Making Amends

[riflearm2]

I was on a call with @i am herdman and @big_country90 this morning discussing where in Chicago we were going to meet for breakfast, and we got talking about Marshall academics and enrollment.

Big Country mentioned a really good discussion point: When Bradley Smith was leading Intuit, the company took extreme advantage over the poorest Americans while also showing horrendous ethics by manipulating an agreement with the U.S. government. Intuit did this for the sole sake of earning more revenue (with direct deposits into Bradley's personal account). You can read about that issue here:

Inside TurboTax’s 20-Year Fight to Stop Americans From Filing Their Taxes for Free

Using lobbying, the revolving door and “dark pattern” customer tricks, Intuit fended off the government’s attempts to make tax filing free and easy, and created its multi-billion-dollar franchise.

www.propublica.org

Big Country felt like Bradley's initial strategies for success at Marshall is his way of making amends for the illegal and morally repugnant practices he led at Intuit: even though he took extreme advantage over the poorest of Americans, he seems to be making amends by giving many Appalachian youths the chance of college by watering down entrance requirements.

@i am herdman then mentioned that Intuit, just this year, got hammered by the FTC for "deceptive advertising" during Bradley's reign leading the company. Intuit immediately appealed by arguing an unconstitutional aspect of the proceedings. All 50 state attorney generals formed a coalition urging the government to reject the appeal. It's important to note that even though Intuit, during Bradley's time leading the company, spent tens of millions of dollars lobbying the government (including high donations to Biden) and hiring away top IRS employees, the company still had to pay nearly $150 million in punishment for other deceptive business practices related to the same issues. You can read about those lawsuits here:

Attorney General Kaul Joins Coalition Urging Court to Uphold FTC’s Ban on Deceptive TurboTax Advertising | Wisconsin Department of Justice

www.doj.state.wi.us

https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/blog/2024/01/closer-look-ftcs-ruling-intuits-free-claims-deceived-consumers

TurboTax customers to receive checks for $141M settlement

In a settlement agreement last year, TurboTax’s owner Intuit Inc. was ordered to pay $141 million to low-income consumers who were deceived into paying TurboTax to file their federal returns — despite being eligible for free, federally-supported tax services. Checks to the 4.4 million Americans...

apnews.com

Of course, Bradley personally made hundreds of millions of dollars as a direct result of the company's growth from these unethical and illegal tactics, then took his coffers of cash and ran home before the litigation started, leaving the mess to be cleaned up by more loyal and far less compensated employees. Does anybody think his compensation will be clawed back from these huge fines and lawsuits? Of course not.

In the meantime, Bradley has moved onto Marshall University under the guise of wanting to turn around the college allegedly out of altruism. However, what he is now doing is (as I have posted about before) concerning for the long-term success and viability of the college. He is utilizing tactics to give a quick boost in enrollment and revenue (both of which will directly benefit him) while ignoring the long-term harm it will do to the college. Herdman and Big Country made a good point that the quick success from Bradley's strategy will earn him some wins in front of west virginian taxpayers who are too short-sighted to see the damage it will eventually cause. But if/when Bradley then runs for office, he will secure those votes and can point to his "success" leading Marshall to all-time revenue and enrollment numbers. When the shit hits the fan, he will be long gone from Marshall, onto his next allegedly altruistic pursuit, while leaving the mess to be cleaned up by others.

It's a good talking point about if Bradley's strategy of dumbing down admittance (and eventually retention) at Marshall constantly taking pictures of his name on buildings is best for Marshall's long-term success.

@MichiganHerd , since you're a fan of a school with great academics, that just won a national championship in football, and that has had major cheating/ethical issues from multiple leaders at its institution, what are your thoughts on Herdman's and BC's views? Are they misguided or are their concerns legitimate for a poor, downtrodden, overlooked school like Marshall?

 

[19MU88]

Didn't read it. You are a pathetic stooge.

 

[riflearm2]

Didn't read it. You are a pathetic stooge.

I understand ignoring me is hard when you're obsessed with me, but try not to be stupid and a hypocrite. If you can't stay on subject, then move along, moron. This is what you have cried about towards me and many other posters:

and mods, can we please enforce the rules. I feel like I'm back in jr. high with bleeds and bang and all the name calling. thanks! Other than that, please keep the Pullman foolishness over there as I try to respect this boards rules.

Mods Please deal with rules violations or refund my money. Thx

Please follow the rules. Now I'll resume my policy of not responding to you here. But again, please follow the rules.

He has difficulty following the rules.

