy. The first year we offered that, over 3/4s of the returns brought in had mistakes that made a difference on the bottom line, and the majority of those mistakes were hurting the filer financially. In that sense, you are correct, if more people did it themselves, the IRS would get tons of extra money. But either it's not money the law says they should collect, or it would come from penalties, not taxes.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>we do n't even have a free , official online tax-filing website.www.irs.gov - look for links to free online filing right on the IRS 's main page .
By the way , I AM a paid preparer , and if you 'd walked into my office or called with that question , I would have given you the same answer , and if you were there in person , I would have clicked the link and showed you .
I 'm assuming you are a US citizen since you specifically said IRS .
Most preparers I know feel the same way - if you can do it right yourself , by all means go for it .
I have had some very good clients who came to me specifically to learn how to deal with a new situation so they could go back to filing it themselves the next year .
      The IRS says that persons filing by the free services frequently make mistakes that are immediately detected ( such as claiming a child that has already been claimed by someone else if you go by SSN ) about 8 \ % of the time .
They see transcription errors on paper copies much more frequently than that , possibly as high as 25 \ % .
The filers also usually wait a week or more before they check back and find out they need to correct anything .
So no , the government does n't think more free filing would save the IRS tons of money , or even a little .
It 's not because we have lobbied them into it , it 's because they have run the numbers , and even the fly by night firms generally have much better accuracy than what they see from people filing themselves .
A paid tax preparer who made as many mistakes per form as the typical on line filer does would be barred by the IRS for 10 years from being a paid preparer , after their very first year .
      My firm will also check a personally filed return for accuracy .
The first year we offered that , over 3/4s of the returns brought in had mistakes that made a difference on the bottom line , and the majority of those mistakes were hurting the filer financially .
In that sense , you are correct , if more people did it themselves , the IRS would get tons of extra money .
But either it 's not money the law says they should collect , or it would come from penalties , not taxes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>we don't even have a free, official online tax-filing website.www.irs.gov  - look for links to free online filing right on the IRS's main page.
By the way, I AM a paid preparer, and if you'd walked into my office or called with that question, I would have given you the same answer, and if you were there in person, I would have clicked the link and showed you.
I'm assuming you are a US citizen since you specifically said IRS.
Most preparers I know feel the same way - if you can do it right yourself, by all means go for it.
I have had some very good clients who came to me specifically to learn how to deal with a new situation so they could go back to filing it themselves the next year.
      The IRS says that persons filing by the free services frequently make mistakes that are immediately detected (such as claiming a child that has already been claimed by someone else if you go by SSN) about 8\% of the time.
They see transcription errors on paper copies much more frequently than that, possibly as high as 25\%.
The filers also usually wait a week or more before they check back and find out they need to correct anything.
So no, the government doesn't think more free filing would save the IRS tons of money, or even a little.
It's not because we have lobbied them into it, it's because they have run the numbers, and even the fly by night firms generally have much better accuracy than what they see from people filing themselves.
A paid tax preparer who made as many mistakes per form as the typical on line filer does would be barred by the IRS for 10 years from being a paid preparer, after their very first year.
      My firm will also check a personally filed return for accuracy.
The first year we offered that, over 3/4s of the returns brought in had mistakes that made a difference on the bottom line, and the majority of those mistakes were hurting the filer financially.
In that sense, you are correct, if more people did it themselves, the IRS would get tons of extra money.
But either it's not money the law says they should collect, or it would come from penalties, not taxes.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30879772</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30881648</id>
	<title>Re:Why they WON'T</title>
	<author>Facegarden</author>
	<datestamp>1264324680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>They won't do it because then the tax payer knows what sources of income the government doesn't know about. The uncertainty now is enough to scare some people into declaring their tips, gifts, or private sales. Full disclosure from the government makes it easierto dodge taxes. The correlary is that more people might pay if the simply get a bill in the mail. Of course, that just "puts the burden" on "poor people", because the educated would be smart enough to get away with not declaring an overseas investment, and the poor would be too afraid not to send money they know the government wants.</p></div><p>You could probably put some notice about how they'll hunt you down with dogs and mercenaries if they find out you dodged any taxes. That would probably scare most people into making sure they reported it.<br>-Taylor</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>They wo n't do it because then the tax payer knows what sources of income the government does n't know about .
The uncertainty now is enough to scare some people into declaring their tips , gifts , or private sales .
Full disclosure from the government makes it easierto dodge taxes .
The correlary is that more people might pay if the simply get a bill in the mail .
Of course , that just " puts the burden " on " poor people " , because the educated would be smart enough to get away with not declaring an overseas investment , and the poor would be too afraid not to send money they know the government wants.You could probably put some notice about how they 'll hunt you down with dogs and mercenaries if they find out you dodged any taxes .
That would probably scare most people into making sure they reported it.-Taylor</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They won't do it because then the tax payer knows what sources of income the government doesn't know about.
The uncertainty now is enough to scare some people into declaring their tips, gifts, or private sales.
Full disclosure from the government makes it easierto dodge taxes.
The correlary is that more people might pay if the simply get a bill in the mail.
Of course, that just "puts the burden" on "poor people", because the educated would be smart enough to get away with not declaring an overseas investment, and the poor would be too afraid not to send money they know the government wants.You could probably put some notice about how they'll hunt you down with dogs and mercenaries if they find out you dodged any taxes.
That would probably scare most people into making sure they reported it.-Taylor
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30880304</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30880936</id>
	<title>Exactly right. MOD PARENT UP.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264363980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>When Ed Foster was still alive, each year his GripeLog would rate the most abusive software companies in the United States. Microsoft was usually first, of course, but once Intuit was rated the most abusive.

<br> <br>The U.S. government is so corrupt that it amazes and scares me. Anything for those who want to make money using the power of government. When Saudis attack, invade Iraq? When Intuit wants something, use any foolish excuse to give it? Put a 6 times higher percentage of the population in prison as any European country? All part of U.S. government corruption.</htmltext>
<tokenext>When Ed Foster was still alive , each year his GripeLog would rate the most abusive software companies in the United States .
Microsoft was usually first , of course , but once Intuit was rated the most abusive .
The U.S. government is so corrupt that it amazes and scares me .
Anything for those who want to make money using the power of government .
When Saudis attack , invade Iraq ?
When Intuit wants something , use any foolish excuse to give it ?
Put a 6 times higher percentage of the population in prison as any European country ?
All part of U.S. government corruption .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When Ed Foster was still alive, each year his GripeLog would rate the most abusive software companies in the United States.
Microsoft was usually first, of course, but once Intuit was rated the most abusive.
The U.S. government is so corrupt that it amazes and scares me.
Anything for those who want to make money using the power of government.
When Saudis attack, invade Iraq?
When Intuit wants something, use any foolish excuse to give it?
Put a 6 times higher percentage of the population in prison as any European country?
All part of U.S. government corruption.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30880194</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30880066</id>
	<title>Postcard for taxes</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264360080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Any tax system that doesn't handle every income tax situation on a postcard is abusive.</p><p>You've all heard of the Fair Tax <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FairTax" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FairTax</a> [wikipedia.org] - basically a national sales tax that attempts to be revenue neutral. Best of all people not paying taxes today will pay in the future. People not in the country legally won't get their "food rebates", so they will pay a higher tax than others (which seems fair to me).</p><p>I hate the 20+ hours I spend working through my personal taxes every year. Something needs to change and paying an accountant, CPA or tax attorney isn't my idea of good change.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Any tax system that does n't handle every income tax situation on a postcard is abusive.You 've all heard of the Fair Tax http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FairTax [ wikipedia.org ] - basically a national sales tax that attempts to be revenue neutral .
Best of all people not paying taxes today will pay in the future .
People not in the country legally wo n't get their " food rebates " , so they will pay a higher tax than others ( which seems fair to me ) .I hate the 20 + hours I spend working through my personal taxes every year .
Something needs to change and paying an accountant , CPA or tax attorney is n't my idea of good change .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Any tax system that doesn't handle every income tax situation on a postcard is abusive.You've all heard of the Fair Tax http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FairTax [wikipedia.org] - basically a national sales tax that attempts to be revenue neutral.
Best of all people not paying taxes today will pay in the future.
People not in the country legally won't get their "food rebates", so they will pay a higher tax than others (which seems fair to me).I hate the 20+ hours I spend working through my personal taxes every year.
Something needs to change and paying an accountant, CPA or tax attorney isn't my idea of good change.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30897056</id>
	<title>Re:Intuit are evil ...</title>
	<author>Phairdon</author>
	<datestamp>1264419060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I quit using Quicken years ago because of that very reason. I think it's called a Sunset Policy or something. They want you to upgrade every 3 years so they disable certain features.</p><p>I found a free, open source program that I have been using for almost 2 years now. It's called GnuCash. They have a nice tutorial to learn how to set things up.</p><p><a href="http://www.gnucash.org/" title="gnucash.org" rel="nofollow">http://www.gnucash.org/</a> [gnucash.org]</p><p>I don't know if gnucash will do the auto-download from the bank, because I stopped doing that in Quicken a long time ago. I enter everything manually from receipts then verify my online data. I do this because I got in the habit of downloading the data and never really looking at it to see if something was messed up.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I quit using Quicken years ago because of that very reason .
I think it 's called a Sunset Policy or something .
They want you to upgrade every 3 years so they disable certain features.I found a free , open source program that I have been using for almost 2 years now .
It 's called GnuCash .
They have a nice tutorial to learn how to set things up.http : //www.gnucash.org/ [ gnucash.org ] I do n't know if gnucash will do the auto-download from the bank , because I stopped doing that in Quicken a long time ago .
I enter everything manually from receipts then verify my online data .
I do this because I got in the habit of downloading the data and never really looking at it to see if something was messed up .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I quit using Quicken years ago because of that very reason.
I think it's called a Sunset Policy or something.
They want you to upgrade every 3 years so they disable certain features.I found a free, open source program that I have been using for almost 2 years now.
It's called GnuCash.
They have a nice tutorial to learn how to set things up.http://www.gnucash.org/ [gnucash.org]I don't know if gnucash will do the auto-download from the bank, because I stopped doing that in Quicken a long time ago.
I enter everything manually from receipts then verify my online data.
I do this because I got in the habit of downloading the data and never really looking at it to see if something was messed up.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30880668</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30885066</id>
	<title>yeah right</title>
	<author>ncmathsadist</author>
	<datestamp>1264346700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This is a stupid expensive duplication of effort. It's probably not necessary to amass all of these stupid little forms, since the government has the information anyway.

But what is government without stupid duplicated effort?</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is a stupid expensive duplication of effort .
It 's probably not necessary to amass all of these stupid little forms , since the government has the information anyway .
But what is government without stupid duplicated effort ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is a stupid expensive duplication of effort.
It's probably not necessary to amass all of these stupid little forms, since the government has the information anyway.
But what is government without stupid duplicated effort?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30880290</id>
	<title>In France</title>
	<author>Motorelius</author>
	<datestamp>1264361040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Here in France, I just have to return signed papers with my modifications, if any.

Also, I can just sign it online, and if I decide to do it that way I get a 20 euros tax rebate the first time I use the service. And the governement website was made accessible to free browsers a few years ago, and if the governement asked me too much, I get that money back.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Here in France , I just have to return signed papers with my modifications , if any .
Also , I can just sign it online , and if I decide to do it that way I get a 20 euros tax rebate the first time I use the service .
And the governement website was made accessible to free browsers a few years ago , and if the governement asked me too much , I get that money back .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Here in France, I just have to return signed papers with my modifications, if any.
Also, I can just sign it online, and if I decide to do it that way I get a 20 euros tax rebate the first time I use the service.
And the governement website was made accessible to free browsers a few years ago, and if the governement asked me too much, I get that money back.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30880788</id>
	<title>Re:Fair Tax</title>
	<author>Edward Teach</author>
	<datestamp>1264363260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I suggest you actually read the fair tax site.  The fair tax provides a prebate check for taxes paid up to the poverty line, so the poor pay NO TAXES for spending on basic necessities.  Used items are also not taxed.</p><p>Try reading what it is before commenting.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I suggest you actually read the fair tax site .
The fair tax provides a prebate check for taxes paid up to the poverty line , so the poor pay NO TAXES for spending on basic necessities .
Used items are also not taxed.Try reading what it is before commenting .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I suggest you actually read the fair tax site.
The fair tax provides a prebate check for taxes paid up to the poverty line, so the poor pay NO TAXES for spending on basic necessities.
Used items are also not taxed.Try reading what it is before commenting.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30880456</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30890968</id>
	<title>Re:This is how it's done where I'm from...</title>
	<author>GargamelSpaceman</author>
	<datestamp>1264438440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Filing something means every citizen has to look at what taxes they are paying.  There's some educational value to filing something, but there's no reason it can't be prefilled.  Seriously, the IRS ought to have a website where you can fill everything online ( with most of it pre-filled unless you want to change something ).
</p><p>I think the idea was to let private companies compete for the electronic UI, but it's really more confusing.  Just provide one UI and everyone learns how to do it.  It's really more confusing to answer a bunch of questions from some private company trying to make things simple for me and wonder what implications my answers are going to have on the 1040 that gets generated/submitted than to understand the questions written on the 1040 itself - especially since I'm responsible for submitting a correctly filled out 1040 regardless of how it was filled out.
</p><p>To be a responsible filer, I'd really have to take that 1040, and check it against the IRS's explanations for each field myself since I am legally responsible for having interpreted the IRS's explanations correctly.  This is more work since I have both answered the questions the software has asked me and now am now double checking against the 1040's explanations.
</p><p>I use tax filing software because I use my Dad's copy which I don't pay for, and it gets me my return quicker.  But it is ADDED HASSLE AND WORRY, not a time or cost savings.
</p><p>The IRS should run it's own web based automated tax return system, and it should put ALL the forms on there in a way that it is possible to fill them out online.  Start with the most common forms and continue so that all forms are available.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Filing something means every citizen has to look at what taxes they are paying .
There 's some educational value to filing something , but there 's no reason it ca n't be prefilled .
Seriously , the IRS ought to have a website where you can fill everything online ( with most of it pre-filled unless you want to change something ) .
I think the idea was to let private companies compete for the electronic UI , but it 's really more confusing .
Just provide one UI and everyone learns how to do it .
It 's really more confusing to answer a bunch of questions from some private company trying to make things simple for me and wonder what implications my answers are going to have on the 1040 that gets generated/submitted than to understand the questions written on the 1040 itself - especially since I 'm responsible for submitting a correctly filled out 1040 regardless of how it was filled out .
To be a responsible filer , I 'd really have to take that 1040 , and check it against the IRS 's explanations for each field myself since I am legally responsible for having interpreted the IRS 's explanations correctly .
This is more work since I have both answered the questions the software has asked me and now am now double checking against the 1040 's explanations .
I use tax filing software because I use my Dad 's copy which I do n't pay for , and it gets me my return quicker .
But it is ADDED HASSLE AND WORRY , not a time or cost savings .
The IRS should run it 's own web based automated tax return system , and it should put ALL the forms on there in a way that it is possible to fill them out online .
Start with the most common forms and continue so that all forms are available .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Filing something means every citizen has to look at what taxes they are paying.
There's some educational value to filing something, but there's no reason it can't be prefilled.
Seriously, the IRS ought to have a website where you can fill everything online ( with most of it pre-filled unless you want to change something ).
I think the idea was to let private companies compete for the electronic UI, but it's really more confusing.
Just provide one UI and everyone learns how to do it.
It's really more confusing to answer a bunch of questions from some private company trying to make things simple for me and wonder what implications my answers are going to have on the 1040 that gets generated/submitted than to understand the questions written on the 1040 itself - especially since I'm responsible for submitting a correctly filled out 1040 regardless of how it was filled out.
To be a responsible filer, I'd really have to take that 1040, and check it against the IRS's explanations for each field myself since I am legally responsible for having interpreted the IRS's explanations correctly.
This is more work since I have both answered the questions the software has asked me and now am now double checking against the 1040's explanations.
I use tax filing software because I use my Dad's copy which I don't pay for, and it gets me my return quicker.
But it is ADDED HASSLE AND WORRY, not a time or cost savings.
The IRS should run it's own web based automated tax return system, and it should put ALL the forms on there in a way that it is possible to fill them out online.
Start with the most common forms and continue so that all forms are available.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30879612</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30879946</id>
	<title>What happens here</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264359600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's what happens here (Costa Rica).  Your employer submits withholding tax like any other place - but you don't have to file anything at the end of the year unless you have additional deductions to make, or have other taxes you need to declare.</p><p>In the simple case where you only have a regular job and your kids go to public school, you generally have no reason to file anything.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's what happens here ( Costa Rica ) .
Your employer submits withholding tax like any other place - but you do n't have to file anything at the end of the year unless you have additional deductions to make , or have other taxes you need to declare.In the simple case where you only have a regular job and your kids go to public school , you generally have no reason to file anything .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's what happens here (Costa Rica).
Your employer submits withholding tax like any other place - but you don't have to file anything at the end of the year unless you have additional deductions to make, or have other taxes you need to declare.In the simple case where you only have a regular job and your kids go to public school, you generally have no reason to file anything.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30887728</id>
	<title>Re:legitimacy of Taxes</title>
	<author>hanabal</author>
	<datestamp>1264417020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>but yet even those living in the forest are using the services of the government to ensure that there is a forest to live in and that the forest does not get invaded</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>but yet even those living in the forest are using the services of the government to ensure that there is a forest to live in and that the forest does not get invaded</tokentext>
<sentencetext>but yet even those living in the forest are using the services of the government to ensure that there is a forest to live in and that the forest does not get invaded</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30880994</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30881792</id>
	<title>Re:Tsk, tsk...</title>
	<author>LynnwoodRooster</author>
	<datestamp>1264325520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I like those things too, which is why I pay my property taxes (which fund those tasks).  All those local amenities are taxed at the local level...</htmltext>
<tokenext>I like those things too , which is why I pay my property taxes ( which fund those tasks ) .
All those local amenities are taxed at the local level.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I like those things too, which is why I pay my property taxes (which fund those tasks).
All those local amenities are taxed at the local level...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30880744</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30880706</id>
	<title>The fact that it's even an issue is the problem</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264362900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We seriously need to flatten out the tax code,  it's just way too complicated.</p><p>I don't know how many of you have had disputes about taxes but effectively the algorithm they use is they calculate your taxes,  you calculate your taxes,  they then compare the two and then you end up explaining the difference and ultimately paying it.   Why you have to do it is a mystery to me,  you can only provide them with more information about potential income sources,  they're never going to trust your numbers if they are lower...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We seriously need to flatten out the tax code , it 's just way too complicated.I do n't know how many of you have had disputes about taxes but effectively the algorithm they use is they calculate your taxes , you calculate your taxes , they then compare the two and then you end up explaining the difference and ultimately paying it .
Why you have to do it is a mystery to me , you can only provide them with more information about potential income sources , they 're never going to trust your numbers if they are lower.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We seriously need to flatten out the tax code,  it's just way too complicated.I don't know how many of you have had disputes about taxes but effectively the algorithm they use is they calculate your taxes,  you calculate your taxes,  they then compare the two and then you end up explaining the difference and ultimately paying it.
