BF2S Forums An example of regulation creating a monopoly...

AussieReaper wrote:

Nothing stopping the Govt. from then propping up a competitor when a monopoly does look like forming. Or even competing themselves if it is in the best interest of the population.


off topic though: I'm surprised at the number of articles lately that keep using the terminology "tax grab" and implying Obama is greedy for more money. It's like they don't even consider how much debt the country is already in.

Well Aussie, ya just spelled out the problem for most Americans with this socialist agenda of his. HE doesn't have the money he is spending so now he has to steal more of it from those that earn it, while complaining we are in too much debt and need to get the deficit down.

On another side note,

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/01 … -election/

Funny how democrats are going to shove all of this bullshit down our throats then leave office. They know they are fucking up and will never have to answer for it or defend it.

On topic,  So being a CPA is not good enough? I thought the C in CPA meant CERTIFIED.  How would this affect a CPA that is not part of huge company? Or does it?

Last edited by lowing (2010-01-08 03:26:27)

Dilbert_X wrote:

lowing wrote:

Well Aussie, ya just spelled out the problem for most Americans with this socialist agenda of his. HE doesn't have the money he is spending so now he has to steal more of it from those that earn it, while complaining we are in too much debt and need to get the deficit down.

You mean the deficit Bush created by spending $2Trillion in tax dollars messing around with the ME?

On topic,  So being a CPA is not good enough? I thought the C in CPA meant CERTIFIED.

Certified to be an accountant, not a tax agent. Simple enough?

LOLNews....

Might wanna compare spending between Bush and Obama Dilbert before you continue.


Yup simple enough.

cpt.fass1 wrote:

I was having this conversation the other day with someone..

Name one "Skilled" job, Finance, construction, etc.. that you don't need some form of license of insurance for?

I been doing my job for 5-7 years and I know how to pay for testing and continual education. Which I wouldn't have a problem with if it wasn't written or taught by people who have no real idea about the business.

Also all of these things are really useless, most people who do this under the table do the work and file it under your name.. So all it really effects is people who want to do it legally, which means it will push up the cost to do it legally and is counterproductive.

It's mostly bs jobs created for people who have no real job skills after getting a sociology degree or whatever. These people with useless pussy degrees can't be expected to go out and work construction now can they?

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

Yes, I overstated it when I called it a monopoly. Why should the government be in the business of approving those who prepare taxes? Millions of people prepare their own taxes every year and millions more go to tax preparers. Why target tax preparers instead of questioning the general competency of the public at large? Why is this regulation needed?

All it will do is put seasonal tax preparers, the people that open up an office for a few months out of the year and do it as a side job, out of business. Who benefits? Corporate interests like H&R Block. It sure as hell isn't the consumers who will now face steeper pricing because competition has been limited. They are using crony capitalism to force out competition in the same way RJ Reynolds seeking FDA approval on tobacco will force out any possible competition that they may face. How? By massively increasing the cost of entry into their given spheres. You damn sure don't need to be a CPA in order to prepare a 1080EZ form so why pass a regulation like this now?

Edit - And yes, some would argue that the entry requirements to become a doctor or a lawyer create a monopolistic environment by limiting competition via limiting the number of schooling slots available.

You "overstated" it by putting it in the title and making it the focus of the discussion. Even the idiot that wrote the op-ed had the good sense not to use the word monopoly, because monopoly has nothing to do with it. Dilbert called you out on it, and you make fun of him.

Because as you want the government recognizes the populace as competent enough to file their own returns or recognize their ignorance and pay someone to do it for them. What the government is doing is making sure that people don't get fucked into committing a federal crime because the person they paid to do their taxes is stupid or a snake.

How much does this licensing cost? You have no fucking idea. It could very well be next to nothing. There is no evidence to suggest that this is putting anyone but those too incompetent to pass the test out of business.

"Some people" have an IQ two standard deviations below the median. "Some people"? Grow the balls to put your name on it or leave it alone.

"Some people", jesus.

Good points...   perhaps a suitable compromise would involve making said certifications cheap enough that it isn't cost prohibitive to small businesses.

Toothless legislation - people will avoid this problem by paying someone, and then the preparer won't sign the return.

lowing wrote:

On topic,  So being a CPA is not good enough? I thought the C in CPA meant CERTIFIED.  How would this affect a CPA that is not part of huge company? Or does it?

Ok, I'm a CPA.

The new legislation doesn't impact CPAs because we already have standards which are well above the new requirements.

The new legislation is defining "certified" as someone who takes 40 hours (could be wrong on the number) of continuing education classes per year, and passes a certification exam.