Grow up. I didn't even realize I responded to you when I saw Miami mentioned in response like it was Public. I then saw it was you and chuckled and expected the exact response you gave. Pathetic and predictable.

And please no name calling on this forum. We have rules here.

Just rooting for our team. You should try it. You seem nice. You might want to browse the forum rules before starting with the personal attacks.

Please avoid personal attacks on this forum. This forum has rules and is moderated.

I have reported you for violating forum rules.

You might be illiterate and your behavior is disappointing. Please try and adult here and follow the rules.

You are blathering again and violating the rules. Please stop. Not a good look.

 

[19MU88]

Stooge

 

[Rock98Dog]

I have used Turbo Tax for years and find it a very good product.

 

[riflearm2]

I have used Turbo Tax for years and find it a very good product.

The quality of the product isn’t why his company was sued by the government, had 50 state AGs (plus Puerto Rico) form a coalition against his company, get fined $150MM, have many people speak out about their manipulation, illegal actions, and lack of basic business ethics, now was it?

 

[Jbabbington]

@riflearm2

Putting everything you just discussed aside for a minute, what are your thoughts on what BS is doing in terms of the semi-private partnerships outside of the university?

For example, the Cyber Security Institute that will by all means be a boom for not only Marshall who is already a somewhat big name in that field, but also Huntington. I know personally from speaking with folks in the know that there are some pretty large international companies gearing up to place themselves around it.

 

[Rock98Dog]

Please list all Fortune 500 companies that haven’t been sued and paid large settlements for some misdeed. We live in the most litigious society in history with some of the highest government regulation, if not the highest, ever.

I won’t even restrict you to the current list, you can pick any company that’s been on the list for, let’s say, anytime in the 21st century.

 

[riflearm2]

Please list all Fortune 500 companies that haven’t been sued and paid large settlements for some misdeed. We live in the most litigious society in history with some of the highest government regulation, if not the highest, ever.

I won’t even restrict you to the current list, you can pick any company that’s been on the list for, let’s say, anytime in the 21st century.

A better and more accurate request would be:

List all Fortune 500 company CEOs whose tenure at the company didn't include multiple, independent fines/settlements due to government action. And we aren't talking about a $300k single employee sexual harassment/unlawful termination settlement, a slap on the wrist government settlement/fine. We are talking about major, multiple, significant fines and/or government action. 1) A $150MM fine is significant. 2) Having all 50 state AGs form a coalition to lobby the government to not accept a company's appeal of a judicial decision is significant. 3) Having Congress call for an investigation into Intuit's lobbying actions is significant. 4) Having a large law firm retained to investigate securities fraud by the company's directors is significant.

Those are all separate, major issues in a very short amount of time during Smith's tenure. Then, add to it that Smith was named in litigation against the company even before he was an executive. As a senior manager, he said asinine things like “defending against EEOC litigation was too costly and that he would not employ anyone who has participated in any such litigation.”

There is simply no denying that while CEO, Intuit took part in not only extremely unethical activities but also significantly illegal activities which resulted in major fines/settlements at the expense of the poorest people in our nation. These things are not subjective; what I am saying are objective cases.

Now, fool me once, shame on you. Fool me 3000 times, shame on me. Considering how his past unethical and illegal actions drasticallly increased his bank account at the expense of others and how he then ran before the shit hit the fan leaving the mess to be cleaned by others, what makes you think he is now doing what is best for everybody else instead of what is best for him?

 

[riflearm2]

@riflearm2

Putting everything you just discussed aside for a minute, what are your thoughts on what BS is doing in terms of the semi-private partnerships outside of the university?

For example, the Cyber Security Institute that will by all means be a boom for not only Marshall who is already a somewhat big name in that field, but also Huntington. I know personally from speaking with folks in the know that there are some pretty large international companies gearing up to place themselves around it.

Has ground even been broken on it? Isn't it another two years away from being completed? Based on his long list of past actions and his current social media attention-seeking and boasting, I'll be wise and hold my opinion to see how it really turns out.

 

[MichiganHerd]

I was on a call with @i am herdman and @big_country90 this morning discussing where in Chicago we were going to meet for breakfast, and we got talking about Marshall academics and enrollment.