Why you have to do it is a mystery to me,  you can only provide them with more information about potential income sources,  they're never going to trust your numbers if they are lower...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30879966</id>
	<title>A Grand Idea....</title>
	<author>Shaltenn</author>
	<datestamp>1264359720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This is a grand idea that I am mostly in favor of, but before we proceed to that there is something I would like to see first... <br> <br> Namely, do away with the retarded fee to file my state taxes online.  I purchased TurboTax and it lets me file my federal for free, but there is a fee ($20 or something, I'm not sitting at that machine at the moment so I can't verify it) to file!  And if I want to use part of my return to pay that fee, it costs me an extra $30.  How retarded is that.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is a grand idea that I am mostly in favor of , but before we proceed to that there is something I would like to see first... Namely , do away with the retarded fee to file my state taxes online .
I purchased TurboTax and it lets me file my federal for free , but there is a fee ( $ 20 or something , I 'm not sitting at that machine at the moment so I ca n't verify it ) to file !
And if I want to use part of my return to pay that fee , it costs me an extra $ 30 .
How retarded is that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is a grand idea that I am mostly in favor of, but before we proceed to that there is something I would like to see first...   Namely, do away with the retarded fee to file my state taxes online.
I purchased TurboTax and it lets me file my federal for free, but there is a fee ($20 or something, I'm not sitting at that machine at the moment so I can't verify it) to file!
And if I want to use part of my return to pay that fee, it costs me an extra $30.
How retarded is that.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30881998</id>
	<title>Re:What do you think happens today?</title>
	<author>xaxa</author>
	<datestamp>1264326840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How many Americans have to fill in a tax return? It comes up on<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. fairly often.</p><p>Many (most?) British people don't need to complete one. The appropriate amount of tax is taken out of your pay (by <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PAYE" title="wikipedia.org">PAYE</a> [wikipedia.org]), and any interest on a savings accounts etc is taxed appropriately. I'm sent an end-of-year report on what I've paid each year, but it's very unlikely to be incorrect.</p><p>The people that fill in tax returns are generally self-employed, or worked less than they expected to in the year, or have other non-taxed income (e.g. rental income).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How many Americans have to fill in a tax return ?
It comes up on / .
fairly often.Many ( most ?
) British people do n't need to complete one .
The appropriate amount of tax is taken out of your pay ( by PAYE [ wikipedia.org ] ) , and any interest on a savings accounts etc is taxed appropriately .
I 'm sent an end-of-year report on what I 've paid each year , but it 's very unlikely to be incorrect.The people that fill in tax returns are generally self-employed , or worked less than they expected to in the year , or have other non-taxed income ( e.g .
rental income ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How many Americans have to fill in a tax return?
It comes up on /.
fairly often.Many (most?
) British people don't need to complete one.
The appropriate amount of tax is taken out of your pay (by PAYE [wikipedia.org]), and any interest on a savings accounts etc is taxed appropriately.
I'm sent an end-of-year report on what I've paid each year, but it's very unlikely to be incorrect.The people that fill in tax returns are generally self-employed, or worked less than they expected to in the year, or have other non-taxed income (e.g.
rental income).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30880194</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30887690</id>
	<title>France</title>
	<author>christophe</author>
	<datestamp>1264416480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Here is France, tax fillings are pre-filled for at least two years.
<p>
Each administration, bank or firm sends you a paper each year telling you how much you earn from them and how much you must declare to our IRS. I've seen tiny errors in complicated situations, nothing to complain about. Having a centralized state has some good sides.
</p><p>
I must only add things that the administration cannot know (charities, deductible professional expenses, tax credit for energy savings...). Of course it's all online for years (and it works rather well).
</p><p>
It helps that we do not need software to compute all this for us, I don't know anyone on salary who uses one. It seems to be a hot topic in Germany though but they always over-engineer everything.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Here is France , tax fillings are pre-filled for at least two years .
Each administration , bank or firm sends you a paper each year telling you how much you earn from them and how much you must declare to our IRS .
I 've seen tiny errors in complicated situations , nothing to complain about .
Having a centralized state has some good sides .
I must only add things that the administration can not know ( charities , deductible professional expenses , tax credit for energy savings... ) .
Of course it 's all online for years ( and it works rather well ) .
It helps that we do not need software to compute all this for us , I do n't know anyone on salary who uses one .
It seems to be a hot topic in Germany though but they always over-engineer everything .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Here is France, tax fillings are pre-filled for at least two years.
Each administration, bank or firm sends you a paper each year telling you how much you earn from them and how much you must declare to our IRS.
I've seen tiny errors in complicated situations, nothing to complain about.
Having a centralized state has some good sides.
I must only add things that the administration cannot know (charities, deductible professional expenses, tax credit for energy savings...).
Of course it's all online for years (and it works rather well).
It helps that we do not need software to compute all this for us, I don't know anyone on salary who uses one.
It seems to be a hot topic in Germany though but they always over-engineer everything.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30882748</id>
	<title>Re:This is how it's done where I'm from...</title>
	<author>BitZtream</author>
	<datestamp>1264331040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes, if you are incapable of holding a job in a single location it gets harder and requires you to do more work.</p><p>Did you know that it takes additional effort to move 4 times in one year rather than stay in one state all year?  You actually need to physically move you know.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , if you are incapable of holding a job in a single location it gets harder and requires you to do more work.Did you know that it takes additional effort to move 4 times in one year rather than stay in one state all year ?
You actually need to physically move you know .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, if you are incapable of holding a job in a single location it gets harder and requires you to do more work.Did you know that it takes additional effort to move 4 times in one year rather than stay in one state all year?
You actually need to physically move you know.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30879716</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30880116</id>
	<title>From experience, advantages of prefilled in forms</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264360260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In France you get pre-filled filled in forms where as in Ireland they not (including the online tax returns)</p><p>I find the advantages of pre-filled in forms are<br>Easier to return the correct figures.<br>Easier to spot any mistakes the tax office may have.<br>Could end up paying less tax, as it is easier to claim all your allowances.<br>Saves having to look up details on the website (or phoning them) just to give it back to them a few minutes later.</p><p>How is it a conflict of interest for a government dept to be doing what should have being doing all along, but was too expensive to implement in the past. If I was in the USA I would think of boycotting Intuit for their stance.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In France you get pre-filled filled in forms where as in Ireland they not ( including the online tax returns ) I find the advantages of pre-filled in forms areEasier to return the correct figures.Easier to spot any mistakes the tax office may have.Could end up paying less tax , as it is easier to claim all your allowances.Saves having to look up details on the website ( or phoning them ) just to give it back to them a few minutes later.How is it a conflict of interest for a government dept to be doing what should have being doing all along , but was too expensive to implement in the past .
If I was in the USA I would think of boycotting Intuit for their stance .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In France you get pre-filled filled in forms where as in Ireland they not (including the online tax returns)I find the advantages of pre-filled in forms areEasier to return the correct figures.Easier to spot any mistakes the tax office may have.Could end up paying less tax, as it is easier to claim all your allowances.Saves having to look up details on the website (or phoning them) just to give it back to them a few minutes later.How is it a conflict of interest for a government dept to be doing what should have being doing all along, but was too expensive to implement in the past.
If I was in the USA I would think of boycotting Intuit for their stance.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30883088</id>
	<title>How about no tax return at all?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264333500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Many people in New Zealand don't have to fill in a tax return at all. If for some reason you feel that you want to you \_can\_ do a Personal Tax Summary online and get whatever rebate it promises \_but\_ if there's been a mistake and you owe them then you have to pay up. If you do have to fill in a tax return then you can do it online (and partly finished info can be saved for later completion - very convenient).</p><p>The 'conflict of interest' statement from Intuit is pure disingenuous nonsense. Government is not (supposed to be) in the business of guaranteeing income for corporations. It is clearly in the interest of internal revenue organizations to streamline the system and ensure accurate data as much as possible. What would Intuit say if the IRS decided some folk didn't need to file a return at all like in NZ?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Many people in New Zealand do n't have to fill in a tax return at all .
If for some reason you feel that you want to you \ _can \ _ do a Personal Tax Summary online and get whatever rebate it promises \ _but \ _ if there 's been a mistake and you owe them then you have to pay up .
If you do have to fill in a tax return then you can do it online ( and partly finished info can be saved for later completion - very convenient ) .The 'conflict of interest ' statement from Intuit is pure disingenuous nonsense .
Government is not ( supposed to be ) in the business of guaranteeing income for corporations .
It is clearly in the interest of internal revenue organizations to streamline the system and ensure accurate data as much as possible .
What would Intuit say if the IRS decided some folk did n't need to file a return at all like in NZ ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Many people in New Zealand don't have to fill in a tax return at all.
If for some reason you feel that you want to you \_can\_ do a Personal Tax Summary online and get whatever rebate it promises \_but\_ if there's been a mistake and you owe them then you have to pay up.
If you do have to fill in a tax return then you can do it online (and partly finished info can be saved for later completion - very convenient).The 'conflict of interest' statement from Intuit is pure disingenuous nonsense.
Government is not (supposed to be) in the business of guaranteeing income for corporations.
It is clearly in the interest of internal revenue organizations to streamline the system and ensure accurate data as much as possible.
What would Intuit say if the IRS decided some folk didn't need to file a return at all like in NZ?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30880816</id>
	<title>Re:This is how it's done where I'm from...</title>
	<author>paugq</author>
	<datestamp>1264363380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Same for Spain: you can request a pre-filled tax sheet in the mail (or e-mail), it's called a "tax return draft". The Spanish IRS (<a href="http://www.aeat.es/" title="www.aeat.es">AEAT</a> [www.aeat.es]) will fill it with everything it knows for sure (mortgage, union, married status, etc) automatically. You can then just confirm that draft (i. e. accept whatever it says), or modify it.

There is a sleight of hand, though: in case the information in the draft is not correct, you MUST fix it or you will be fined. That's the reason why most people complain about their draft being always in favor of the Estate: given that a lot of people don't bother checking if the draft is accurate (and if it is not and the AEAT notices, you will face a fine), the AEAT does not add some deduction unless they are 99.99\% sure you qualify for it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Same for Spain : you can request a pre-filled tax sheet in the mail ( or e-mail ) , it 's called a " tax return draft " .
The Spanish IRS ( AEAT [ www.aeat.es ] ) will fill it with everything it knows for sure ( mortgage , union , married status , etc ) automatically .
You can then just confirm that draft ( i. e. accept whatever it says ) , or modify it .
There is a sleight of hand , though : in case the information in the draft is not correct , you MUST fix it or you will be fined .
That 's the reason why most people complain about their draft being always in favor of the Estate : given that a lot of people do n't bother checking if the draft is accurate ( and if it is not and the AEAT notices , you will face a fine ) , the AEAT does not add some deduction unless they are 99.99 \ % sure you qualify for it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Same for Spain: you can request a pre-filled tax sheet in the mail (or e-mail), it's called a "tax return draft".
The Spanish IRS (AEAT [www.aeat.es]) will fill it with everything it knows for sure (mortgage, union, married status, etc) automatically.
You can then just confirm that draft (i. e. accept whatever it says), or modify it.
There is a sleight of hand, though: in case the information in the draft is not correct, you MUST fix it or you will be fined.
That's the reason why most people complain about their draft being always in favor of the Estate: given that a lot of people don't bother checking if the draft is accurate (and if it is not and the AEAT notices, you will face a fine), the AEAT does not add some deduction unless they are 99.99\% sure you qualify for it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30879612</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30880686</id>
	<title>Because of privacy nuts, of course</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264362780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The reason why, quite simply, is because privacy nuts would have a field day crying themselves to sleep over being reminded that data gets sent to the government <i>and they actually keep it!1!!1!! <b>*GASP*</b> </i>  They'd protest it to no end because of that, despite how it actually WOULD save 90\% of the people quite a bit of time and frustration (not to mention the real reason they'd protest it, they'd risk losing their l33t tax loopholes that depend on this perceived lack of data).</p><p>The irony is that the government STILL has this data on them, so that wouldn't change anything, but you know how privacy nuts love the taste of their own bile rising up...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The reason why , quite simply , is because privacy nuts would have a field day crying themselves to sleep over being reminded that data gets sent to the government and they actually keep it ! 1 ! ! 1 ! !
* GASP * They 'd protest it to no end because of that , despite how it actually WOULD save 90 \ % of the people quite a bit of time and frustration ( not to mention the real reason they 'd protest it , they 'd risk losing their l33t tax loopholes that depend on this perceived lack of data ) .The irony is that the government STILL has this data on them , so that would n't change anything , but you know how privacy nuts love the taste of their own bile rising up.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The reason why, quite simply, is because privacy nuts would have a field day crying themselves to sleep over being reminded that data gets sent to the government and they actually keep it!1!!1!!
*GASP*   They'd protest it to no end because of that, despite how it actually WOULD save 90\% of the people quite a bit of time and frustration (not to mention the real reason they'd protest it, they'd risk losing their l33t tax loopholes that depend on this perceived lack of data).The irony is that the government STILL has this data on them, so that wouldn't change anything, but you know how privacy nuts love the taste of their own bile rising up...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30897240</id>
	<title>Re:Exactly right. MOD PARENT UP.</title>
	<author>Unequivocal</author>
	<datestamp>1264420140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This may be pedantic, but the US political system is so corrupt as to be amazing. The US government is run by the US political system - the federal employees who work at the government have some problems with corruption but not nearly as bad as in many countries. The interesting thing about the US is that the higher up in the system you go the more corrupt it gets. In many countries (in my experience and also some research I've seen), the corruption is pretty much rife all the up and down the system, from the guys checking passports at the door, to the police, the zoning, courts and politicians.. The US has less corruption in the lower and middle layers, probably due to paying good wages to those employees.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This may be pedantic , but the US political system is so corrupt as to be amazing .
The US government is run by the US political system - the federal employees who work at the government have some problems with corruption but not nearly as bad as in many countries .
The interesting thing about the US is that the higher up in the system you go the more corrupt it gets .
In many countries ( in my experience and also some research I 've seen ) , the corruption is pretty much rife all the up and down the system , from the guys checking passports at the door , to the police , the zoning , courts and politicians.. The US has less corruption in the lower and middle layers , probably due to paying good wages to those employees .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This may be pedantic, but the US political system is so corrupt as to be amazing.
The US government is run by the US political system - the federal employees who work at the government have some problems with corruption but not nearly as bad as in many countries.
The interesting thing about the US is that the higher up in the system you go the more corrupt it gets.
In many countries (in my experience and also some research I've seen), the corruption is pretty much rife all the up and down the system, from the guys checking passports at the door, to the police, the zoning, courts and politicians.. The US has less corruption in the lower and middle layers, probably due to paying good wages to those employees.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30880936</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30881246</id>
	<title>Electronic Records Now</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264365840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I just want the IRS to show me ONLINE - ALL the information they have about what I earned, gave to charity, etc. I will correct THEM when THEY are wrong.</p><p>In this day in age, there is no excuse for having to even keep paperwork. I keep a spreadsheet, and electronic "written" records, no paper.</p><p>And how dare they claim I don't keep good enough records (how they think I should), when the US Govt has lost tens of BILLIONS of dollars of OUR money with "professional" accountants. I write software, my job is not to be an accountant for the US Govt.</p><p>This is NOT the 20th century people... this HAS to change, or I will start paying in Monopoly money (for what I think of the way they spend my money).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I just want the IRS to show me ONLINE - ALL the information they have about what I earned , gave to charity , etc .
I will correct THEM when THEY are wrong.In this day in age , there is no excuse for having to even keep paperwork .
I keep a spreadsheet , and electronic " written " records , no paper.And how dare they claim I do n't keep good enough records ( how they think I should ) , when the US Govt has lost tens of BILLIONS of dollars of OUR money with " professional " accountants .
I write software , my job is not to be an accountant for the US Govt.This is NOT the 20th century people... this HAS to change , or I will start paying in Monopoly money ( for what I think of the way they spend my money ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I just want the IRS to show me ONLINE - ALL the information they have about what I earned, gave to charity, etc.
I will correct THEM when THEY are wrong.In this day in age, there is no excuse for having to even keep paperwork.
I keep a spreadsheet, and electronic "written" records, no paper.And how dare they claim I don't keep good enough records (how they think I should), when the US Govt has lost tens of BILLIONS of dollars of OUR money with "professional" accountants.
I write software, my job is not to be an accountant for the US Govt.This is NOT the 20th century people... this HAS to change, or I will start paying in Monopoly money (for what I think of the way they spend my money).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30881836</id>
	<title>my own conflict of interest</title>
	<author>gezi</author>
	<datestamp>1264325760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I have my own conflict of interest here that nobody has mentioned so far: On the one hand to keep what is legally and morally mine and on the other hand make it as easy for the thug to steal it from me after calling it something like - - - tax.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I have my own conflict of interest here that nobody has mentioned so far : On the one hand to keep what is legally and morally mine and on the other hand make it as easy for the thug to steal it from me after calling it something like - - - tax .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have my own conflict of interest here that nobody has mentioned so far: On the one hand to keep what is legally and morally mine and on the other hand make it as easy for the thug to steal it from me after calling it something like - - - tax.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30882280</id>
	<title>Re:This is how it's done where I'm from...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264328580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Same here in the Netherlands (ow... that is Europe... so maybe that is not such a good idea after all?!).<br>You a get pre-filled digital tax sheet (mac, windows, linux, you name it).</p><p>http://www.belastingdienst.nl/english/ -&gt; "We can't make it nicer, but they can make it easyer" is their motto.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Same here in the Netherlands ( ow... that is Europe... so maybe that is not such a good idea after all ? !
) .You a get pre-filled digital tax sheet ( mac , windows , linux , you name it ) .http : //www.belastingdienst.nl/english/ - &gt; " We ca n't make it nicer , but they can make it easyer " is their motto .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Same here in the Netherlands (ow... that is Europe... so maybe that is not such a good idea after all?!
).You a get pre-filled digital tax sheet (mac, windows, linux, you name it).http://www.belastingdienst.nl/english/ -&gt; "We can't make it nicer, but they can make it easyer" is their motto.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30879612</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30879722</id>
	<title>Re:An invitation to defraud</title>
	<author>jra</author>
	<datestamp>1264358340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>+5, "good point"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>+ 5 , " good point "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>+5, "good point"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30879646</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30881740</id>
	<title>Re:This is how it's done where I'm from...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264325220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They won't change it because people in the tax preparation industry would lose their 'jobs.' The government is economically illiterate and doesn't understand that you can have full employment and low productivity/efficiency.</p><p>The fact that the government has made the tax code so complex that the private sector has to provide solutions to simplify it is just evidence of how much better markets work than governments do.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They wo n't change it because people in the tax preparation industry would lose their 'jobs .
' The government is economically illiterate and does n't understand that you can have full employment and low productivity/efficiency.The fact that the government has made the tax code so complex that the private sector has to provide solutions to simplify it is just evidence of how much better markets work than governments do .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They won't change it because people in the tax preparation industry would lose their 'jobs.
' The government is economically illiterate and doesn't understand that you can have full employment and low productivity/efficiency.The fact that the government has made the tax code so complex that the private sector has to provide solutions to simplify it is just evidence of how much better markets work than governments do.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30879612</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30880826</id>
	<title>Re:This is how it's done where I'm from...</title>
	<author>andrejbauer</author>
	<datestamp>1264363440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In Slovenia we also get pre-filled tax returns by mail, and have to return them only if we disagree with them. It saves a lot of time for most people.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In Slovenia we also get pre-filled tax returns by mail , and have to return them only if we disagree with them .
