• mozz@mbin.grits.devOP
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    31
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    18 days ago

    So I thought to myself, well that’s a weird comment. It’s nonsensical in a couple of different ways.

    1. Creating a program that does something good that wasn’t there before doesn’t somehow become a bad thing if there are ways in which it doesn’t do enough. Almost every real action which takes place in the real world represents some kind of imperfect step towards an ideal future, not like a “we got it perfect the first time and every single nook and cranny of the objective is satisfied by this, the first attempt we made to improve things.”
    2. People who draw mostly W2 income actually aren’t “destitute” necessarily. I don’t even know where the connection came from. Most people who are struggling in life have simple taxes. Most people who are doing well have complicated taxes this doesn’t apply to. Your complaint, even taking the rest of it at face value and using some un-addressed population as a reason not to address things for the 140,000 people in the pilot program or however many millions will be addressed by this second phase, is backwards.

    So I sort of wondered to myself: Why would someone be so aggressively negative in this specific way about something that almost any normal human being would look at and say “hey that’s good,” and for such weird and counterlogical reasons?

    And so I looked three comments back in your history and said oooooohhhhhhhh okay I get it it all makes sense now.

    • sunzu@kbin.run
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      12
      ·
      18 days ago

      I didn’t say it wasn’t good, just highlighted the programs’s limitation. U weaved this story around it lol

      Let’s see if the tax prep lobby will allow them to love beyond pure w2 wage slaves.

      • mozz@mbin.grits.devOP
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        18 days ago

        So you think it’s a good thing, just doesn’t go far enough / needs to be extended further in the same direction in the future?

        • sunzu@kbin.run
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          18 days ago

          My bigger concern is that it won’t happen due to the strong lobby, yes

          W is a W, and starting from the bottom makes sense.

          But between income restrictions and complexity thresholds…

          Why does it have 79k agi limit? What purpuse does this limit serve beyond sending people earning more to paid clowns…

          If limit is w2 then just make it w2 jfc

          • mozz@mbin.grits.devOP
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            18 days ago

            Sure. My question is, why such a concerted effort to look for bad things about such a clear win?

            Like would it work the other way? If the IRS was making life more difficult and expensive for everyone making W2 income under $79k, would you be out here saying well I guess an L is an L, but let’s remember it only applies to W2 earners and only some of them and anyway it’ll probably get overturned later on and I want to highlight the program’s important limitations and etc etc, instead of just saying “that’s a bad thing” like a normal person?

            • sunzu@kbin.run
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              18 days ago

              It seems your issue is my delivery which is all good but that’s how I choose to deliver my message.

              I don’t provide factually incorrect info, if I do, please correct me.

              I have no issue with learning!