This legislation is focusing on people who pay unqualified people to do their returns and have errors and lack the ethical standards of other preparers.

This is actually part two of the legislation.  Part one focused on tax preparer penalties.  Stiff ones which put me in a position where I will need to argue with my clients a lot about substantiation.  They are still debating about it but an example: I am held MORE accountable than my client.  The problem occurs when I don't have what I need from the client...so I have to tell the IRS...but before I do so I have to ask for the clients permission.  If not given and the return is filed, then a penalty is assessed.  ON ME, not the client.

I'm surprised HR Block is happy about this, since their current preparers are usually well beneath the certification requirements.

cpt.fass1 wrote:

Pug I feel your pain. They're looking at making the loan officer in the business responsible for clients fraud if the loan defaults. Now I know we're the bad guys, but we just follow the guidelines given to us by the banks.

Between that, the control of banks and the insurance route, we're not going to be able to have an Civilian business anymore.

Fannie and Freddie are already backing 90% of mortgages so... the next step is to nationalize the mortgage brokers and replace them with a government agency...

You can usually tell how easy a job is by how many licenses you have to get.

Take Air conditioning... its practically idiot proof and anyone can do it, but the govt makes you get about 5 licenses to do the work and so these guys are able to charge $75 or $100 per hour. same goes for gas fitters.

In fact, any job that is lucrative will sooner or later suffer for an unnecessary increase in the qualifications to practice that job. ie nurses used to be a six month course and now they want about 4 years of college... it goes on and on. And if its really lucrative then they make it a professional degree.

Tax preparers? just another victim of unnecessary red tape.... soon they'll tell you you need a college degree or something else.

Pug wrote:

I disagree Diesel.  You should see the crap work people do as preparers and the corresponding IRS hassles that result because the preparer was a big suck bag

And that's different from your average joe that files his own taxes? Are we all going to be required to go to a preparer now?

Pug wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

Pug wrote:

I disagree Diesel.  You should see the crap work people do as preparers and the corresponding IRS hassles that result because the preparer was a big suck bag

And that's different from your average joe that files his own taxes? Are we all going to be required to go to a preparer now?

No.

Paid preparer = need certification.

If unpaid, anyone can do whatever they want.

I'm failing to understand the point then. If going to a preparer leads to fail and joe schmo doing his own taxes leads to fail, why punish preparers?

JohnG@lt wrote:

I'm failing to understand the point then. If going to a preparer leads to fail and joe schmo doing his own taxes leads to fail, why punish preparers?

The IRS likes the ethical code of CPAs, and wants to filter it down, which results in less inaccuracies in tax return filings they have to chase down.

Part of that code means certification in some form.

But in truth, the whole plan is centered around penalizing tax cheating.  If the gov't wants to make the preparer accountable for the crap their clients try to pull, then they raise the penalties for the preparers.  Therefore, to track them, they force people to register by certification.


Note that the penalties are for cheating and deliberate crap, not because someone screwed something up.

For example: I have a client who showed up last year with their business activity included on their personal return.  The business was supposed to have its own filing, and pay its own taxes.  Pretty basic - you have a separate business...don't you think there should be a separate filing?  And they drew an audit because of that.  The other preparer did not have any training at all.  In that case, there should be penalties for everyone involved.

If it's a problem I caused, then sure, I'll take the penalty.  But know that if I purposely misfile something, or royally screw up...I lose my license...period.  Then there's a penalty too...

Pug wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

I'm failing to understand the point then. If going to a preparer leads to fail and joe schmo doing his own taxes leads to fail, why punish preparers?

The IRS likes the ethical code of CPAs, and wants to filter it down, which results in less inaccuracies in tax return filings they have to chase down.

Part of that code means certification in some form.

But in truth, the whole plan is centered around penalizing tax cheating.  If the gov't wants to make the preparer accountable for the crap their clients try to pull, then they raise the penalties for the preparers.  Therefore, to track them, they force people to register by certification.


Note that the penalties are for cheating and deliberate crap, not because someone screwed something up.

For example: I have a client who showed up last year with their business activity included on their personal return.  The business was supposed to have its own filing, and pay its own taxes.  Pretty basic - you have a separate business...don't you think there should be a separate filing?  And they drew an audit because of that.  The other preparer did not have any training at all.  In that case, there should be penalties for everyone involved.

If it's a problem I caused, then sure, I'll take the penalty.  But know that if I purposely misfile something, or royally screw up...I lose my license...period.  Then there's a penalty too...

So what prevents someone from going to an unlicensed preparer and the preparer having the customer sign it in their own name?