It saves a lot of time for most people .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In Slovenia we also get pre-filled tax returns by mail, and have to return them only if we disagree with them.
It saves a lot of time for most people.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30879612</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30880090</id>
	<title>Re:works fine in Sweden</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264360140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The same for Spain: by mail, by internet (via web, or a full app), by SMS...<br>They got all my bank, and employer data, and even donations are automatically added. They have retirement funds, mortgage, etc.<br>It can't be easier, to pay taxes! We're so happy!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The same for Spain : by mail , by internet ( via web , or a full app ) , by SMS...They got all my bank , and employer data , and even donations are automatically added .
They have retirement funds , mortgage , etc.It ca n't be easier , to pay taxes !
We 're so happy !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The same for Spain: by mail, by internet (via web, or a full app), by SMS...They got all my bank, and employer data, and even donations are automatically added.
They have retirement funds, mortgage, etc.It can't be easier, to pay taxes!
We're so happy!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30879638</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30880048</id>
	<title>In Switzerland</title>
	<author>rduke15</author>
	<datestamp>1264360020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In Switzerland, authorities don't get information from employers or banks, so they cannot pre-fill the forms.</p><p>However, they do offer a free tax program for download, which makes things much easier. It takes care itself of the very complex rules for various deductions, so it makes the forms quite easy to fill. It also shows directly how much you will have to pay, and prints the forms out for sending.</p><p>(and it's a Java program with Windows, Mac and Linux installers; only Amiga users have been left behind...).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In Switzerland , authorities do n't get information from employers or banks , so they can not pre-fill the forms.However , they do offer a free tax program for download , which makes things much easier .
It takes care itself of the very complex rules for various deductions , so it makes the forms quite easy to fill .
It also shows directly how much you will have to pay , and prints the forms out for sending .
( and it 's a Java program with Windows , Mac and Linux installers ; only Amiga users have been left behind... ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In Switzerland, authorities don't get information from employers or banks, so they cannot pre-fill the forms.However, they do offer a free tax program for download, which makes things much easier.
It takes care itself of the very complex rules for various deductions, so it makes the forms quite easy to fill.
It also shows directly how much you will have to pay, and prints the forms out for sending.
(and it's a Java program with Windows, Mac and Linux installers; only Amiga users have been left behind...).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30879612</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30885680</id>
	<title>Re:Intuit Isn't the Only Problem</title>
	<author>Billly Gates</author>
	<datestamp>1264351740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I see nothing but conflicts of interest and bribing in every and I mean every single function of government I see.</p><p>How about the government works for<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... hmmm Gee the people! I feel what happened in Massachusetts last week is how we as Americans feel. Why can't government programs like medicaid and medicare focus on<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... uh the people and not lining insurance company interests. THe army could actually be focused on defense and not the contracting industry and the IRS could focus on funding and not the poor innocent Intuit and accounting firms. I do not have to mention the FED reserve as its owned by all the private banks to ensure wealth of bankers.</p><p>Time for the torches indeed.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I see nothing but conflicts of interest and bribing in every and I mean every single function of government I see.How about the government works for ... hmmm Gee the people !
I feel what happened in Massachusetts last week is how we as Americans feel .
Why ca n't government programs like medicaid and medicare focus on ... uh the people and not lining insurance company interests .
THe army could actually be focused on defense and not the contracting industry and the IRS could focus on funding and not the poor innocent Intuit and accounting firms .
I do not have to mention the FED reserve as its owned by all the private banks to ensure wealth of bankers.Time for the torches indeed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I see nothing but conflicts of interest and bribing in every and I mean every single function of government I see.How about the government works for ... hmmm Gee the people!
I feel what happened in Massachusetts last week is how we as Americans feel.
Why can't government programs like medicaid and medicare focus on ... uh the people and not lining insurance company interests.
THe army could actually be focused on defense and not the contracting industry and the IRS could focus on funding and not the poor innocent Intuit and accounting firms.
I do not have to mention the FED reserve as its owned by all the private banks to ensure wealth of bankers.Time for the torches indeed.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30880258</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30879732</id>
	<title>Wrong Question.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264358400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why can't the federal government pre-fill out my tax form for me?  That's the wrong question.  A better question is, why am does the federal government insist on an income tax model which requires citizen to pre-pay their taxes, by way of required employer deductions, before they actually make any money and then require the citizens to shoulder the responsibility of proving that they don't owe any more money by filling a tax return form, even though the minimal required deductions are usually too large, resulting in interest free loans that the federal government seizes.</p><p>Let's ask the real question.  How can we move to a federal tax system that will work, with the massive waste of time and energy required by the current income tax/IRS model. www.fairtax.org.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why ca n't the federal government pre-fill out my tax form for me ?
That 's the wrong question .
A better question is , why am does the federal government insist on an income tax model which requires citizen to pre-pay their taxes , by way of required employer deductions , before they actually make any money and then require the citizens to shoulder the responsibility of proving that they do n't owe any more money by filling a tax return form , even though the minimal required deductions are usually too large , resulting in interest free loans that the federal government seizes.Let 's ask the real question .
How can we move to a federal tax system that will work , with the massive waste of time and energy required by the current income tax/IRS model .
www.fairtax.org .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why can't the federal government pre-fill out my tax form for me?
That's the wrong question.
A better question is, why am does the federal government insist on an income tax model which requires citizen to pre-pay their taxes, by way of required employer deductions, before they actually make any money and then require the citizens to shoulder the responsibility of proving that they don't owe any more money by filling a tax return form, even though the minimal required deductions are usually too large, resulting in interest free loans that the federal government seizes.Let's ask the real question.
How can we move to a federal tax system that will work, with the massive waste of time and energy required by the current income tax/IRS model.
www.fairtax.org.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30879836</id>
	<title>works in Estonia</title>
	<author>heitikender</author>
	<datestamp>1264358940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>In Estonia you log into e-tax dept webpage via bank or ID-card and click OK couple of times on prefilled form and that's it. If surplus, they transfer it to your bank account.</htmltext>
<tokenext>In Estonia you log into e-tax dept webpage via bank or ID-card and click OK couple of times on prefilled form and that 's it .
If surplus , they transfer it to your bank account .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In Estonia you log into e-tax dept webpage via bank or ID-card and click OK couple of times on prefilled form and that's it.
If surplus, they transfer it to your bank account.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30882910</id>
	<title>Re:It will increase correctly filed taxes for most</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264332180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Turbo Tax? Seriously? you think THAT is the special interest group that is complicating the Tax Code? And people on this forum believe the government will fill out the tax bill correctly? Seriously?</p><p>If you want an easy to fill in return, simplify the Tax Code.  Exempt the first $30K from tax, so there is no unfair burden on the poor, eliminate all other deductions, and tax the rest at 15\% across the board. Filing Taxes would be as simple as verifying your W-2s are correct.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Turbo Tax ?
Seriously ? you think THAT is the special interest group that is complicating the Tax Code ?
And people on this forum believe the government will fill out the tax bill correctly ?
Seriously ? If you want an easy to fill in return , simplify the Tax Code .
Exempt the first $ 30K from tax , so there is no unfair burden on the poor , eliminate all other deductions , and tax the rest at 15 \ % across the board .
Filing Taxes would be as simple as verifying your W-2s are correct .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Turbo Tax?
Seriously? you think THAT is the special interest group that is complicating the Tax Code?
And people on this forum believe the government will fill out the tax bill correctly?
Seriously?If you want an easy to fill in return, simplify the Tax Code.
Exempt the first $30K from tax, so there is no unfair burden on the poor, eliminate all other deductions, and tax the rest at 15\% across the board.
Filing Taxes would be as simple as verifying your W-2s are correct.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30880466</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30879616</id>
	<title>Conflict?</title>
	<author>mapinguari</author>
	<datestamp>1264357800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Intuit would probably argue that it's a conflict of interest to be both a tax payer and tax preparer.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Intuit would probably argue that it 's a conflict of interest to be both a tax payer and tax preparer .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Intuit would probably argue that it's a conflict of interest to be both a tax payer and tax preparer.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30895560</id>
	<title>Best solution: do away with income tax</title>
	<author>hardaker</author>
	<datestamp>1264413240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I actually been saying (to friends) for a long time that the whole concept of income tax just isn't worth it.  It's more complex than it needs to be and unfairly taxes based on what you make, not how much you need.  I even wrote up my solution a week ago as a blog entry:  <a href="http://pontifications.hardakers.net/thoughts/in-which-wes-rewrites-the-tax-code/" title="hardakers.net">http://pontifications.hardakers.net/thoughts/in-which-wes-rewrites-the-tax-code/</a> [hardakers.net]</htmltext>
<tokenext>I actually been saying ( to friends ) for a long time that the whole concept of income tax just is n't worth it .
It 's more complex than it needs to be and unfairly taxes based on what you make , not how much you need .
I even wrote up my solution a week ago as a blog entry : http : //pontifications.hardakers.net/thoughts/in-which-wes-rewrites-the-tax-code/ [ hardakers.net ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I actually been saying (to friends) for a long time that the whole concept of income tax just isn't worth it.
It's more complex than it needs to be and unfairly taxes based on what you make, not how much you need.
I even wrote up my solution a week ago as a blog entry:  http://pontifications.hardakers.net/thoughts/in-which-wes-rewrites-the-tax-code/ [hardakers.net]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30892700</id>
	<title>Security problem</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264444020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>From a security stand point there could be some issues:</p><p>1.  Gov computers that must be properly secured and provide access to the pre-filled forms</p><p>2.  What if the pre-filled form is mailed to the wrong person?</p><p>3.  Having my ssn on a pre-filled form may encourage someone to steal the mail for fraud before I get it</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>From a security stand point there could be some issues : 1 .
Gov computers that must be properly secured and provide access to the pre-filled forms2 .
What if the pre-filled form is mailed to the wrong person ? 3 .
Having my ssn on a pre-filled form may encourage someone to steal the mail for fraud before I get it</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From a security stand point there could be some issues:1.
Gov computers that must be properly secured and provide access to the pre-filled forms2.
What if the pre-filled form is mailed to the wrong person?3.
Having my ssn on a pre-filled form may encourage someone to steal the mail for fraud before I get it</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30879912</id>
	<title>Chile Does it</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264359480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I have to file income tax returns in Chile and the United States. My tax returns take about 5 mins to file in Chile including logging in, reviewing the information, and hitting the submit button on their web site (yes, it is free). I spend far more time deciding where to spend my refund, than doing my tax returns every year.</p><p>By contrast, it takes me nearly one to two weeks on average ( perhaps 40 hours in total ) to do my taxes in the States (The IRS estimates 120 hours for the forms I have to fill out). The really sad things is I don't even owe the U.S. any money. That is just to tell them I don't owe them any money.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have to file income tax returns in Chile and the United States .
My tax returns take about 5 mins to file in Chile including logging in , reviewing the information , and hitting the submit button on their web site ( yes , it is free ) .
I spend far more time deciding where to spend my refund , than doing my tax returns every year.By contrast , it takes me nearly one to two weeks on average ( perhaps 40 hours in total ) to do my taxes in the States ( The IRS estimates 120 hours for the forms I have to fill out ) .
The really sad things is I do n't even owe the U.S. any money .
That is just to tell them I do n't owe them any money .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have to file income tax returns in Chile and the United States.
My tax returns take about 5 mins to file in Chile including logging in, reviewing the information, and hitting the submit button on their web site (yes, it is free).
I spend far more time deciding where to spend my refund, than doing my tax returns every year.By contrast, it takes me nearly one to two weeks on average ( perhaps 40 hours in total ) to do my taxes in the States (The IRS estimates 120 hours for the forms I have to fill out).
The really sad things is I don't even owe the U.S. any money.
That is just to tell them I don't owe them any money.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30880542</id>
	<title>Way Behind the Times</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264362120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>At the very least the IRS could offer spreadsheet versions of their basic tax forms such as the 1040 series and associated Schedules.  This would greatly facilitate tax calculation and preparation when compared to the manual "worksheets" that are offered now.  Transcribing the data from the appropriate tax documents is easy; it is the subsequent calculations that are tedious and time consuming.  Spreadsheets would greatly speed up the process as well as eliminate the expense of commercial tax programs and services.</p><p>But the IRS has some sort of policy that forbids any kind of competition with commercial enterprises.  As a result, the taxpayers are left with an antiquated system that imposes a tremendous burden on both their time and their monetary resources.</p><p>I can't understand how a speadsheet version of 1040 et.al. would be anti-competative.  The IRS publishes the algorithms for manual computation anyway and a spreadsheet, or even a PDF, would only be a simple upgrade to the process.</p><p>Fortunately, someone else provides a spreadsheet for the benefit of all:</p><p>http://www.excel1040.com</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>At the very least the IRS could offer spreadsheet versions of their basic tax forms such as the 1040 series and associated Schedules .
This would greatly facilitate tax calculation and preparation when compared to the manual " worksheets " that are offered now .
Transcribing the data from the appropriate tax documents is easy ; it is the subsequent calculations that are tedious and time consuming .
Spreadsheets would greatly speed up the process as well as eliminate the expense of commercial tax programs and services.But the IRS has some sort of policy that forbids any kind of competition with commercial enterprises .
As a result , the taxpayers are left with an antiquated system that imposes a tremendous burden on both their time and their monetary resources.I ca n't understand how a speadsheet version of 1040 et.al .
would be anti-competative .
The IRS publishes the algorithms for manual computation anyway and a spreadsheet , or even a PDF , would only be a simple upgrade to the process.Fortunately , someone else provides a spreadsheet for the benefit of all : http : //www.excel1040.com</tokentext>
<sentencetext>At the very least the IRS could offer spreadsheet versions of their basic tax forms such as the 1040 series and associated Schedules.
This would greatly facilitate tax calculation and preparation when compared to the manual "worksheets" that are offered now.
Transcribing the data from the appropriate tax documents is easy; it is the subsequent calculations that are tedious and time consuming.
Spreadsheets would greatly speed up the process as well as eliminate the expense of commercial tax programs and services.But the IRS has some sort of policy that forbids any kind of competition with commercial enterprises.
As a result, the taxpayers are left with an antiquated system that imposes a tremendous burden on both their time and their monetary resources.I can't understand how a speadsheet version of 1040 et.al.
would be anti-competative.
The IRS publishes the algorithms for manual computation anyway and a spreadsheet, or even a PDF, would only be a simple upgrade to the process.Fortunately, someone else provides a spreadsheet for the benefit of all:http://www.excel1040.com</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30879626</id>
	<title>Funny that you mention California</title>
	<author>drinkypoo</author>
	<datestamp>1264357860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They still think I owe them over $5,000 for back taxes, even though all the documents were sent directly to them and they know precisely how much I made and/or didn't make, and only ever owed them about a hundred and fifty bucks (which has long since been paid off.) they stole a bunch of my money through withholding to which they were not entitled, and since I passed some arbitrary deadline without getting it all resolved, they intend to keep it. Fuck California and the California Franchise Tax Board <em>in the neck</em>.</p><p>With that said, if you don't have to file if you make less than the exemption amount, why should you have to file if you don't have any unusual economic activity to account for? That's ridiculous.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They still think I owe them over $ 5,000 for back taxes , even though all the documents were sent directly to them and they know precisely how much I made and/or did n't make , and only ever owed them about a hundred and fifty bucks ( which has long since been paid off .
) they stole a bunch of my money through withholding to which they were not entitled , and since I passed some arbitrary deadline without getting it all resolved , they intend to keep it .
Fuck California and the California Franchise Tax Board in the neck.With that said , if you do n't have to file if you make less than the exemption amount , why should you have to file if you do n't have any unusual economic activity to account for ?
That 's ridiculous .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They still think I owe them over $5,000 for back taxes, even though all the documents were sent directly to them and they know precisely how much I made and/or didn't make, and only ever owed them about a hundred and fifty bucks (which has long since been paid off.
) they stole a bunch of my money through withholding to which they were not entitled, and since I passed some arbitrary deadline without getting it all resolved, they intend to keep it.
Fuck California and the California Franchise Tax Board in the neck.With that said, if you don't have to file if you make less than the exemption amount, why should you have to file if you don't have any unusual economic activity to account for?
That's ridiculous.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30879842</id>
	<title>Increases Fraud</title>
	<author>mikeplokta</author>
	<datestamp>1264359000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If the IRS pre-fills what the government knows about on the form, then that tells you what the government <i>doesn't</i> know about, and thus can safely be omitted. If you get a blank form, there's always the risk that the government knows about your offshore account and will prosecute you for omitting it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If the IRS pre-fills what the government knows about on the form , then that tells you what the government does n't know about , and thus can safely be omitted .
If you get a blank form , there 's always the risk that the government knows about your offshore account and will prosecute you for omitting it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If the IRS pre-fills what the government knows about on the form, then that tells you what the government doesn't know about, and thus can safely be omitted.
If you get a blank form, there's always the risk that the government knows about your offshore account and will prosecute you for omitting it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30893576</id>
	<title>I hope the IRS is reading this</title>
	<author>calvinTy</author>
	<datestamp>1264447920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Because it would help all of us to navigate the minefield that is the US tax system.  Forget Intuit.  It they are not part of the solution, they are a problem.  I for one would love to pay my taxes as timely as possible, not a cent more and not a cent less.  If they have all my info from the previous years and my employers, then help me be a better citizen by entering my information and help me prepare correctly.  They get their money and not have to waste money chasing after incorrectly filed taxes.  It is time to upgrade there system.  They have the funds to do it, Do It.  That will also help me save some money from not having to find a CPA</htmltext>
<tokenext>Because it would help all of us to navigate the minefield that is the US tax system .
Forget Intuit .
It they are not part of the solution , they are a problem .
I for one would love to pay my taxes as timely as possible , not a cent more and not a cent less .
If they have all my info from the previous years and my employers , then help me be a better citizen by entering my information and help me prepare correctly .
They get their money and not have to waste money chasing after incorrectly filed taxes .
It is time to upgrade there system .
They have the funds to do it , Do It .
That will also help me save some money from not having to find a CPA</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because it would help all of us to navigate the minefield that is the US tax system.
Forget Intuit.
It they are not part of the solution, they are a problem.
I for one would love to pay my taxes as timely as possible, not a cent more and not a cent less.
If they have all my info from the previous years and my employers, then help me be a better citizen by entering my information and help me prepare correctly.
They get their money and not have to waste money chasing after incorrectly filed taxes.
It is time to upgrade there system.
They have the funds to do it, Do It.
That will also help me save some money from not having to find a CPA</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30880318</id>
	<title>Re:Increases Fraud</title>
	<author>Antique Geekmeister</author>
	<datestamp>1264361160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So does your spouse, anyone who can guess your passwords, anyone who's root-kitted your PC, etc. Securing such privileged data is a big problem.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So does your spouse , anyone who can guess your passwords , anyone who 's root-kitted your PC , etc .
Securing such privileged data is a big problem .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So does your spouse, anyone who can guess your passwords, anyone who's root-kitted your PC, etc.
