|
I have been saying since Windows 8 that if your users have to search for something, your UI design skills are sh*t. Further up in the comments someone mentioned that you can't search for something if you don't know it exists! Amen!
Bringing everything to a consistent UI design in Win10 basically just means that you can't find anything. But it's ok, because your users are literally children and they won't need to use a computer for anything more than accessing the internet.
|
|
|
|
|
Seek and ye shall find.
Knock and it shall be opened unto you.
That is, unless you are using Microsoft products.
Then you will be eternally "Searching . . ."
Money makes the world go round ... but documentation moves the money.
|
|
|
|
|
Maybe even year. When you can sit around and say, "Yay! It is done!" After you master something new! Split some vba form code into its own class module. Went from a 1200 line mishmash file of parsing and form logic to a 500 and a 600 line file where you can actually wrap your head around the logic! And extending the parsing logic will be a LOT easier!!! Yay! It is done!!! Office vba is the bomb!
|
|
|
|
|
But were any butterflies inconvenienced?
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the snowflies are disappearing! Does that count? 
|
|
|
|
|
40 Years of Failure: IRS Unable to Fix Computer System - Americans for Tax Reform[^]
Warning: this is a USA thing with the IRS... I know you Brits have a large group of idiots as well.....
Spend 30 minutes reading the top links. I was in the hospital yesterday getting a blood transfusion, so finally got around to it. Curious as to your feedback as to how you would fix it? I'd be cleaning house starting with "rm -rf you're_fired"
No politics. I was fascinated how the CF went for 40 years. Have you ever wondered why when a new CEO came into a company they fired 1/2 or more of the top staff?
Here's your sign.
Charlie Gilley
“They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” BF, 1759
Has never been more appropriate.
|
|
|
|
|
The underlying problem is the sheer complexity of our tax code. A simple flat tax:
How much do you make?
Send it in!
would work a lot better.
Seriously, a flat tax after a set deduction would work. About 10 years ago I ran the calculations and determined that a 15% flat tax on all income over the Federal Minimum Wage would result in the same revenue as the current convoluted tax code and save Americans huge amounts of time and money trying to figure out and game the current system. Turns out this method is also "progressive" in that someone who makes just over minimum wage has a far lower effective tax rate than someone making $100,000 per year.
|
|
|
|
|
I agree, but our tax code has been "progressive" (meaning rich people - define rich - should pay more) for so long it's almost impossible. lol, can you see it? Changing the tax code to two layers of if statements?
Charlie Gilley
“They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” BF, 1759
Has never been more appropriate.
|
|
|
|
|
It will never happen because of the Golden Rule...Them with the gold rule!
The less you need, the more you have.
Even a blind squirrel gets a nut...occasionally.
JaxCoder.com
|
|
|
|
|
The problem is with the "How much do you make?" statement. There are so many forms of income i.e. paychecks, dividends, gambling, home sales, and so on. There are also MANY ways to hide income.
There are also legitimate expenses --- consider retail sales (small business) there is gross income (the sales) rent, staff payroll, utilities, cost of goods, and so on.
As much as we would all like to see obermd's version above, I don't think it is feasible.
|
|
|
|
|
I would fix it by completely shutting down the IRS and eliminating the income tax, and implement the FairTax[^].
Taxing consumption rather than income eliminates all tax loop-holes and allows each person to better control how much tax they pay. There are all kinds of other benefits.
If you think 'goto' is evil, try writing an Assembly program without JMP.
|
|
|
|
|
TNCaver wrote: Taxing consumption rather than income
This is fine for the tax payer, but not fine for the Government. The Government needs a certain amount of money from its citizens each year, regardless of how much you spend. If everyone in the United States spent 50% less for one year, that would not be good for the Government books.
Fair Tax will never happen in America, ever.
|
|
|
|
|
From their FAQ:
Is consumption a reliable source of revenue?
Yes, in fact, consumption is a more stable source of revenue than income. The chart compares the yearly changes in the tax bases for the income tax (adjusted gross income — AGI) and the FairTax (personal consumption expenditures — PCE) for years 1974 to 2004. PCE has always grown from year to year, whereas AGI dropped from 2000 to 2001 and from 2001 to 2002 — two years in a row. The higher growth rates of AGI in boom years result in overspending and then when the economy slows down either budget cuts are needed or, what is more often the case, taxes are raised or the budget deficit increases.
But I agree, it will never be implemented in the USA, it would take away too much of the government's power over the citizenry.