Securing such privileged data is a big problem.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30879842</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30881374</id>
	<title>Re:Increases Fraud</title>
	<author>winwar</author>
	<datestamp>1264366380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"If the IRS pre-fills what the government knows about on the form, then that tells you what the government doesn't know about, and thus can safely be omitted."</p><p>This is a very bad assumption.  What if the information gets corrected a couple of years down the road?  You get a nice letter from the IRS that includes a couple of years of interest and penalties.  If the amount is small enough they might even agree not to prosecute you.  What a deal!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" If the IRS pre-fills what the government knows about on the form , then that tells you what the government does n't know about , and thus can safely be omitted .
" This is a very bad assumption .
What if the information gets corrected a couple of years down the road ?
You get a nice letter from the IRS that includes a couple of years of interest and penalties .
If the amount is small enough they might even agree not to prosecute you .
What a deal !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"If the IRS pre-fills what the government knows about on the form, then that tells you what the government doesn't know about, and thus can safely be omitted.
"This is a very bad assumption.
What if the information gets corrected a couple of years down the road?
You get a nice letter from the IRS that includes a couple of years of interest and penalties.
If the amount is small enough they might even agree not to prosecute you.
What a deal!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30879842</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30880648</id>
	<title>Re:Conflict? None at all.</title>
	<author>b4dc0d3r</author>
	<datestamp>1264362660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If the IRS fills out what it knows, I have a better idea of whether I'm going to be audited.  Downloading IRS info, and checking it to make sure it's correct, and clicking OK means the IRS already has everything it needs, and no audit needs performed under most circumstances.  At the same time, Intuit is not the preparer - I download and check it, meaning I an the preparer.</p><p>Which brings me to my problem - you shouldn't require software or assistance to ensure your taxes are paid.  There shouldn't be any sort of tax preparer, unless you are doing something complicated.  However, I have found a number of times where H &amp; R Block found small refunds I can take advantage of that I would not have known about myself.  That shows it is too onerous for a person to get back what they deserve.  If I do not get every cent entitled to me by law, the government has stolen money from me by obfuscating my entitlements in an unreadable legal quagmire.</p><p>Also, when Intuit does your return, it doesn't guarantee to take the fall for anything claimed in error - it asks you to review, and sign it yourself.  Intuit's software does not qualify as a "tax preparer" for legal reasons, as far as I know.  The taxpayer is on the hook for any errors in the software, although you might be able to convince an auditor that you didn't make that mistake intentionally, and they might go easy on you just like they went easy on presidential nominees for the same thing.  Right?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If the IRS fills out what it knows , I have a better idea of whether I 'm going to be audited .
Downloading IRS info , and checking it to make sure it 's correct , and clicking OK means the IRS already has everything it needs , and no audit needs performed under most circumstances .
At the same time , Intuit is not the preparer - I download and check it , meaning I an the preparer.Which brings me to my problem - you should n't require software or assistance to ensure your taxes are paid .
There should n't be any sort of tax preparer , unless you are doing something complicated .
However , I have found a number of times where H &amp; R Block found small refunds I can take advantage of that I would not have known about myself .
That shows it is too onerous for a person to get back what they deserve .
If I do not get every cent entitled to me by law , the government has stolen money from me by obfuscating my entitlements in an unreadable legal quagmire.Also , when Intuit does your return , it does n't guarantee to take the fall for anything claimed in error - it asks you to review , and sign it yourself .
Intuit 's software does not qualify as a " tax preparer " for legal reasons , as far as I know .
The taxpayer is on the hook for any errors in the software , although you might be able to convince an auditor that you did n't make that mistake intentionally , and they might go easy on you just like they went easy on presidential nominees for the same thing .
Right ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If the IRS fills out what it knows, I have a better idea of whether I'm going to be audited.
Downloading IRS info, and checking it to make sure it's correct, and clicking OK means the IRS already has everything it needs, and no audit needs performed under most circumstances.
At the same time, Intuit is not the preparer - I download and check it, meaning I an the preparer.Which brings me to my problem - you shouldn't require software or assistance to ensure your taxes are paid.
There shouldn't be any sort of tax preparer, unless you are doing something complicated.
However, I have found a number of times where H &amp; R Block found small refunds I can take advantage of that I would not have known about myself.
That shows it is too onerous for a person to get back what they deserve.
If I do not get every cent entitled to me by law, the government has stolen money from me by obfuscating my entitlements in an unreadable legal quagmire.Also, when Intuit does your return, it doesn't guarantee to take the fall for anything claimed in error - it asks you to review, and sign it yourself.
Intuit's software does not qualify as a "tax preparer" for legal reasons, as far as I know.
The taxpayer is on the hook for any errors in the software, although you might be able to convince an auditor that you didn't make that mistake intentionally, and they might go easy on you just like they went easy on presidential nominees for the same thing.
Right?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30879616</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30885504</id>
	<title>Re:This is how it's done where I'm from...</title>
	<author>jimmyswimmy</author>
	<datestamp>1264350600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Gotcha beat - 3 states AND got married to a girl from another state one year.  Because of the change in marital status I had to prepare different versions of each state form to have all the necessary information (not to file, but to complete the partial year tax forms).  Worked out to something like 8 different state/federal 1040 versions.  I finally gave up and hired somebody to do my taxes that year - at least he had to sign his name next to mine as the paid preparer.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Gotcha beat - 3 states AND got married to a girl from another state one year .
Because of the change in marital status I had to prepare different versions of each state form to have all the necessary information ( not to file , but to complete the partial year tax forms ) .
Worked out to something like 8 different state/federal 1040 versions .
I finally gave up and hired somebody to do my taxes that year - at least he had to sign his name next to mine as the paid preparer .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Gotcha beat - 3 states AND got married to a girl from another state one year.
Because of the change in marital status I had to prepare different versions of each state form to have all the necessary information (not to file, but to complete the partial year tax forms).
Worked out to something like 8 different state/federal 1040 versions.
I finally gave up and hired somebody to do my taxes that year - at least he had to sign his name next to mine as the paid preparer.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30879716</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30886130</id>
	<title>Re:Funny that you mention California</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264355940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You don't f*ck anyone in the neck, ya clown. You're doing it all wrong.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You do n't f * ck anyone in the neck , ya clown .
You 're doing it all wrong .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You don't f*ck anyone in the neck, ya clown.
You're doing it all wrong.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30879626</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30884026</id>
	<title>LEGAL FORMS MAKE YOU LIABLE /wo DISTRICT COURT.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264339440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A Tax Court penalizes people upwards $5k, regardless of how many children you have, just for asserting Section 83.  The jurisdiction arises by the people volunteering to file a form, and forms are not law but legal arrangements where you become liable under penalty of perjury for their use.  All taxation is a seizure on land, as opposed to service costs and fee (contract).</p><p>Just look-up Section 83 in Internal Revenue Code (Article 16) or USCode Title 26. Section 83 classifies labor as being exempt from taxation, that it is a cost not income because a man never payed anyone else for his labor before selling his time to the company.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A Tax Court penalizes people upwards $ 5k , regardless of how many children you have , just for asserting Section 83 .
The jurisdiction arises by the people volunteering to file a form , and forms are not law but legal arrangements where you become liable under penalty of perjury for their use .
All taxation is a seizure on land , as opposed to service costs and fee ( contract ) .Just look-up Section 83 in Internal Revenue Code ( Article 16 ) or USCode Title 26 .
Section 83 classifies labor as being exempt from taxation , that it is a cost not income because a man never payed anyone else for his labor before selling his time to the company .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A Tax Court penalizes people upwards $5k, regardless of how many children you have, just for asserting Section 83.
The jurisdiction arises by the people volunteering to file a form, and forms are not law but legal arrangements where you become liable under penalty of perjury for their use.
All taxation is a seizure on land, as opposed to service costs and fee (contract).Just look-up Section 83 in Internal Revenue Code (Article 16) or USCode Title 26.
Section 83 classifies labor as being exempt from taxation, that it is a cost not income because a man never payed anyone else for his labor before selling his time to the company.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30880304</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30879932</id>
	<title>anyone can, few do</title>
	<author>ticktickboom</author>
	<datestamp>1264359600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>if people actually glanced at the tax code, within the first page it states that the act of paying tax is VOLUNTARY.<br>that's why they should do it for you, its voluntary.  when it becomes mandatory, they could do that...</p><p>go to the public library, look at the 2009 tax code.  opposite the front cover, there it is..</p><p>this does not mean you don't have to pay tax.  if you don't pay the protection money, they will fine or jail you.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>if people actually glanced at the tax code , within the first page it states that the act of paying tax is VOLUNTARY.that 's why they should do it for you , its voluntary .
when it becomes mandatory , they could do that...go to the public library , look at the 2009 tax code .
opposite the front cover , there it is..this does not mean you do n't have to pay tax .
if you do n't pay the protection money , they will fine or jail you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>if people actually glanced at the tax code, within the first page it states that the act of paying tax is VOLUNTARY.that's why they should do it for you, its voluntary.
when it becomes mandatory, they could do that...go to the public library, look at the 2009 tax code.
opposite the front cover, there it is..this does not mean you don't have to pay tax.
if you don't pay the protection money, they will fine or jail you.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30882786</id>
	<title>What the IRS Doesn't Know</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264331220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The IRS DOES know about W-2 income and all flavors of 1099 income. The IRS does not know (and probably most would agree SHOULD not know) about stuff like self-employment income (doesn't have to be on a 1099 unless a single payer pays $600 or more), "other income (e.g., small gambling winnings), alimony, educator expenses and other adjustments to income, many of the tax credits like earned income tax credit, education expenses not reportd on a 1098 (there are five different ways to benefit  from allowable education expenses), charitable contributions and a whole pile of other "terms and conditions" that relate to each line of the tax return.</p><p>Certainly it's true that for most taxpayers who might have only W-2 income, maybe some interest and dividend income, and nothing else, the IRS could calculate the return and either send a bill or a refund check. And it's certainly true that the tax code is unnecessarily complex. But Congress writes the tax law, and as has been abundantly clear of late, Congress is well and truly owned by big business. So it's unlikely that the tax code will get any simpler barring a revolution of, by, and for the people (phrase sound familiar?).</p><p>The "Fair Tax" folks, the "Flat Tax" folks, etc., propose moving one monolith (the Feds) across an abyss, but I have not seen them address the other 50 or so state and territorial entities that tie their fortunes to the federal structure. Good luck with them!</p><p>Finally, Intuit is only doing what corporations do: protecting its bottom line, so why is anyone shocked (SHOCKED!) by their arguments.</p><p>If you really want a pie in the sky, work to repeal "corporate personhood", wherein First Amendment freedom of speech protection is accorded to corporate entities and somehow, speech equates to unlimited campaign contributions to politicians.Overturn that and the system would clean itself up in very short order!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The IRS DOES know about W-2 income and all flavors of 1099 income .
The IRS does not know ( and probably most would agree SHOULD not know ) about stuff like self-employment income ( does n't have to be on a 1099 unless a single payer pays $ 600 or more ) , " other income ( e.g. , small gambling winnings ) , alimony , educator expenses and other adjustments to income , many of the tax credits like earned income tax credit , education expenses not reportd on a 1098 ( there are five different ways to benefit from allowable education expenses ) , charitable contributions and a whole pile of other " terms and conditions " that relate to each line of the tax return.Certainly it 's true that for most taxpayers who might have only W-2 income , maybe some interest and dividend income , and nothing else , the IRS could calculate the return and either send a bill or a refund check .
And it 's certainly true that the tax code is unnecessarily complex .
But Congress writes the tax law , and as has been abundantly clear of late , Congress is well and truly owned by big business .
So it 's unlikely that the tax code will get any simpler barring a revolution of , by , and for the people ( phrase sound familiar ?
) .The " Fair Tax " folks , the " Flat Tax " folks , etc. , propose moving one monolith ( the Feds ) across an abyss , but I have not seen them address the other 50 or so state and territorial entities that tie their fortunes to the federal structure .
Good luck with them ! Finally , Intuit is only doing what corporations do : protecting its bottom line , so why is anyone shocked ( SHOCKED !
) by their arguments.If you really want a pie in the sky , work to repeal " corporate personhood " , wherein First Amendment freedom of speech protection is accorded to corporate entities and somehow , speech equates to unlimited campaign contributions to politicians.Overturn that and the system would clean itself up in very short order !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The IRS DOES know about W-2 income and all flavors of 1099 income.
The IRS does not know (and probably most would agree SHOULD not know) about stuff like self-employment income (doesn't have to be on a 1099 unless a single payer pays $600 or more), "other income (e.g., small gambling winnings), alimony, educator expenses and other adjustments to income, many of the tax credits like earned income tax credit, education expenses not reportd on a 1098 (there are five different ways to benefit  from allowable education expenses), charitable contributions and a whole pile of other "terms and conditions" that relate to each line of the tax return.Certainly it's true that for most taxpayers who might have only W-2 income, maybe some interest and dividend income, and nothing else, the IRS could calculate the return and either send a bill or a refund check.
And it's certainly true that the tax code is unnecessarily complex.
But Congress writes the tax law, and as has been abundantly clear of late, Congress is well and truly owned by big business.
So it's unlikely that the tax code will get any simpler barring a revolution of, by, and for the people (phrase sound familiar?
).The "Fair Tax" folks, the "Flat Tax" folks, etc., propose moving one monolith (the Feds) across an abyss, but I have not seen them address the other 50 or so state and territorial entities that tie their fortunes to the federal structure.
Good luck with them!Finally, Intuit is only doing what corporations do: protecting its bottom line, so why is anyone shocked (SHOCKED!
) by their arguments.If you really want a pie in the sky, work to repeal "corporate personhood", wherein First Amendment freedom of speech protection is accorded to corporate entities and somehow, speech equates to unlimited campaign contributions to politicians.Overturn that and the system would clean itself up in very short order!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30881384</id>
	<title>Re:This is how it's done where I'm from...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264366500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In South Africa we get to file our returns online and the online forms are pre-populated with all the relevant details. All we need to add is some basic things relating to some claims you might have had during the year etc. If you are organised it takes maybe up to 30 minutes to file your return and generally if you are eligible for a payout that moeny hits your bank account within 2 weeks.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In South Africa we get to file our returns online and the online forms are pre-populated with all the relevant details .
All we need to add is some basic things relating to some claims you might have had during the year etc .
If you are organised it takes maybe up to 30 minutes to file your return and generally if you are eligible for a payout that moeny hits your bank account within 2 weeks .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In South Africa we get to file our returns online and the online forms are pre-populated with all the relevant details.
All we need to add is some basic things relating to some claims you might have had during the year etc.
If you are organised it takes maybe up to 30 minutes to file your return and generally if you are eligible for a payout that moeny hits your bank account within 2 weeks.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30879612</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30885810</id>
	<title>Re:This is how it's done where I'm from...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264352700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Tee hee, I remember from years ago when I worked in one country, but came from another. I paid tax in the country I came from,  but at the end of each year told the first country I'd been resident in the 2nd country (true, all true). So they sent me my tax back (very nice of them, I thought).<br>And the second country never asked me for any - and if they did, I could truly say I was paying it in country one.</p><p>I can't remember who gave me this advice - possibly the contracting company, I don't recall (honestly, it was a long time ago).</p><p>But that was long ago and far away (and besides, the bitch is dead<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... sorry, wrong quote)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Tee hee , I remember from years ago when I worked in one country , but came from another .
I paid tax in the country I came from , but at the end of each year told the first country I 'd been resident in the 2nd country ( true , all true ) .
So they sent me my tax back ( very nice of them , I thought ) .And the second country never asked me for any - and if they did , I could truly say I was paying it in country one.I ca n't remember who gave me this advice - possibly the contracting company , I do n't recall ( honestly , it was a long time ago ) .But that was long ago and far away ( and besides , the bitch is dead ... sorry , wrong quote )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Tee hee, I remember from years ago when I worked in one country, but came from another.
I paid tax in the country I came from,  but at the end of each year told the first country I'd been resident in the 2nd country (true, all true).
So they sent me my tax back (very nice of them, I thought).And the second country never asked me for any - and if they did, I could truly say I was paying it in country one.I can't remember who gave me this advice - possibly the contracting company, I don't recall (honestly, it was a long time ago).But that was long ago and far away (and besides, the bitch is dead ... sorry, wrong quote)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30879896</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30882616</id>
	<title>Brave new world</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264330260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Some might think that I would type about big brother looking over your shoulder and telling you what to think.  Instead, I'm going to type about how we could live in a better, more modern, more efficient world where people can just get on with living happy successful lives, except that some rat bastard corporation wants a cut, so they go out their way to influence peddle politicians, thus making your life a bitch.  Cheap antibiotics to control that infection?  No pharmaceutical companies won't allow it.  Great universal medical care?  Not with the big insurance companies lobbying against it!  Oh, and for the doubters, how in the hell can a dirt poor country like Cuba afford it, but the US can't?  Pre-filled easy to manage tax assessment?  Screw that!  There are companies making big money by being in the way of progress!  But hey, record companies make money trying to sell disks no one wants any more.  The government should be getting in the way of a company making a profit, even if it would be in their and the general populations best interest and wildly less expensive for everyone.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Some might think that I would type about big brother looking over your shoulder and telling you what to think .
Instead , I 'm going to type about how we could live in a better , more modern , more efficient world where people can just get on with living happy successful lives , except that some rat bastard corporation wants a cut , so they go out their way to influence peddle politicians , thus making your life a bitch .
Cheap antibiotics to control that infection ?
No pharmaceutical companies wo n't allow it .
Great universal medical care ?
Not with the big insurance companies lobbying against it !
Oh , and for the doubters , how in the hell can a dirt poor country like Cuba afford it , but the US ca n't ?
Pre-filled easy to manage tax assessment ?
Screw that !
There are companies making big money by being in the way of progress !
But hey , record companies make money trying to sell disks no one wants any more .
The government should be getting in the way of a company making a profit , even if it would be in their and the general populations best interest and wildly less expensive for everyone .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Some might think that I would type about big brother looking over your shoulder and telling you what to think.
Instead, I'm going to type about how we could live in a better, more modern, more efficient world where people can just get on with living happy successful lives, except that some rat bastard corporation wants a cut, so they go out their way to influence peddle politicians, thus making your life a bitch.
Cheap antibiotics to control that infection?
No pharmaceutical companies won't allow it.
Great universal medical care?
Not with the big insurance companies lobbying against it!
Oh, and for the doubters, how in the hell can a dirt poor country like Cuba afford it, but the US can't?
Pre-filled easy to manage tax assessment?
Screw that!
There are companies making big money by being in the way of progress!
But hey, record companies make money trying to sell disks no one wants any more.
The government should be getting in the way of a company making a profit, even if it would be in their and the general populations best interest and wildly less expensive for everyone.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30880668</id>
	<title>Intuit are evil ...</title>
	<author>aegl</author>
	<datestamp>1264362720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Just got a pop-up from Quicken 2007 telling me that it will cease down-loading data from my bank at the end of April. If I want to keep being able to do this, then I'll have to upgrade to Quicken 2010.</p><p>This is the second time that Intuit have made an incompatible change to the download data format (at least while I've been using it). So I'm going to assume that their business plan now includes a forced upgrade every three or so years. Time to start researching non-evil alternatives.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just got a pop-up from Quicken 2007 telling me that it will cease down-loading data from my bank at the end of April .
If I want to keep being able to do this , then I 'll have to upgrade to Quicken 2010.This is the second time that Intuit have made an incompatible change to the download data format ( at least while I 've been using it ) .
So I 'm going to assume that their business plan now includes a forced upgrade every three or so years .
Time to start researching non-evil alternatives .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just got a pop-up from Quicken 2007 telling me that it will cease down-loading data from my bank at the end of April.
If I want to keep being able to do this, then I'll have to upgrade to Quicken 2010.This is the second time that Intuit have made an incompatible change to the download data format (at least while I've been using it).
So I'm going to assume that their business plan now includes a forced upgrade every three or so years.
Time to start researching non-evil alternatives.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30879774</id>
	<title>Re:Conflict?</title>
	<author>nbauman</author>
	<datestamp>1264358700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They did.</p><p>Either you are very insightful, or you read TFA.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They did.Either you are very insightful , or you read TFA .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They did.Either you are very insightful, or you read TFA.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30879616</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30880076</id>
	<title>Re:people are lazy</title>
	<author>Capt. Skinny</author>
	<datestamp>1264360140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>i'd rather pull my own fingernails out with a wrench</p></div><p>A wrench? Good luck with that.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>i 'd rather pull my own fingernails out with a wrenchA wrench ?
Good luck with that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>i'd rather pull my own fingernails out with a wrenchA wrench?
Good luck with that.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30879640</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30881284</id>
	<title>Re:This is how it's done where I'm from...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264365960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In New Zealand we go one step better. No form in the mail unless you request it.</p><p>Most wage and salary earners need never give it a thought. If you do want to check, there are plenty of folk in store-fronts who will do so on your behalf for a few tens of dollars.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In New Zealand we go one step better .
No form in the mail unless you request it.Most wage and salary earners need never give it a thought .
If you do want to check , there are plenty of folk in store-fronts who will do so on your behalf for a few tens of dollars .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In New Zealand we go one step better.
No form in the mail unless you request it.Most wage and salary earners need never give it a thought.
If you do want to check, there are plenty of folk in store-fronts who will do so on your behalf for a few tens of dollars.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30879612</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30880062</id>
	<title>Even better idea...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264360080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>www.fairtax.org</htmltext>
<tokenext>www.fairtax.org</tokentext>
<sentencetext>www.fairtax.org</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30880418</id>
	<title>Elsewhere in the world.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264361580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In New Zealand, you don't even have to request the pre-filled in form.  For most people, the deductions were right from the salary.  Or the error was under $200 and therefore legally can be ignored.</p><p>In certain situations (that I was in) you must request a personal taxation summary and check that.  Mine was wrong - so I corrected it online (who bothers with legacy paper in this century?)  and then I did the electronic transfer straight from my bank account to pay the outstanding amount.  None of this silly cheque nonsense.</p><p>That deals with easily 80-90\% of taxpayers.  That's the key - there are some people that still have to file tax returns (due mainly to untaxed income, such as renting out a house) BUT the majority do not.</p><p>Of coure, the US has the complexity of city, county, state and federal taxes.  Coupled with too many interest groups - its insane that people can protest the IRS simplifiying its systems because they profit from the complexity of the current system.  (NZ has the advantage that there isn't a tax preperation software market that would complain.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In New Zealand , you do n't even have to request the pre-filled in form .
For most people , the deductions were right from the salary .
Or the error was under $ 200 and therefore legally can be ignored.In certain situations ( that I was in ) you must request a personal taxation summary and check that .
Mine was wrong - so I corrected it online ( who bothers with legacy paper in this century ?
) and then I did the electronic transfer straight from my bank account to pay the outstanding amount .
None of this silly cheque nonsense.That deals with easily 80-90 \ % of taxpayers .
That 's the key - there are some people that still have to file tax returns ( due mainly to untaxed income , such as renting out a house ) BUT the majority do not.Of coure , the US has the complexity of city , county , state and federal taxes .
Coupled with too many interest groups - its insane that people can protest the IRS simplifiying its systems because they profit from the complexity of the current system .
( NZ has the advantage that there is n't a tax preperation software market that would complain .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In New Zealand, you don't even have to request the pre-filled in form.
For most people, the deductions were right from the salary.
Or the error was under $200 and therefore legally can be ignored.In certain situations (that I was in) you must request a personal taxation summary and check that.
Mine was wrong - so I corrected it online (who bothers with legacy paper in this century?
)  and then I did the electronic transfer straight from my bank account to pay the outstanding amount.
None of this silly cheque nonsense.That deals with easily 80-90\% of taxpayers.
That's the key - there are some people that still have to file tax returns (due mainly to untaxed income, such as renting out a house) BUT the majority do not.Of coure, the US has the complexity of city, county, state and federal taxes.
Coupled with too many interest groups - its insane that people can protest the IRS simplifiying its systems because they profit from the complexity of the current system.
(NZ has the advantage that there isn't a tax preperation software market that would complain.
)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30879760</id>
	<title>4-0 SWE - USA</title>
	<author>ard</author>
	<datestamp>1264358580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>* Pre-filled tax returns - Check<br>* All banks require login and signing via OTP pads - Check<br>* Bank-ID provides electronic signatures - Check<br>* The SSID-equivalent "personnummer"/birthdate is publically available without posing risks since its not used for authentication - Check</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>* Pre-filled tax returns - Check * All banks require login and signing via OTP pads - Check * Bank-ID provides electronic signatures - Check * The SSID-equivalent " personnummer " /birthdate is publically available without posing risks since its not used for authentication - Check</tokentext>
<sentencetext>* Pre-filled tax returns - Check* All banks require login and signing via OTP pads - Check* Bank-ID provides electronic signatures - Check* The SSID-equivalent "personnummer"/birthdate is publically available without posing risks since its not used for authentication - Check</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30881200</id>
	<title>Land Value Tax Means No One Files</title>
	<author>Baldrson</author>
	<datestamp>1264365540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>One of the few areas where classical and neoclassical economists agree is that the best form of taxation of land value taxation.
<p>
Moreover, it is one of the few kinds of taxation that requires no filing by anyone.
</p><p>
So just ditch the tax systems that require filing and go to land value.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>One of the few areas where classical and neoclassical economists agree is that the best form of taxation of land value taxation .
Moreover , it is one of the few kinds of taxation that requires no filing by anyone .
So just ditch the tax systems that require filing and go to land value .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One of the few areas where classical and neoclassical economists agree is that the best form of taxation of land value taxation.
Moreover, it is one of the few kinds of taxation that requires no filing by anyone.
So just ditch the tax systems that require filing and go to land value.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30880414</id>
	<title>Re:What do you think happens today?</title>
	<author>Gorobei</author>
	<datestamp>1264361580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I see a big problem here.  If the govt just took people's W-2s, had charities report electronically, require brokerages to track cost basis, 99\% of people could just click "accept" and be done with filing taxes.</p><p>I had to file a 2" thick pile of paper last year.  After 6 months, the government sent me mail saying I was off by a factor of 4E-9 percent, and they had credited that to my next years return.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I see a big problem here .
If the govt just took people 's W-2s , had charities report electronically , require brokerages to track cost basis , 99 \ % of people could just click " accept " and be done with filing taxes.I had to file a 2 " thick pile of paper last year .
After 6 months , the government sent me mail saying I was off by a factor of 4E-9 percent , and they had credited that to my next years return .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I see a big problem here.
If the govt just took people's W-2s, had charities report electronically, require brokerages to track cost basis, 99\% of people could just click "accept" and be done with filing taxes.I had to file a 2" thick pile of paper last year.
After 6 months, the government sent me mail saying I was off by a factor of 4E-9 percent, and they had credited that to my next years return.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30880194</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30879714</id>
	<title>Because they don't have to</title>
	<author>Gothmolly</author>
	<datestamp>1264358340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's Schernau's Razor - "if you do the work, then I don't have to".   The IRS is in BUSINESS to collect, process, and audit (the incorrect) returns.  They are not required to show any efficiencies, why would they?  Every little Napoleon in the org chart beefs up his staff as much as he can.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's Schernau 's Razor - " if you do the work , then I do n't have to " .
The IRS is in BUSINESS to collect , process , and audit ( the incorrect ) returns .
They are not required to show any efficiencies , why would they ?
Every little Napoleon in the org chart beefs up his staff as much as he can .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's Schernau's Razor - "if you do the work, then I don't have to".
The IRS is in BUSINESS to collect, process, and audit (the incorrect) returns.
They are not required to show any efficiencies, why would they?
Every little Napoleon in the org chart beefs up his staff as much as he can.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30879644</id>
	<title>We have it already..</title>
	<author>EyelessFade</author>
	<datestamp>1264357980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>In Norway we have had pre-filled tax sheets for several years. Now we don't even have to send it in if its already correct.</htmltext>
<tokenext>In Norway we have had pre-filled tax sheets for several years .
Now we do n't even have to send it in if its already correct .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In Norway we have had pre-filled tax sheets for several years.
Now we don't even have to send it in if its already correct.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30880400</id>
	<title>Re:An invitation to defraud</title>
	<author>rantingkitten</author>
	<datestamp>1264361520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Gee, the government might not be able to force quite as much money from the citizens, and would therefore have less money to squander on idiotic crap nobody wants, needs, or asked for.  That'd be a real crying shame.  <br>
<br>
If everyone paid based "only" on what the government knows about their income, the government would still have plenty of money.  If they're hurting for cash that bad, they should take a big red pen, <a href="http://www.lib.lsu.edu/gov/index.html" title="lsu.edu">go through this list</a> [lsu.edu], and eliminate 50\% of it.
<br> <br>
Golden Field Office. Inter-American Foundation. Japan-United States Friendship Commission. Management Assistance Team, Management Service Office. National Wild Horse and Burro Program. Center for the Book. Citizens' Stamp Advisory Committee. Executive Office for Weed and Seed. Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives. Tribal Affairs Office. Federal Duck Stamp Office.  Six agencies, that I can see, doing the same exact job as the FDA.  It goes on but I'm tired of looking at this list. <br>
<br>
In short, I have no problem if the government gets less money.  Who cares?  You're also discounting the lost productivity and contribution to the GNP by having the entire labor force of the country throw away hours or days of their time filling out useless paperwork to tell the government what it probably already knows.  I have no numbers but it seems to be the odds are pretty good that the act of filling out tax returns is vastly more expensive to the nation as a whole than a couple of people failing to report their two-thousand-dollar investment earnings.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Gee , the government might not be able to force quite as much money from the citizens , and would therefore have less money to squander on idiotic crap nobody wants , needs , or asked for .
That 'd be a real crying shame .
If everyone paid based " only " on what the government knows about their income , the government would still have plenty of money .
If they 're hurting for cash that bad , they should take a big red pen , go through this list [ lsu.edu ] , and eliminate 50 \ % of it .
Golden Field Office .
Inter-American Foundation .
Japan-United States Friendship Commission .
Management Assistance Team , Management Service Office .
National Wild Horse and Burro Program .
Center for the Book .
Citizens ' Stamp Advisory Committee .
Executive Office for Weed and Seed .
Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives .
Tribal Affairs Office .
Federal Duck Stamp Office .
Six agencies , that I can see , doing the same exact job as the FDA .
It goes on but I 'm tired of looking at this list .
In short , I have no problem if the government gets less money .
Who cares ?
You 're also discounting the lost productivity and contribution to the GNP by having the entire labor force of the country throw away hours or days of their time filling out useless paperwork to tell the government what it probably already knows .
I have no numbers but it seems to be the odds are pretty good that the act of filling out tax returns is vastly more expensive to the nation as a whole than a couple of people failing to report their two-thousand-dollar investment earnings .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Gee, the government might not be able to force quite as much money from the citizens, and would therefore have less money to squander on idiotic crap nobody wants, needs, or asked for.
That'd be a real crying shame.
If everyone paid based "only" on what the government knows about their income, the government would still have plenty of money.
If they're hurting for cash that bad, they should take a big red pen, go through this list [lsu.edu], and eliminate 50\% of it.
Golden Field Office.
Inter-American Foundation.
Japan-United States Friendship Commission.
Management Assistance Team, Management Service Office.
National Wild Horse and Burro Program.
Center for the Book.
Citizens' Stamp Advisory Committee.
Executive Office for Weed and Seed.
Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives.
Tribal Affairs Office.
Federal Duck Stamp Office.
Six agencies, that I can see, doing the same exact job as the FDA.
It goes on but I'm tired of looking at this list.
In short, I have no problem if the government gets less money.
Who cares?
You're also discounting the lost productivity and contribution to the GNP by having the entire labor force of the country throw away hours or days of their time filling out useless paperwork to tell the government what it probably already knows.
I have no numbers but it seems to be the odds are pretty good that the act of filling out tax returns is vastly more expensive to the nation as a whole than a couple of people failing to report their two-thousand-dollar investment earnings.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30879646</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30904030</id>
	<title>Tax code simplification.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264520340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I've always figured congressmen should give free tax advice.  After all, they understand the tax code well enough to modify it willy-nilly, right?  They ought to be required to be available to explain it to their constituents.  And be held legally responsible for the bad advice they give.</p><p>Then again, I've also suggested that congressmen be required to do their own taxes, no accountants or outside help.  They could do it all at once, like high school kids taking the SAT.  Show up some saturday morning with a calculator, a box of receipts, and some #2 pencils.  We could grade them on how accurately they were able to follow the tax code.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've always figured congressmen should give free tax advice .
After all , they understand the tax code well enough to modify it willy-nilly , right ?
They ought to be required to be available to explain it to their constituents .
And be held legally responsible for the bad advice they give.Then again , I 've also suggested that congressmen be required to do their own taxes , no accountants or outside help .
They could do it all at once , like high school kids taking the SAT .
Show up some saturday morning with a calculator , a box of receipts , and some # 2 pencils .
We could grade them on how accurately they were able to follow the tax code .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've always figured congressmen should give free tax advice.
After all, they understand the tax code well enough to modify it willy-nilly, right?
They ought to be required to be available to explain it to their constituents.
And be held legally responsible for the bad advice they give.Then again, I've also suggested that congressmen be required to do their own taxes, no accountants or outside help.
They could do it all at once, like high school kids taking the SAT.
Show up some saturday morning with a calculator, a box of receipts, and some #2 pencils.
We could grade them on how accurately they were able to follow the tax code.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30880162</id>
	<title>Re:Conflict?</title>
	<author>fermion</author>
	<datestamp>1264360440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I think there is some credibility to that assertion. The thing the IRS needs to do is not prefill printed tax returns, but provide an online serve for those those people that file simple returns, especially those that get a refund. This site can confirm and collect information that is used to fill in forms automatically.  If additional information is needed, or the precess is to be too complex, the user can still get partially filled forms.  The user can print or the IRS can mail the forms to sign.  Refund in the bank the next day if nothing is different than expects, or after the signed forms are in if more information is needed.
<p>
The problem is that this will put crooks like HR Block and Jackson Hewitt out of business. They will no longer  be able to charge excessive fees for trivial work. They will no longer be able to be the loan sharks of the tax world, charging huge fees for money you would get anyway, in about as much time.
</p><p>
The benefit of this is reliable feedback.  For instance, if an American works oversees, that money may not be taxed in the US. But,I believe,a form does have to be filed.I have seen cases where the tax prep people do not tell the customers this,just that taxes do not need to filed.  For those that do not have an accountant, such a web site can prevent many mistakes that are made now.  Any non interactive solution would not have such feedback and therefore would not be that userful.
</p><p>
Intuit probably would not be put our of business, as more complex taxes would not be so easy to pre-fill.  These taxes depend on many pieces of information the IRS may not have, like medical bills and certain other write offs. But for sure now the HR Block can use every cent they have to promote like minded elected officials, we will not soon see an end to their deceptive practices.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think there is some credibility to that assertion .
The thing the IRS needs to do is not prefill printed tax returns , but provide an online serve for those those people that file simple returns , especially those that get a refund .
This site can confirm and collect information that is used to fill in forms automatically .
If additional information is needed , or the precess is to be too complex , the user can still get partially filled forms .
The user can print or the IRS can mail the forms to sign .
Refund in the bank the next day if nothing is different than expects , or after the signed forms are in if more information is needed .
The problem is that this will put crooks like HR Block and Jackson Hewitt out of business .
They will no longer be able to charge excessive fees for trivial work .
They will no longer be able to be the loan sharks of the tax world , charging huge fees for money you would get anyway , in about as much time .
The benefit of this is reliable feedback .
For instance , if an American works oversees , that money may not be taxed in the US .
But,I believe,a form does have to be filed.I have seen cases where the tax prep people do not tell the customers this,just that taxes do not need to filed .
For those that do not have an accountant , such a web site can prevent many mistakes that are made now .
Any non interactive solution would not have such feedback and therefore would not be that userful .
Intuit probably would not be put our of business , as more complex taxes would not be so easy to pre-fill .
These taxes depend on many pieces of information the IRS may not have , like medical bills and certain other write offs .
But for sure now the HR Block can use every cent they have to promote like minded elected officials , we will not soon see an end to their deceptive practices .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think there is some credibility to that assertion.
The thing the IRS needs to do is not prefill printed tax returns, but provide an online serve for those those people that file simple returns, especially those that get a refund.
This site can confirm and collect information that is used to fill in forms automatically.
If additional information is needed, or the precess is to be too complex, the user can still get partially filled forms.
The user can print or the IRS can mail the forms to sign.
Refund in the bank the next day if nothing is different than expects, or after the signed forms are in if more information is needed.
The problem is that this will put crooks like HR Block and Jackson Hewitt out of business.
They will no longer  be able to charge excessive fees for trivial work.
They will no longer be able to be the loan sharks of the tax world, charging huge fees for money you would get anyway, in about as much time.
The benefit of this is reliable feedback.
For instance, if an American works oversees, that money may not be taxed in the US.
But,I believe,a form does have to be filed.I have seen cases where the tax prep people do not tell the customers this,just that taxes do not need to filed.
For those that do not have an accountant, such a web site can prevent many mistakes that are made now.
Any non interactive solution would not have such feedback and therefore would not be that userful.
Intuit probably would not be put our of business, as more complex taxes would not be so easy to pre-fill.
These taxes depend on many pieces of information the IRS may not have, like medical bills and certain other write offs.
But for sure now the HR Block can use every cent they have to promote like minded elected officials, we will not soon see an end to their deceptive practices.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30879616</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30883264</id>
	<title>Re:What do you think happens today?</title>
	<author>mysidia</author>
	<datestamp>1264334760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> <em>I see a big problem here. If the govt just took people's W-2s, had charities report electronically, require brokerages to track cost basis, 99\% of people could just click "accept" and be done with filing taxes.</em> </p><p>
Brokers can't track cost basis definitively, when investors receive the assets in their own name, and then later transfer to or sell through a different broker.
</p><p>
When investors have accounts at multiple brokerages, or multiple different types of accounts, a broker can't detect a <b>Wash Sale</b>.
</p><p>
And also cannot detect <b>constructive sales</b> or <b>shorting against the box</b>..
For example: person A might by 100 shares of stock XYZ  from Broker A, and then buy an offsetting  PUT option for XYZ or shorting a futures contract against the stock from Broker B.
</p><p>
In either case, the result is an <b>offsetting position</b>,  which for tax purposes has the same tax consequence as a sale of the stock at <b>Broker A</b>  (in terms of unrealized gains)
</p><p>
But Broker B has no means of detecting the position at Broker A.
</p><p>
Moreover, the investor who performs a wash sale at a loss  (i.e. they buy back the position through a different broker)  has to delay the loss.
</p><p>
But in so delaying the loss, the cost basis is increased.