If you think 'goto' is evil, try writing an Assembly program without JMP.
|
|
|
|
|
If you get rid of income tax and just have consumption tax then people will spend less. The Government will either rape you on the increased consumption tax or they will lose money in the long run, and that will not be allowed.
People have been spending more, and making more, every year. We have the most millionaires in the United States than ever before. approx. 22 million citizens qualify as "millionaires" in the U.S. as of 12/2021.
So, consumption tax seems to be stable, right now. Remove the income tax and consumption tax will not be stable.
Consumption tax and other forms of similar tax look great on paper, really good actually, but they fail completely in the realization phase and that is why they are not used by Government.
|
|
|
|
|
Millionaire means you have a million dollars, not that you are netting a million a year. What is the age breakdown? There are probably a lot of retired people paying little to no income tax, but they still buy stuff.
If the Roth IRA cumulative percentage vs 401K/Traditional IRA every becomes too heavy on the Roth side, they will have to implement a consumption tax.
|
|
|
|
|
You have knowledge of where this has been tried and failed? I know where this has been tried and it is successful. My state does not have an income tax, and we never will, it is prohibited by our constitution. It gets the vast majority of its revenue solely from sales tax at the state, county, and city levels. It works, and it helps keep our budget balanced, which is also required by our constitution. We are one of the few states that have a surplus. How many states with an income tax can say that?
People will not, and cannot, spend much less than they do now. Any potential difference has been calculated into the amount of the FairTax so that it is revenue neutral.
If you think 'goto' is evil, try writing an Assembly program without JMP.
|
|
|
|
|
I used to work for Goldman Sachs, and most of my knowledge about the FairTax and Consumption Tax was from meetings, etc. there.
However there are many websites that can site you concreate evidence of the pros and CONS of the FairTax system and more importantly, why it will never be implemented in the foreseeable future.
One of the key take-aways from most of the evidence is that Middle-Income people/families will be hit the hardest as well as people in retirement.
I think you possibly drank some of the Kool-Aid on this one, and that is why you appear to be such a proponent for it. Perhaps I am wrong. I don't really care.
Cheers.
|
|
|
|
|
Right, so ignore the evidence from an actual real-world success and stick to the conclusions of your boardroom meetings. I'm sure the Koolaid served at Goldman-Sachs is much tastier. 
If you think 'goto' is evil, try writing an Assembly program without JMP.
|
|
|
|
|
I wish you were wrong about it never happening. It is too strait forward to make sense. 
ed
|
|
|
|
|
Definitely not enough room for graft.
If you can't laugh at yourself - ask me and I will do it for you.
|
|
|
|
|
I always liked this idea, but unless US adds term limits, it will never happen.
|
|
|
|
|
In our country, out of all the government web sites, the online tax filing system is the one that works the best. Admittedly, the standard isn't very high. You'll have no excuse to not pay tax
|
|
|
|
|
string CreateHeadline(string governmentInstance, int years)
=> $"{years} years of failure, {governmentInstance} unable to fix computer system.";FTFY, at least now you won't have to type out the entire headline every time this happens, which is at least once a year 
Like the Dutch GGD, the party who was responsible for tracking COVID cases, testing and vaccination.
The system was insecure and also, Excel reached the maximum number of rows (yes, they used Excel to track cases)!
Our Belastingdienst (Dutch IRS) has internal troubles as well, but not only with their systems.
A couple of years ago it was the police who bought a new system that doubled the time of paperwork.
And that's just what I remember.
|
|
|
|
|
It still boggles my mind that after N attempts and N-1 failures, you'd stop digging, step out of the very deep hole, and ask yourself, "Are we insane?"
Charlie Gilley
“They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” BF, 1759
Has never been more appropriate.
|
|
|
|
|
Out of interest (I am in the UK), I skimmed this article, and when I saw the line...
Yet the system still runs code from 1962, written in an archaic programming language almost no one alive understands.
...my immediate thought was COBOL (though it could be assembly language).
The trouble is that the IRS, like banks, deals with financial information and "knows" that the existing code "does the right thing" so any new system has the uphill task of proving it gets exactly the same result as the millions of lines of existing code which only a handful of people now understand and which, in any event, is a moving target as new tax rules are added and the code base grows.
So the end result is ancient code on ancient hardware long after it should have been replaced because no-one wants to be the one to commit to a change it case it all goes pear-shaped.
And, of course, if/when it does get replaced in 2030, after 68 years, parts of the replacement, which was started in 2009, will be older than the 1962 system was when it was decided a replacement was needed in 1982!
On the flip side, a lot of people here probably make their living maintaining decades old code! 
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