So if the broker reported "their view" of the cost basis to the IRS, the number would be incorrect, due to the application of the wash sale rule.
</p><p>
Unless <b>all</b> transactions get reported to the IRS, with details sufficient to identify wash/constructive sales,  the IRS cannot be sure of matters for much of the population.
</p><p>
And we haven't even gotten into things like barter arrangements.
<br>
E.g.  I trade you my iPod Touch, Mighty mouse, Mac Mini,  and 17" CRT monitor,  to you in exchange for receiving your 27 inch iMac, Apple Tablet, and iPhone.
</p><p>
How is the IRS going to sort that one?<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)
</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I see a big problem here .
If the govt just took people 's W-2s , had charities report electronically , require brokerages to track cost basis , 99 \ % of people could just click " accept " and be done with filing taxes .
Brokers ca n't track cost basis definitively , when investors receive the assets in their own name , and then later transfer to or sell through a different broker .
When investors have accounts at multiple brokerages , or multiple different types of accounts , a broker ca n't detect a Wash Sale .
And also can not detect constructive sales or shorting against the box. . For example : person A might by 100 shares of stock XYZ from Broker A , and then buy an offsetting PUT option for XYZ or shorting a futures contract against the stock from Broker B . In either case , the result is an offsetting position , which for tax purposes has the same tax consequence as a sale of the stock at Broker A ( in terms of unrealized gains ) But Broker B has no means of detecting the position at Broker A . Moreover , the investor who performs a wash sale at a loss ( i.e .
they buy back the position through a different broker ) has to delay the loss .
But in so delaying the loss , the cost basis is increased .
So if the broker reported " their view " of the cost basis to the IRS , the number would be incorrect , due to the application of the wash sale rule .
Unless all transactions get reported to the IRS , with details sufficient to identify wash/constructive sales , the IRS can not be sure of matters for much of the population .
And we have n't even gotten into things like barter arrangements .
E.g. I trade you my iPod Touch , Mighty mouse , Mac Mini , and 17 " CRT monitor , to you in exchange for receiving your 27 inch iMac , Apple Tablet , and iPhone .
How is the IRS going to sort that one ?
: )</tokentext>
<sentencetext> I see a big problem here.
If the govt just took people's W-2s, had charities report electronically, require brokerages to track cost basis, 99\% of people could just click "accept" and be done with filing taxes.
Brokers can't track cost basis definitively, when investors receive the assets in their own name, and then later transfer to or sell through a different broker.
When investors have accounts at multiple brokerages, or multiple different types of accounts, a broker can't detect a Wash Sale.
And also cannot detect constructive sales or shorting against the box..
For example: person A might by 100 shares of stock XYZ  from Broker A, and then buy an offsetting  PUT option for XYZ or shorting a futures contract against the stock from Broker B.

In either case, the result is an offsetting position,  which for tax purposes has the same tax consequence as a sale of the stock at Broker A  (in terms of unrealized gains)

But Broker B has no means of detecting the position at Broker A.

Moreover, the investor who performs a wash sale at a loss  (i.e.
they buy back the position through a different broker)  has to delay the loss.
But in so delaying the loss, the cost basis is increased.
So if the broker reported "their view" of the cost basis to the IRS, the number would be incorrect, due to the application of the wash sale rule.
Unless all transactions get reported to the IRS, with details sufficient to identify wash/constructive sales,  the IRS cannot be sure of matters for much of the population.
And we haven't even gotten into things like barter arrangements.
E.g.  I trade you my iPod Touch, Mighty mouse, Mac Mini,  and 17" CRT monitor,  to you in exchange for receiving your 27 inch iMac, Apple Tablet, and iPhone.
How is the IRS going to sort that one?
:)
</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30880414</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30881900</id>
	<title>Re:An invitation to defraud</title>
	<author>ChristianCooper</author>
	<datestamp>1264326240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well, that's not how it works in e.g. the United Kingdom (where income tax is deducted at source for employees).  Those items you mention are very rarely claimable expenses (you certainly can't claim your daily commute against tax), except for certain specialised trades.  The truth is that the majority of people do not need to even submit a tax return each year, chiefly those that do are people who a) are self employed, b) are directors of a company, or c) earn significantly over the median wage so as to be liable for the highest rate of tax.</p><p>Some statistics: In the tax year 2008/2009 there were <a href="http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/stats/tax\_receipts/table1-4.pdf" title="hmrc.gov.uk" rel="nofollow">30.9 million tax payers in the UK</a> [hmrc.gov.uk].  By the deadline for submission, <a href="http://www.channel4.com/news/articles/business\_money/record+number+of+tax+returns+online/2915467" title="channel4.com" rel="nofollow">7.84 million people submitted a tax return on time</a> [channel4.com], and typically 10\% of people missed the deadline (I CBA to find the actual data).  That extrapolates to 8.8 million people, or 28\% of the tax-paying population.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , that 's not how it works in e.g .
the United Kingdom ( where income tax is deducted at source for employees ) .
Those items you mention are very rarely claimable expenses ( you certainly ca n't claim your daily commute against tax ) , except for certain specialised trades .
The truth is that the majority of people do not need to even submit a tax return each year , chiefly those that do are people who a ) are self employed , b ) are directors of a company , or c ) earn significantly over the median wage so as to be liable for the highest rate of tax.Some statistics : In the tax year 2008/2009 there were 30.9 million tax payers in the UK [ hmrc.gov.uk ] .
By the deadline for submission , 7.84 million people submitted a tax return on time [ channel4.com ] , and typically 10 \ % of people missed the deadline ( I CBA to find the actual data ) .
That extrapolates to 8.8 million people , or 28 \ % of the tax-paying population .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, that's not how it works in e.g.
the United Kingdom (where income tax is deducted at source for employees).
Those items you mention are very rarely claimable expenses (you certainly can't claim your daily commute against tax), except for certain specialised trades.
The truth is that the majority of people do not need to even submit a tax return each year, chiefly those that do are people who a) are self employed, b) are directors of a company, or c) earn significantly over the median wage so as to be liable for the highest rate of tax.Some statistics: In the tax year 2008/2009 there were 30.9 million tax payers in the UK [hmrc.gov.uk].
By the deadline for submission, 7.84 million people submitted a tax return on time [channel4.com], and typically 10\% of people missed the deadline (I CBA to find the actual data).
That extrapolates to 8.8 million people, or 28\% of the tax-paying population.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30879914</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30884568</id>
	<title>Re:Increases Fraud</title>
	<author>aaarrrgggh</author>
	<datestamp>1264343580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Over theyears, you learn what info the government collects. For anybody who makes the majority of their money by means other than W2, there are plenty of ways to game the system. That flexibility is needed, as expenses offset the income.</p><p>That class of people are also pretty well screwed by the system, increasing incentives to cheat. Knowing how the system works facilitates this...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Over theyears , you learn what info the government collects .
For anybody who makes the majority of their money by means other than W2 , there are plenty of ways to game the system .
That flexibility is needed , as expenses offset the income.That class of people are also pretty well screwed by the system , increasing incentives to cheat .
Knowing how the system works facilitates this.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Over theyears, you learn what info the government collects.
For anybody who makes the majority of their money by means other than W2, there are plenty of ways to game the system.
That flexibility is needed, as expenses offset the income.That class of people are also pretty well screwed by the system, increasing incentives to cheat.
Knowing how the system works facilitates this...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30879842</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30881342</id>
	<title>Re:In US private companies do this, only gov't can</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264366260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Please put your spam into your actual signature where I don't have to see it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Please put your spam into your actual signature where I do n't have to see it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Please put your spam into your actual signature where I don't have to see it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30880018</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30882744</id>
	<title>Re:We've had that for years in Norway</title>
	<author>RedWizzard</author>
	<datestamp>1264331040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Same in New Zealand for most people.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Same in New Zealand for most people .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Same in New Zealand for most people.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30879642</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30880112</id>
	<title>Re:Conflict?</title>
	<author>Ironsides</author>
	<datestamp>1264360260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Not only have they, they also have a point based on current IRS rules/laws.  Currently, if the IRS tax software screws up, it's your fault.  The burden is always on the tax payer, not the IRS even if the IRS is the one that is at fault.  So, who are you going to trust?  The IRS who would prepare your Tax Return AND is the one who will penalize you if the Tax Return is wrong?  Or the third party that guarantees their software is correct and backs it up with cash if it is wrong?<br> <br>
That said, I wish we could go to a simpler system that means we wouldn't need to wrack or brains in frustration every year.  We could replace the entire Federal Income Tax with a 12.68\% flat tax and still collect the same amount of money as we are now.  <a href="http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/07in03etr.xls" title="irs.gov">See Cell B 57</a> [irs.gov]</htmltext>
<tokenext>Not only have they , they also have a point based on current IRS rules/laws .
Currently , if the IRS tax software screws up , it 's your fault .
The burden is always on the tax payer , not the IRS even if the IRS is the one that is at fault .
So , who are you going to trust ?
The IRS who would prepare your Tax Return AND is the one who will penalize you if the Tax Return is wrong ?
Or the third party that guarantees their software is correct and backs it up with cash if it is wrong ?
That said , I wish we could go to a simpler system that means we would n't need to wrack or brains in frustration every year .
We could replace the entire Federal Income Tax with a 12.68 \ % flat tax and still collect the same amount of money as we are now .
See Cell B 57 [ irs.gov ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not only have they, they also have a point based on current IRS rules/laws.
Currently, if the IRS tax software screws up, it's your fault.
The burden is always on the tax payer, not the IRS even if the IRS is the one that is at fault.
So, who are you going to trust?
The IRS who would prepare your Tax Return AND is the one who will penalize you if the Tax Return is wrong?
Or the third party that guarantees their software is correct and backs it up with cash if it is wrong?
That said, I wish we could go to a simpler system that means we wouldn't need to wrack or brains in frustration every year.
We could replace the entire Federal Income Tax with a 12.68\% flat tax and still collect the same amount of money as we are now.
See Cell B 57 [irs.gov]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30879616</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30880092</id>
	<title>U.S. Government Policy...</title>
	<author>Anna Merikin</author>
	<datestamp>1264360140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>has, is -- and will be in the foreseeable future -- not to provide services for free which are already provided by commercial ventures unless the citizen can prove very low income and inability to pay.</p><p>Some cynics may even say the entire tax code is a guarantee of lifetime employment for accountants, but that may be far-fetched.</p><p>Or not.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>has , is -- and will be in the foreseeable future -- not to provide services for free which are already provided by commercial ventures unless the citizen can prove very low income and inability to pay.Some cynics may even say the entire tax code is a guarantee of lifetime employment for accountants , but that may be far-fetched.Or not .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>has, is -- and will be in the foreseeable future -- not to provide services for free which are already provided by commercial ventures unless the citizen can prove very low income and inability to pay.Some cynics may even say the entire tax code is a guarantee of lifetime employment for accountants, but that may be far-fetched.Or not.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30879972</id>
	<title>Tax returns violate the 5th Amendment</title>
	<author>MyFirstNameIsPaul</author>
	<datestamp>1264359720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>But who cares about that?  When the Federal Government first started offering 'free' electronic filing for 1040EZ, I took advantage of it, only to discover that I was forced to use 3rd-party software, all of it online.  I tried two different vendors; one was Intuit and the other I forget.  I could not do anything close to just quickly filling in the information because they wanted to treat me as a 1040A filer or something and force me to answer a million questions about everything.  Then, after answering all the questions, they claimed I was not an EZ filer and thus had to pay money.  This was false because there was no way I had enough deductions to waive the standard deduction, especially based on the information they asked for.  I tried for 4 hours to navigate their byzantine system and was never able to get my 'free' return.</p><p>I ended up going to the IRS website and in less than 5 minutes I found, downloaded, filled out, printed, signed and had the sealed envelope in the mailbox.  I've been paper filing ever since and I won't change until I have to fill out something besides an EZ.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But who cares about that ?
When the Federal Government first started offering 'free ' electronic filing for 1040EZ , I took advantage of it , only to discover that I was forced to use 3rd-party software , all of it online .
I tried two different vendors ; one was Intuit and the other I forget .
I could not do anything close to just quickly filling in the information because they wanted to treat me as a 1040A filer or something and force me to answer a million questions about everything .
Then , after answering all the questions , they claimed I was not an EZ filer and thus had to pay money .
This was false because there was no way I had enough deductions to waive the standard deduction , especially based on the information they asked for .
I tried for 4 hours to navigate their byzantine system and was never able to get my 'free ' return.I ended up going to the IRS website and in less than 5 minutes I found , downloaded , filled out , printed , signed and had the sealed envelope in the mailbox .
I 've been paper filing ever since and I wo n't change until I have to fill out something besides an EZ .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But who cares about that?
When the Federal Government first started offering 'free' electronic filing for 1040EZ, I took advantage of it, only to discover that I was forced to use 3rd-party software, all of it online.
I tried two different vendors; one was Intuit and the other I forget.
I could not do anything close to just quickly filling in the information because they wanted to treat me as a 1040A filer or something and force me to answer a million questions about everything.
Then, after answering all the questions, they claimed I was not an EZ filer and thus had to pay money.
This was false because there was no way I had enough deductions to waive the standard deduction, especially based on the information they asked for.
I tried for 4 hours to navigate their byzantine system and was never able to get my 'free' return.I ended up going to the IRS website and in less than 5 minutes I found, downloaded, filled out, printed, signed and had the sealed envelope in the mailbox.
I've been paper filing ever since and I won't change until I have to fill out something besides an EZ.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30880882</id>
	<title>Would increase burden on employers</title>
	<author>michaelmalak</author>
	<datestamp>1264363680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>With pre-filled forms, the IRS would want to ensure that all sources of income were reported.  That would mean lowering of reporting thresholds on employers, thereby increasing the burden on employers.  E.g., employers can currently save paperwork by opting to not report (1099s) service contractors (e.g. independent plumbers called in for a one-time repair) if the amount paid was less than $600 during the calendar year.  And households can opt to not report babysitters (W-2s) if the amount paid was less than $1400 during the calendar year.<p>And when I say "paperwork", it's not just an inconvenience -- there is a number attached to it.  In the wake of the 1993 Nannygate, a handful of nanny payroll services popped up.  They charge $50/month, or $600/year.  That's a significant percentage -- and waste of the U.S. economy -- for those who need only, say, $2,000 or $3,000 per year of babysitting.</p><p>Now, I personally usually get around that limit by alternating between two babysitters, but the first year I moved to Denver I didn't know that many and had just one, and forked out the $600 for the payroll service.</p><p>So with universal mandatory reporting with no or drastically reduced reporting thresholds, is everyone going to rush out and pay $600/year for a payroll service just to hire a babysitter a few evenings a year?  No, it'll just be under the table, thereby making everyone a criminal, with selective enforcement, or political blackmail, as with Zoe Baird.</p><p>In the case of small businesses, all this mandatory reporting just raises the barrier to entry of new small businesses, limiting social mobility, increasing the class divide, and since most new jobs come from small businesses, limiting job creation.</p><p>If the goal is tax filing simplification, then just eliminate the income tax, or raise the thresholds significantly.  The federal income tax is a charade anyway, given the federal government's ability to print money.  The federal government existed for over a century without an income tax.  E.g., the Civil War was funded by Lincoln printing "greenbacks".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>With pre-filled forms , the IRS would want to ensure that all sources of income were reported .
That would mean lowering of reporting thresholds on employers , thereby increasing the burden on employers .
E.g. , employers can currently save paperwork by opting to not report ( 1099s ) service contractors ( e.g .
independent plumbers called in for a one-time repair ) if the amount paid was less than $ 600 during the calendar year .
And households can opt to not report babysitters ( W-2s ) if the amount paid was less than $ 1400 during the calendar year.And when I say " paperwork " , it 's not just an inconvenience -- there is a number attached to it .
In the wake of the 1993 Nannygate , a handful of nanny payroll services popped up .
They charge $ 50/month , or $ 600/year .
That 's a significant percentage -- and waste of the U.S. economy -- for those who need only , say , $ 2,000 or $ 3,000 per year of babysitting.Now , I personally usually get around that limit by alternating between two babysitters , but the first year I moved to Denver I did n't know that many and had just one , and forked out the $ 600 for the payroll service.So with universal mandatory reporting with no or drastically reduced reporting thresholds , is everyone going to rush out and pay $ 600/year for a payroll service just to hire a babysitter a few evenings a year ?
No , it 'll just be under the table , thereby making everyone a criminal , with selective enforcement , or political blackmail , as with Zoe Baird.In the case of small businesses , all this mandatory reporting just raises the barrier to entry of new small businesses , limiting social mobility , increasing the class divide , and since most new jobs come from small businesses , limiting job creation.If the goal is tax filing simplification , then just eliminate the income tax , or raise the thresholds significantly .
The federal income tax is a charade anyway , given the federal government 's ability to print money .
The federal government existed for over a century without an income tax .
E.g. , the Civil War was funded by Lincoln printing " greenbacks " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>With pre-filled forms, the IRS would want to ensure that all sources of income were reported.
That would mean lowering of reporting thresholds on employers, thereby increasing the burden on employers.
E.g., employers can currently save paperwork by opting to not report (1099s) service contractors (e.g.
independent plumbers called in for a one-time repair) if the amount paid was less than $600 during the calendar year.
And households can opt to not report babysitters (W-2s) if the amount paid was less than $1400 during the calendar year.And when I say "paperwork", it's not just an inconvenience -- there is a number attached to it.
In the wake of the 1993 Nannygate, a handful of nanny payroll services popped up.
They charge $50/month, or $600/year.
That's a significant percentage -- and waste of the U.S. economy -- for those who need only, say, $2,000 or $3,000 per year of babysitting.Now, I personally usually get around that limit by alternating between two babysitters, but the first year I moved to Denver I didn't know that many and had just one, and forked out the $600 for the payroll service.So with universal mandatory reporting with no or drastically reduced reporting thresholds, is everyone going to rush out and pay $600/year for a payroll service just to hire a babysitter a few evenings a year?
No, it'll just be under the table, thereby making everyone a criminal, with selective enforcement, or political blackmail, as with Zoe Baird.In the case of small businesses, all this mandatory reporting just raises the barrier to entry of new small businesses, limiting social mobility, increasing the class divide, and since most new jobs come from small businesses, limiting job creation.If the goal is tax filing simplification, then just eliminate the income tax, or raise the thresholds significantly.
The federal income tax is a charade anyway, given the federal government's ability to print money.
The federal government existed for over a century without an income tax.
E.g., the Civil War was funded by Lincoln printing "greenbacks".</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30886410</id>
	<title>Re:Conflict?</title>
	<author>ImNotAtWork</author>
	<datestamp>1264358280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>So this sparks an idea.  Could the open source community develop a tax preparation software suite where the costs would be less than existing options out there.  How much good will could FOSS receive from the public with an offering of this magnitude. ~~~ I'll stop dreaming now.</htmltext>
<tokenext>So this sparks an idea .
Could the open source community develop a tax preparation software suite where the costs would be less than existing options out there .
How much good will could FOSS receive from the public with an offering of this magnitude .
~ ~ ~ I 'll stop dreaming now .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So this sparks an idea.
Could the open source community develop a tax preparation software suite where the costs would be less than existing options out there.
How much good will could FOSS receive from the public with an offering of this magnitude.
~~~ I'll stop dreaming now.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30882252</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30881616</id>
	<title>they should also make the pdf forms do more</title>
	<author>josepha48</author>
	<datestamp>1264324440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>things like totally would be good on their downloadable pdf files.  I can't image it is that hard to do either!  Personally I would think that you would log into the government website and then be shown your tax forms as they think you should have them.  Any schedule B should be filled out, schedule A and C you need to do as you need to tell them many things on those forms.  The main 1040 or 1040a or 1040 ez should have much already filled out on it and when you put in any changes to the ABCD forms they should populate the 10f0 ( all of this would be online at the fed site of course ).  Then you can just add any other adjustments and it figures out your tax from the tables or whereever.  It is possible for them to do and they should too.</htmltext>
<tokenext>things like totally would be good on their downloadable pdf files .
I ca n't image it is that hard to do either !
Personally I would think that you would log into the government website and then be shown your tax forms as they think you should have them .
Any schedule B should be filled out , schedule A and C you need to do as you need to tell them many things on those forms .
The main 1040 or 1040a or 1040 ez should have much already filled out on it and when you put in any changes to the ABCD forms they should populate the 10f0 ( all of this would be online at the fed site of course ) .
Then you can just add any other adjustments and it figures out your tax from the tables or whereever .
It is possible for them to do and they should too .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>things like totally would be good on their downloadable pdf files.
I can't image it is that hard to do either!
Personally I would think that you would log into the government website and then be shown your tax forms as they think you should have them.
Any schedule B should be filled out, schedule A and C you need to do as you need to tell them many things on those forms.
The main 1040 or 1040a or 1040 ez should have much already filled out on it and when you put in any changes to the ABCD forms they should populate the 10f0 ( all of this would be online at the fed site of course ).
Then you can just add any other adjustments and it figures out your tax from the tables or whereever.
It is possible for them to do and they should too.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30879996</id>
	<title>As an accountant, I can say this won't work</title>
	<author>cualexander</author>
	<datestamp>1264359780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I have since gotten out of this business, but I used to prepare tax returns in a small town.  People would come to us with 1 W-2, and a few dependents to claim.  Take me all of 5 minutes to do the return, especially if they were a previous client as it would pre-fill prior information.  We would collect anywhere from $150 to $200 for a return like this, because we would file it rapid refund so they could get a check back from the bank the next day.  I told people they could E-file the whole thing for $75 and get the money in a couple weeks, sometimes less than that if you timed it right, but they wanted the money the next day.  Sometimes people would even pay more and get $1000 instantly, and the rest the next day.

These same people wouldn't drive 2 blocks down the road to the public library and file for free and wait for their refund, so what makes you think they would file it for free with the IRS? Also a lot of these people were lower income people who didn't even have a bank account because they don't trust banks, what makes you think they are going to trust that the government is not screwing them on their tax return?  I wouldn't trust the IRS.  I personally saw many mistakes the IRS would make processing people's returns, which would cause them lots of time and money to get straightened out.

For the above reasons, this will never happen.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I have since gotten out of this business , but I used to prepare tax returns in a small town .
People would come to us with 1 W-2 , and a few dependents to claim .
Take me all of 5 minutes to do the return , especially if they were a previous client as it would pre-fill prior information .
We would collect anywhere from $ 150 to $ 200 for a return like this , because we would file it rapid refund so they could get a check back from the bank the next day .
I told people they could E-file the whole thing for $ 75 and get the money in a couple weeks , sometimes less than that if you timed it right , but they wanted the money the next day .
Sometimes people would even pay more and get $ 1000 instantly , and the rest the next day .
These same people would n't drive 2 blocks down the road to the public library and file for free and wait for their refund , so what makes you think they would file it for free with the IRS ?
Also a lot of these people were lower income people who did n't even have a bank account because they do n't trust banks , what makes you think they are going to trust that the government is not screwing them on their tax return ?
I would n't trust the IRS .
I personally saw many mistakes the IRS would make processing people 's returns , which would cause them lots of time and money to get straightened out .
For the above reasons , this will never happen .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have since gotten out of this business, but I used to prepare tax returns in a small town.
People would come to us with 1 W-2, and a few dependents to claim.
Take me all of 5 minutes to do the return, especially if they were a previous client as it would pre-fill prior information.
We would collect anywhere from $150 to $200 for a return like this, because we would file it rapid refund so they could get a check back from the bank the next day.
I told people they could E-file the whole thing for $75 and get the money in a couple weeks, sometimes less than that if you timed it right, but they wanted the money the next day.
Sometimes people would even pay more and get $1000 instantly, and the rest the next day.
These same people wouldn't drive 2 blocks down the road to the public library and file for free and wait for their refund, so what makes you think they would file it for free with the IRS?
Also a lot of these people were lower income people who didn't even have a bank account because they don't trust banks, what makes you think they are going to trust that the government is not screwing them on their tax return?
I wouldn't trust the IRS.
I personally saw many mistakes the IRS would make processing people's returns, which would cause them lots of time and money to get straightened out.
For the above reasons, this will never happen.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30894104</id>
	<title>Re:Intuit are evil ...</title>
	<author>Sax Maniac</author>
	<datestamp>1264450560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's not even a technical reason, like a data format change. They openly discontinue Quicken's online services after 3 years, just for Mo Money. Years ago, they changed the protocol from directly downloading from your bank, to proxying through Intuit.  And, they keep moving features from Basic into Deluxe.  Gone are the days of buying Basic and using it for a few years.  Now you have to get the latest and greatest, and oops, now you have upgrade your old computer too! Isn't that nice?</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's not even a technical reason , like a data format change .
They openly discontinue Quicken 's online services after 3 years , just for Mo Money .
Years ago , they changed the protocol from directly downloading from your bank , to proxying through Intuit .
And , they keep moving features from Basic into Deluxe .
Gone are the days of buying Basic and using it for a few years .
Now you have to get the latest and greatest , and oops , now you have upgrade your old computer too !
Is n't that nice ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's not even a technical reason, like a data format change.
They openly discontinue Quicken's online services after 3 years, just for Mo Money.
Years ago, they changed the protocol from directly downloading from your bank, to proxying through Intuit.
And, they keep moving features from Basic into Deluxe.
Gone are the days of buying Basic and using it for a few years.
Now you have to get the latest and greatest, and oops, now you have upgrade your old computer too!
Isn't that nice?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30880668</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30881104</id>
	<title>Re:Conflict?</title>
	<author>winwar</author>
	<datestamp>1264365000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Or the third party that guarantees their software is correct and backs it up with cash if it is wrong?"</p><p>That guarantee is only useful if you can actually get them to pay up.  I think that you will find that they will try to weasel out of any mistake by claiming it was "user error".  Of course the same goes for a non software based provider.</p><p>"The burden is always on the tax payer, not the IRS even if the IRS is the one that is at fault."</p><p>Always was and always will be.  Just like every other law.  Most people don't need a tax preparer, be it software or human.  Just follow the directions and fill out the form.  It will take less than an hour.  Many millions can fill out the EZ form in minutes. Sure, the first time takes longer but the tax code doesn't change THAT much.</p><p>"That said, I wish we could go to a simpler system that means we wouldn't need to wrack or brains in frustration every year."</p><p>The system is only as complex as you make it.  Most people can fill out an EZ form.  Of course you will lose deductions.  But that is your choice.  Tax preparers make a killing by reinforcing the idea that filing tax forms are difficult.  If people have difficulty filling out the common tax forms how can they possibly do their jobs?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Or the third party that guarantees their software is correct and backs it up with cash if it is wrong ?
" That guarantee is only useful if you can actually get them to pay up .
I think that you will find that they will try to weasel out of any mistake by claiming it was " user error " .
Of course the same goes for a non software based provider .
" The burden is always on the tax payer , not the IRS even if the IRS is the one that is at fault .
" Always was and always will be .
Just like every other law .
Most people do n't need a tax preparer , be it software or human .
Just follow the directions and fill out the form .
It will take less than an hour .
Many millions can fill out the EZ form in minutes .
Sure , the first time takes longer but the tax code does n't change THAT much .
" That said , I wish we could go to a simpler system that means we would n't need to wrack or brains in frustration every year .
" The system is only as complex as you make it .
Most people can fill out an EZ form .
Of course you will lose deductions .
But that is your choice .
Tax preparers make a killing by reinforcing the idea that filing tax forms are difficult .
If people have difficulty filling out the common tax forms how can they possibly do their jobs ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Or the third party that guarantees their software is correct and backs it up with cash if it is wrong?
"That guarantee is only useful if you can actually get them to pay up.
I think that you will find that they will try to weasel out of any mistake by claiming it was "user error".
Of course the same goes for a non software based provider.
"The burden is always on the tax payer, not the IRS even if the IRS is the one that is at fault.
"Always was and always will be.
Just like every other law.
Most people don't need a tax preparer, be it software or human.
Just follow the directions and fill out the form.
It will take less than an hour.
Many millions can fill out the EZ form in minutes.
Sure, the first time takes longer but the tax code doesn't change THAT much.
"That said, I wish we could go to a simpler system that means we wouldn't need to wrack or brains in frustration every year.
"The system is only as complex as you make it.
Most people can fill out an EZ form.
Of course you will lose deductions.
But that is your choice.
Tax preparers make a killing by reinforcing the idea that filing tax forms are difficult.
If people have difficulty filling out the common tax forms how can they possibly do their jobs?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30880112</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30881266</id>
	<title>Re:What do you think happens today?</title>
	<author>Johnny Mnemonic</author>
	<datestamp>1264365900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It doesn't appear that they know much about stock trades.  Or other personally earned income.</p><p>While I agree with you on income that's reported by somebody else, like salary income when you Work For the Man, it appears that the feds don't know a lot about transaction income.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It does n't appear that they know much about stock trades .
Or other personally earned income.While I agree with you on income that 's reported by somebody else , like salary income when you Work For the Man , it appears that the feds do n't know a lot about transaction income .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It doesn't appear that they know much about stock trades.
Or other personally earned income.While I agree with you on income that's reported by somebody else, like salary income when you Work For the Man, it appears that the feds don't know a lot about transaction income.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30880194</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30880468</id>
	<title>I had an idea called a taxon</title>
	<author>presidenteloco</author>
	<datestamp>1264361820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It is a software money exchange system which treats financial transactions as if they were like particle collisions in a particle accelerator.</p><p>The tokens or particles mentioned below are encrypted web-service requests, except for "receiving particles" which are web service destinations for requests.</p><p>When someone wants to purchase something, a token representing a sum of money hits the vendor's receiving particle, which sends a confirmation of the payment to the payer's online identity. The vendor's particle has been pre-configured to split the payment particle into smaller particles (that add up to the payment total). One sub-particle goes to each royalty participant or supplier/distributor etc., with amount a proportion agreed on in advance.<br>Another sub-particle goes immediately to the relevant Federal government(s) as prescribed VAT/sales tax payment. Another sub-particle goes to another government (say state government) as its tax payment,<br>and the remaining sub-particle goes as a deposit request to the vendor's bank account.</p><p>The same thing could apply for taxable salary payments etc.</p><p>General point is that all due tax payments, and all supplier/royalty sharing, is handled automatically and instantly at the moment of the original payment.</p><p>Therefore, assuming that each stakeholder has the right and technical means (identity key and web-service queries) to query the history and semantics of each and only the transactions they are party to, there is no non-automated accounting to do after the fact.</p><p>Standard accounting reports (from the POV of any stakeholder) can be produced automatically by the system on demand, for purposes such as tax returns (which are then just a summary for information purposes, there is no tax to ay or return after the fact generally, because the overall state is maintained in its proper legal balance at all times.</p><p>A complicated addition could somehow adjust balances when tax credits are applied for and approved. Most of these credits would be automatically calculable by the government tax<br>departments because they would have had real-time<br>access to the relevant parts of the financial situation of the parties.</p><p>Parties (payers and vendors, employers and employees) could perhaps opt into this system<br>(and its inherent privacy losses) for the benefit<br>of not having to do any after-the-fact accounting<br>or payments/receiving.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It is a software money exchange system which treats financial transactions as if they were like particle collisions in a particle accelerator.The tokens or particles mentioned below are encrypted web-service requests , except for " receiving particles " which are web service destinations for requests.When someone wants to purchase something , a token representing a sum of money hits the vendor 's receiving particle , which sends a confirmation of the payment to the payer 's online identity .
The vendor 's particle has been pre-configured to split the payment particle into smaller particles ( that add up to the payment total ) .
One sub-particle goes to each royalty participant or supplier/distributor etc. , with amount a proportion agreed on in advance.Another sub-particle goes immediately to the relevant Federal government ( s ) as prescribed VAT/sales tax payment .
Another sub-particle goes to another government ( say state government ) as its tax payment,and the remaining sub-particle goes as a deposit request to the vendor 's bank account.The same thing could apply for taxable salary payments etc.General point is that all due tax payments , and all supplier/royalty sharing , is handled automatically and instantly at the moment of the original payment.Therefore , assuming that each stakeholder has the right and technical means ( identity key and web-service queries ) to query the history and semantics of each and only the transactions they are party to , there is no non-automated accounting to do after the fact.Standard accounting reports ( from the POV of any stakeholder ) can be produced automatically by the system on demand , for purposes such as tax returns ( which are then just a summary for information purposes , there is no tax to ay or return after the fact generally , because the overall state is maintained in its proper legal balance at all times.A complicated addition could somehow adjust balances when tax credits are applied for and approved .
Most of these credits would be automatically calculable by the government taxdepartments because they would have had real-timeaccess to the relevant parts of the financial situation of the parties.Parties ( payers and vendors , employers and employees ) could perhaps opt into this system ( and its inherent privacy losses ) for the benefitof not having to do any after-the-fact accountingor payments/receiving .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It is a software money exchange system which treats financial transactions as if they were like particle collisions in a particle accelerator.The tokens or particles mentioned below are encrypted web-service requests, except for "receiving particles" which are web service destinations for requests.When someone wants to purchase something, a token representing a sum of money hits the vendor's receiving particle, which sends a confirmation of the payment to the payer's online identity.
The vendor's particle has been pre-configured to split the payment particle into smaller particles (that add up to the payment total).
One sub-particle goes to each royalty participant or supplier/distributor etc., with amount a proportion agreed on in advance.Another sub-particle goes immediately to the relevant Federal government(s) as prescribed VAT/sales tax payment.
Another sub-particle goes to another government (say state government) as its tax payment,and the remaining sub-particle goes as a deposit request to the vendor's bank account.The same thing could apply for taxable salary payments etc.General point is that all due tax payments, and all supplier/royalty sharing, is handled automatically and instantly at the moment of the original payment.Therefore, assuming that each stakeholder has the right and technical means (identity key and web-service queries) to query the history and semantics of each and only the transactions they are party to, there is no non-automated accounting to do after the fact.Standard accounting reports (from the POV of any stakeholder) can be produced automatically by the system on demand, for purposes such as tax returns (which are then just a summary for information purposes, there is no tax to ay or return after the fact generally, because the overall state is maintained in its proper legal balance at all times.A complicated addition could somehow adjust balances when tax credits are applied for and approved.
Most of these credits would be automatically calculable by the government taxdepartments because they would have had real-timeaccess to the relevant parts of the financial situation of the parties.Parties (payers and vendors, employers and employees) could perhaps opt into this system(and its inherent privacy losses) for the benefitof not having to do any after-the-fact accountingor payments/receiving.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30880308</id>
	<title>Re:We've had that for years in Norway</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264361100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>..and if you want to make any changes (report overseas holdings or make deductions, for instance) you just log-on to altinn.no and make the changes online.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>..and if you want to make any changes ( report overseas holdings or make deductions , for instance ) you just log-on to altinn.no and make the changes online .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>..and if you want to make any changes (report overseas holdings or make deductions, for instance) you just log-on to altinn.no and make the changes online.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30879642</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30885460</id>
	<title>Re:What do you think happens today?</title>
	<author>Penguinoflight</author>
	<datestamp>1264350120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Everyone who earns more than $4,000 per year is required to file a tax return.  Most employers will withhold taxes even if you earn less than $4,000, so even the lowest earners should file.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Everyone who earns more than $ 4,000 per year is required to file a tax return .
Most employers will withhold taxes even if you earn less than $ 4,000 , so even the lowest earners should file .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Everyone who earns more than $4,000 per year is required to file a tax return.
Most employers will withhold taxes even if you earn less than $4,000, so even the lowest earners should file.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30881998</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30882830</id>
	<title>Re:What do you think happens today?</title>
	<author>fbjon</author>
	<datestamp>1264331640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I was part of the initial pilot here in Finland for pre-filled tax forms many years ago, and by now I assume everyone gets them. My employer reports my income and withholds the relevant amount in taxes (a few other instances do some automatic reporting too). The consequence is that since I only have one source of taxable income, I don't fill out anything, and don't need send in anything either. I basically look through the form (one large sheet of folded paper), conclude nothing needs to be changed, and ignore it.<p>Obviously my financial affairs are simple enough, in particular since I don't have a business, but I'd assume that's the case for most people.</p><p>Needless to say, the market for personal tax software is not booming here.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I was part of the initial pilot here in Finland for pre-filled tax forms many years ago , and by now I assume everyone gets them .
My employer reports my income and withholds the relevant amount in taxes ( a few other instances do some automatic reporting too ) .
The consequence is that since I only have one source of taxable income , I do n't fill out anything , and do n't need send in anything either .
I basically look through the form ( one large sheet of folded paper ) , conclude nothing needs to be changed , and ignore it.Obviously my financial affairs are simple enough , in particular since I do n't have a business , but I 'd assume that 's the case for most people.Needless to say , the market for personal tax software is not booming here .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I was part of the initial pilot here in Finland for pre-filled tax forms many years ago, and by now I assume everyone gets them.
My employer reports my income and withholds the relevant amount in taxes (a few other instances do some automatic reporting too).
The consequence is that since I only have one source of taxable income, I don't fill out anything, and don't need send in anything either.
I basically look through the form (one large sheet of folded paper), conclude nothing needs to be changed, and ignore it.Obviously my financial affairs are simple enough, in particular since I don't have a business, but I'd assume that's the case for most people.Needless to say, the market for personal tax software is not booming here.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30880194</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30880304</id>
	<title>Why they WON'T</title>
	<author>sonnejw0</author>
	<datestamp>1264361100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>They won't do it because then the tax payer knows what sources of income the government doesn't know about. The uncertainty now is enough to scare some people into declaring their tips, gifts, or private sales. Full disclosure from the government makes it easierto dodge taxes. The correlary is that more people might pay if the simply get a bill in the mail. Of course, that just "puts the burden" on "poor people", because the educated would be smart enough to get away with not declaring an overseas investment, and the poor would be too afraid not to send money they know the government wants.</htmltext>
<tokenext>They wo n't do it because then the tax payer knows what sources of income the government does n't know about .
The uncertainty now is enough to scare some people into declaring their tips , gifts , or private sales .
Full disclosure from the government makes it easierto dodge taxes .
The correlary is that more people might pay if the simply get a bill in the mail .
Of course , that just " puts the burden " on " poor people " , because the educated would be smart enough to get away with not declaring an overseas investment , and the poor would be too afraid not to send money they know the government wants .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They won't do it because then the tax payer knows what sources of income the government doesn't know about.
The uncertainty now is enough to scare some people into declaring their tips, gifts, or private sales.
Full disclosure from the government makes it easierto dodge taxes.
The correlary is that more people might pay if the simply get a bill in the mail.
Of course, that just "puts the burden" on "poor people", because the educated would be smart enough to get away with not declaring an overseas investment, and the poor would be too afraid not to send money they know the government wants.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30879604</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30880068</id>
	<title>Tsk, tsk...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264360080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Everybody's hot and bothered about the HOW, begging the question of the LEGITIMACY of taxes in the first place. <br> <br>

Obligatory Pynchon quote: "&ldquo;If they can get you asking the wrong questions, they don&rsquo;t have to worry about answers.&rdquo;</div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Everybody 's hot and bothered about the HOW , begging the question of the LEGITIMACY of taxes in the first place .
Obligatory Pynchon quote : "    If they can get you asking the wrong questions , they don    t have to worry about answers.   </tokentext>
<sentencetext>Everybody's hot and bothered about the HOW, begging the question of the LEGITIMACY of taxes in the first place.
Obligatory Pynchon quote: "“If they can get you asking the wrong questions, they don’t have to worry about answers.”
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30882470</id>
	<title>Open source calculation libraries</title>
	<author>ehud42</author>
	<datestamp>1264329540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I have the same beef here in Canada. The major effort is in tax software is the code to grind the calculations. Governments should provide open source libraries that accept an XML document of inputs (income, deductions, etc.) and spit out an XML document acceptable to their tax submission web service. Then Intuit (and anyone else - Linux included) can easily wrap and skin the library and produce a reasonably reliable tax preparation package. Features that gain market share would be in ease of use (UI), importing data from related accounting packages, price, etc.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have the same beef here in Canada .
The major effort is in tax software is the code to grind the calculations .
Governments should provide open source libraries that accept an XML document of inputs ( income , deductions , etc .
) and spit out an XML document acceptable to their tax submission web service .
Then Intuit ( and anyone else - Linux included ) can easily wrap and skin the library and produce a reasonably reliable tax preparation package .
Features that gain market share would be in ease of use ( UI ) , importing data from related accounting packages , price , etc .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have the same beef here in Canada.
The major effort is in tax software is the code to grind the calculations.
Governments should provide open source libraries that accept an XML document of inputs (income, deductions, etc.
) and spit out an XML document acceptable to their tax submission web service.
Then Intuit (and anyone else - Linux included) can easily wrap and skin the library and produce a reasonably reliable tax preparation package.
Features that gain market share would be in ease of use (UI), importing data from related accounting packages, price, etc.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30881876</id>
	<title>Re:Just have an energy tax</title>
	<author>characterZer0</author>
	<datestamp>1264326060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>But that would make it hard for politicians to accidentally fail to pay their taxes until caught, to create loopholes in exchange for political favors, to obscure from the taxpayers how much of their money is actually being taken, and to make vague promises to make the tax code more fair that nobody will ever be able to evaluate.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But that would make it hard for politicians to accidentally fail to pay their taxes until caught , to create loopholes in exchange for political favors , to obscure from the taxpayers how much of their money is actually being taken , and to make vague promises to make the tax code more fair that nobody will ever be able to evaluate .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But that would make it hard for politicians to accidentally fail to pay their taxes until caught, to create loopholes in exchange for political favors, to obscure from the taxpayers how much of their money is actually being taken, and to make vague promises to make the tax code more fair that nobody will ever be able to evaluate.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30880150</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30879612</id>
	<title>This is how it's done where I'm from...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264357800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>In Finland you get a pre-filled tax sheet in the mail, you only have to return it if there are any changes you need to make. I'm currently living in the US, I find the amount of crap you need to go through to get your affairs in order absolutely stunning.</htmltext>
<tokenext>In Finland you get a pre-filled tax sheet in the mail , you only have to return it if there are any changes you need to make .
I 'm currently living in the US , I find the amount of crap you need to go through to get your affairs in order absolutely stunning .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In Finland you get a pre-filled tax sheet in the mail, you only have to return it if there are any changes you need to make.
I'm currently living in the US, I find the amount of crap you need to go through to get your affairs in order absolutely stunning.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30880314</id>
	<title>Re:Increases Fraud</title>
	<author>Kjella</author>
	<datestamp>1264361160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Normally the government won't put anything on there unless it's exhaustive, so for example they can say we will list any domestic bank accounts, in no small part because that's the only ones they can legally force to comply with anything like that. They may know of some offshore accounts, but they won't list those unless they got deals with almost every country to make sure they're listing all offshore accounts.</p><p>And don't forget, the government isn't going to let you get away with the responsibility. If it turns out some bank is missing because they failed to report it or it got lost somewhere along the way, they'll still retroactively tax you and penalty tax you.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Normally the government wo n't put anything on there unless it 's exhaustive , so for example they can say we will list any domestic bank accounts , in no small part because that 's the only ones they can legally force to comply with anything like that .
They may know of some offshore accounts , but they wo n't list those unless they got deals with almost every country to make sure they 're listing all offshore accounts.And do n't forget , the government is n't going to let you get away with the responsibility .
If it turns out some bank is missing because they failed to report it or it got lost somewhere along the way , they 'll still retroactively tax you and penalty tax you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Normally the government won't put anything on there unless it's exhaustive, so for example they can say we will list any domestic bank accounts, in no small part because that's the only ones they can legally force to comply with anything like that.
They may know of some offshore accounts, but they won't list those unless they got deals with almost every country to make sure they're listing all offshore accounts.And don't forget, the government isn't going to let you get away with the responsibility.
If it turns out some bank is missing because they failed to report it or it got lost somewhere along the way, they'll still retroactively tax you and penalty tax you.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30879842</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30880776</id>
	<title>Re:UK Tax Returns</title>
	<author>Al Dimond</author>
	<datestamp>1264363200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In the US your various state and federal taxes are also deducted straight from your paycheck at the expected rate. But many people have income that's not from their employer -- bank accounts, investments, etc. Because there are several different tax brackets, and because earnings can't be predicted exactly, typically your total income at the end of the year isn't just your bi-weekly paycheck times 26.</p><p>So at the end of every year you're sent statements from your employer(s) and any other source of taxable income stating how much you earned and how much was sent to the government as tax. Then you figure out your total income, what sorts of deductions you're entitled to (there are lots of these -- for children and other dependents, for certain kinds of business expenses... some of which are basically loopholes for rich people with smart accountants), and based on those, what you should have been taxed. If you should have payed more you pay more. If you should have payed less you get a refund check.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In the US your various state and federal taxes are also deducted straight from your paycheck at the expected rate .
But many people have income that 's not from their employer -- bank accounts , investments , etc .
Because there are several different tax brackets , and because earnings ca n't be predicted exactly , typically your total income at the end of the year is n't just your bi-weekly paycheck times 26.So at the end of every year you 're sent statements from your employer ( s ) and any other source of taxable income stating how much you earned and how much was sent to the government as tax .
Then you figure out your total income , what sorts of deductions you 're entitled to ( there are lots of these -- for children and other dependents , for certain kinds of business expenses... some of which are basically loopholes for rich people with smart accountants ) , and based on those , what you should have been taxed .
If you should have payed more you pay more .
If you should have payed less you get a refund check .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In the US your various state and federal taxes are also deducted straight from your paycheck at the expected rate.
But many people have income that's not from their employer -- bank accounts, investments, etc.
Because there are several different tax brackets, and because earnings can't be predicted exactly, typically your total income at the end of the year isn't just your bi-weekly paycheck times 26.So at the end of every year you're sent statements from your employer(s) and any other source of taxable income stating how much you earned and how much was sent to the government as tax.
Then you figure out your total income, what sorts of deductions you're entitled to (there are lots of these -- for children and other dependents, for certain kinds of business expenses... some of which are basically loopholes for rich people with smart accountants), and based on those, what you should have been taxed.
If you should have payed more you pay more.
If you should have payed less you get a refund check.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30879878</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30879948</id>
	<title>IRS reducing their own size?  Not likely.</title>
	<author>Above</author>
	<datestamp>1264359660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The real issue here isn't companies, but the IRS itself.  If it could computerize and provide pre-filled tax forms then the agency would need far fewer auditors, lawyers, data entry folks, and so on.  No group, be it inside a company or in government likes to take actions that reduce their size and perceived importance even if it is the best thing to do.</p><p>The US greatly needs to simply its tax code, allowing things like pre-generated forms to be accurate for a much larger group of Americans.  While this will save billions in costs at the IRS and in money spent preparing taxes, and thus is a net win for the economy in the long term it will have the effect to putting hundreds of thousands of people out of work in the short term.  All our elected officials think about is the short term, so that trumps.</p><p>If you want to fix the root of the problem, then implement term limits.  If our elected officials could only serve one or two terms then they would be much less incentivized to figure out how to make a career out of corporate contributions, and much more likely to do what is right for the future.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The real issue here is n't companies , but the IRS itself .
If it could computerize and provide pre-filled tax forms then the agency would need far fewer auditors , lawyers , data entry folks , and so on .
No group , be it inside a company or in government likes to take actions that reduce their size and perceived importance even if it is the best thing to do.The US greatly needs to simply its tax code , allowing things like pre-generated forms to be accurate for a much larger group of Americans .
While this will save billions in costs at the IRS and in money spent preparing taxes , and thus is a net win for the economy in the long term it will have the effect to putting hundreds of thousands of people out of work in the short term .
All our elected officials think about is the short term , so that trumps.If you want to fix the root of the problem , then implement term limits .
If our elected officials could only serve one or two terms then they would be much less incentivized to figure out how to make a career out of corporate contributions , and much more likely to do what is right for the future .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The real issue here isn't companies, but the IRS itself.
If it could computerize and provide pre-filled tax forms then the agency would need far fewer auditors, lawyers, data entry folks, and so on.
No group, be it inside a company or in government likes to take actions that reduce their size and perceived importance even if it is the best thing to do.The US greatly needs to simply its tax code, allowing things like pre-generated forms to be accurate for a much larger group of Americans.
While this will save billions in costs at the IRS and in money spent preparing taxes, and thus is a net win for the economy in the long term it will have the effect to putting hundreds of thousands of people out of work in the short term.
All our elected officials think about is the short term, so that trumps.If you want to fix the root of the problem, then implement term limits.
If our elected officials could only serve one or two terms then they would be much less incentivized to figure out how to make a career out of corporate contributions, and much more likely to do what is right for the future.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30883136</id>
	<title>You know why the US tax code is so complicated?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264333920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Because Americans refuse to be legislated to.</p><p>So measures that in other countries would get passed in law has to be encouraged/discouraged via the tax code.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Because Americans refuse to be legislated to.So measures that in other countries would get passed in law has to be encouraged/discouraged via the tax code .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because Americans refuse to be legislated to.So measures that in other countries would get passed in law has to be encouraged/discouraged via the tax code.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_1554207_89</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30879612
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30880464
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_1554207_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30880258
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30882856
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_1554207_80</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30880068
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30880688
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_1554207_108</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30880150
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30881782
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_1554207_66</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30879612
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30879958
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30886884
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_1554207_111</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30879626
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30886358
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_1554207_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30879612
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30881384
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_1554207_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30879612
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30880018
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30886516
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_1554207_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30879886
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30880898
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30881524
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_1554207_70</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30880258
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30885680
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_1554207_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30879646
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30880400
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_1554207_69</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30879612
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30881522
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_1554207_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30879604
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30880194
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30880670
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_1554207_63</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30879616
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30892968
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_1554207_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30879842
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30881374
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_1554207_97</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30880068
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30881812
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_1554207_103</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30879612
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30890968
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_1554207_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30879612
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30897774
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_1554207_117</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30879604
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30880194
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30882830
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_1554207_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30880150
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30881876
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_1554207_87</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30879616
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30880162
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_1554207_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30880258
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30883708
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_1554207_64</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30879612
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30880826
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_1554207_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30879612
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30880478
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_1554207_92</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30879626
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30886130
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_1554207_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30879616
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30880112
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30880868
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30897518
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_1554207_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30879842
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30880466
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30882910
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_1554207_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30879616
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30880112
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30880598
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_1554207_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30879612
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30879958
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30887514
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_1554207_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30879640
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30882482
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_1554207_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30879612
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30879958
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30880780
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_1554207_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30879612
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30891628
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_1554207_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30880068
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30880744
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30881792
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_1554207_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30879640
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30880076
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_1554207_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30879616
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30880648
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_1554207_61</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30879616
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30879772
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30880118
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30883170
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_1554207_79</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30879604
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30880194
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30880414
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30883264
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_1554207_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30879638
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30879890
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_1554207_116</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30880068
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30880656
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30880994
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30887728
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_1554207_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30879612
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30879716
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30879896
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30881958
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_1554207_84</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30879616
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30881172
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_1554207_115</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30879612
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30880242
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_1554207_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30879842
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30880146
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_1554207_106</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30879616
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30880112
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30881104
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_1554207_91</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30879626
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30880762
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_1554207_74</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30879604
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30880194
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30881998
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30885460
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_1554207_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30879878
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30880420
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_1554207_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30879616
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30879772
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30879944
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_1554207_90</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30879616
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30879772
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30880118
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30882252
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30886410
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_1554207_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30879640
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30880416
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_1554207_81</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30879878
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30880776
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_1554207_67</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30879886
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30880456
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30880788
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30884604
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_1554207_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30880092
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30885856
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_1554207_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30879612
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30881740
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_1554207_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30879886
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30880562
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_1554207_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30879612
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30879716
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30880818
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_1554207_109</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30879646
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30879914
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30882794
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_1554207_112</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30879616
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30880766
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_1554207_114</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30879612
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30880018
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30881342
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_1554207_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30879612
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30879716
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30882748
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_1554207_82</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30879612
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30880664
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_1554207_73</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30879878
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30882080
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_1554207_96</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30879826
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30880004
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_1554207_102</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30879604
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30880194
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30882580
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_1554207_104</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30879612
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30879716
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30879896
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30882054
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_1554207_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30879640
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30883958
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_1554207_72</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30879612
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30880816
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_1554207_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30879612
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30879716
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30879896
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30885810
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_1554207_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30879612
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30880368
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_1554207_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30879612
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30879716
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30881770
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_1554207_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30879612
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30885678
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_1554207_65</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30879642
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30880308
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_1554207_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30880668
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30894104
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_1554207_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30879612
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30879716
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30880726
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_1554207_88</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30879616
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30882766
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_1554207_107</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30879646
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30879914
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30881900
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_1554207_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30879604
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30880194
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30881998
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30884978
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_1554207_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30879612
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30881138
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_1554207_110</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30879640
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30879784
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_1554207_95</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30879638
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30879858
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_1554207_101</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30879612
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30880234
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_1554207_78</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30879842
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30880314
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_1554207_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30879616
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30880112
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30885152
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_1554207_71</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30879642
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30882744
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_1554207_94</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30879646
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30879722
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_1554207_68</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30879640
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30882464
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_1554207_100</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30879842
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30884568
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_1554207_85</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30879878
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30883890
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_1554207_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30879612
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30880048
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_1554207_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30879842
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30881506
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_1554207_59</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30879612
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30879716
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30885504
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_1554207_62</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30879616
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30879774
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_1554207_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30879612
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30879876
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_1554207_58</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30879604
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30880592
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_1554207_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30879612
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30890124
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_1554207_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30880668
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.31014952
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_1554207_118</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30879612
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30880330
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_1554207_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30879604
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30880194
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30880936
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30897240
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_1554207_86</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30879612
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30899022
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_1554207_77</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30879616
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30879772
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30880118
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30882252
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30883996
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_1554207_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30879616
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30879772
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30883010
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_1554207_93</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30879612
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30881230
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_1554207_119</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30879612
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30880134
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_1554207_76</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30879604
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30891024
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_1554207_113</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30879604
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30880194
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30881266
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_1554207_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30879612
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30882280
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_1554207_83</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30879886
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30880898
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30929554
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_1554207_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30879640
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30879888
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_1554207_57</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30880668
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30897056
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_1554207_60</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30879842
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30880318
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_1554207_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30879612
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30881284
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_1554207_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30880068
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30880888
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_1554207_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30879638
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30880090
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_1554207_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30879604
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30880304
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30881402
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_1554207_99</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30879604
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30880304
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30884026
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_1554207_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30880068
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30881528
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_1554207_105</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30879886
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30880898
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30881178
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_1554207_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30879604
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30880304
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30881648
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_1554207_75</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30879604
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30880084
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_1554207_98</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30879612
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30881010
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_24_1554207.27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30879646
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30879914
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30882794
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30881900
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30880400
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30879722
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_24_1554207.20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30883072
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_24_1554207.21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30879626
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30880762
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30886130
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30886358
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_24_1554207.32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30880724
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_24_1554207.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30882470
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_24_1554207.30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30879714
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_24_1554207.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30879640
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30883958
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30880416
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30879888
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30882464
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30880076
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30879784
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30882482
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_24_1554207.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30879642
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30880308
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30882744
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_24_1554207.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30879842
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30881374
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30881506
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30880318
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30880314
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30884568
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30880466
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30882910
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30880146
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_24_1554207.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30879644
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_24_1554207.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30879732
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_24_1554207.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30880258
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30883708
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30882856
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30885680
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_24_1554207.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30879638
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30880090
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30879858
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30879890
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_24_1554207.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30879948
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_24_1554207.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30885590
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_24_1554207.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30880668
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30897056
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30894104
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.31014952
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_24_1554207.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30879966
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_24_1554207.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30879996
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_24_1554207.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30880092
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30885856
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_24_1554207.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30881244
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_24_1554207.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30880488
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_24_1554207.24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30879616
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30880162
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30880766
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30880112
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30885152
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30880868
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30897518
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30880598
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30881104
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30879774
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30892968
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30879772
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30883010
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30880118
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30882252
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30883996
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30886410
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30883170
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30879944
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30882766
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30880648
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30881172
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_24_1554207.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30880068
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30880744
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30881792
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30880656
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30880994
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30887728
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30880688
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30880888
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30881528
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30881812
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_24_1554207.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30879760
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_24_1554207.22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30879826
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30880004
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_24_1554207.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30881200
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_24_1554207.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30879612
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30880234
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30880464
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30881384
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30880134
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30881740
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30899022
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30897774
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30881138
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30880826
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30879716
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30882748
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30880726
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30885504
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30880818
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30879896
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30881958
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30885810
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30882054
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30881770
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30880664
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30891628
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30881010
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30882280
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30879958
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30887514
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30880780
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30886884
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30880048
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30890124
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30879876
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30881284
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30880018
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30881342
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30886516
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30880330
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30880242
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30885678
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30880368
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30890968
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30881522
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30881230
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30880478
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30880816
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_24_1554207.25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30879624
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_24_1554207.28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30879886
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30880898
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30929554
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30881524
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30881178
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30880456
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30880788
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30884604
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30880562
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_24_1554207.23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30880388
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_24_1554207.26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30880150
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30881782
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30881876
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_24_1554207.31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30879604
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30880084
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30880194
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30880670
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30881998
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30884978
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30885460
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30882580
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30880414
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30883264
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30880936
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30897240
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30881266
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30882830
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30891024
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30880304
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30881648
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30884026
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30881402
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30880592
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_24_1554207.29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30879878
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30880420
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30883890
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30882080
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1554207.30880776
</commentlist>
</conversation>