Big Country mentioned a really good discussion point: When Bradley Smith was leading Intuit, the company took extreme advantage over the poorest Americans while also showing horrendous ethics by manipulating an agreement with the U.S. government. Intuit did this for the sole sake of earning more revenue (with direct deposits into Bradley's personal account). You can read about that issue here:

Inside TurboTax’s 20-Year Fight to Stop Americans From Filing Their Taxes for Free

Using lobbying, the revolving door and “dark pattern” customer tricks, Intuit fended off the government’s attempts to make tax filing free and easy, and created its multi-billion-dollar franchise.

www.propublica.org

Big Country felt like Bradley's initial strategies for success at Marshall is his way of making amends for the illegal and morally repugnant practices he led at Intuit: even though he took extreme advantage over the poorest of Americans, he seems to be making amends by giving many Appalachian youths the chance of college by watering down entrance requirements.

@i am herdman then mentioned that Intuit, just this year, got hammered by the FTC for "deceptive advertising" during Bradley's reign leading the company. Intuit immediately appealed by arguing an unconstitutional aspect of the proceedings. All 50 state attorney generals formed a coalition urging the government to reject the appeal. It's important to note that even though Intuit, during Bradley's time leading the company, spent tens of millions of dollars lobbying the government (including high donations to Biden) and hiring away top IRS employees, the company still had to pay nearly $150 million in punishment for other deceptive business practices related to the same issues. You can read about those lawsuits here:

Attorney General Kaul Joins Coalition Urging Court to Uphold FTC’s Ban on Deceptive TurboTax Advertising | Wisconsin Department of Justice

www.doj.state.wi.us

https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/blog/2024/01/closer-look-ftcs-ruling-intuits-free-claims-deceived-consumers

TurboTax customers to receive checks for $141M settlement

In a settlement agreement last year, TurboTax’s owner Intuit Inc. was ordered to pay $141 million to low-income consumers who were deceived into paying TurboTax to file their federal returns — despite being eligible for free, federally-supported tax services. Checks to the 4.4 million Americans...

apnews.com

Of course, Bradley personally made hundreds of millions of dollars as a direct result of the company's growth from these unethical and illegal tactics, then took his coffers of cash and ran home before the litigation started, leaving the mess to be cleaned up by more loyal and far less compensated employees. Does anybody think his compensation will be clawed back from these huge fines and lawsuits? Of course not.

In the meantime, Bradley has moved onto Marshall University under the guise of wanting to turn around the college allegedly out of altruism. However, what he is now doing is (as I have posted about before) concerning for the long-term success and viability of the college. He is utilizing tactics to give a quick boost in enrollment and revenue (both of which will directly benefit him) while ignoring the long-term harm it will do to the college. Herdman and Big Country made a good point that the quick success from Bradley's strategy will earn him some wins in front of west virginian taxpayers who are too short-sighted to see the damage it will eventually cause. But if/when Bradley then runs for office, he will secure those votes and can point to his "success" leading Marshall to all-time revenue and enrollment numbers. When the shit hits the fan, he will be long gone from Marshall, onto his next allegedly altruistic pursuit, while leaving the mess to be cleaned up by others.

It's a good talking point about if Bradley's strategy of dumbing down admittance (and eventually retention) at Marshall constantly taking pictures of his name on buildings is best for Marshall's long-term success.

@MichiganHerd , since you're a fan of a school with great academics, that just won a national championship in football, and that has had major cheating/ethical issues from multiple leaders at its institution, what are your thoughts on Herdman's and BC's views? Are they misguided or are their concerns legitimate for a poor, downtrodden, overlooked school like Marshall?

Don't bring me into these many grievances you seem to have over Marshall, their school president, the forums, and who is allowed to post on them.

To think, all of this is over a letterman's jacket.

 

[i am herdman]

As evident by the author of the original post, BC and I have concluded there are lots of nutjobs in Chicago this week.

 

[riflearm2]

there are nots of nutjobs in Chicago this week.

Nots of nutjobs. Yep, agreed. Nots of them.

But your comment is a board violation based on the no politics rule. How about staying on track and discussing why Marshall's president had so many legal and ethical issues while at his job and why he suddenly got out right before it all hit?

 

[muthed]

Don't bring me into these many grievances you seem to have over Marshall, their school president, the forums, and who is allowed to post on them.

To think, all of this is over a letterman's jacket.

But it's been exacerbated by that handlebar mishap.

 

[Rock98Dog]

Hell, there have been 15 fines against the banking industry alone for over $1.2 billion (up to over $30 billion).

Here’s a list of the 100 most fined companies. Heck, even good old Warren Buffett has had to pay out $1.4 billion. Not on the list? Intuit. For a business man you don’t seem to know much on this topic.

https://violationtracker.goodjobsfirst.org/top-100-parents

Edit: pay attention to “number of records “. This is how many times these companies have been fined, so every CEO they’ve had has been hit, most multiple times. A couple hundred million ain’t nothing at the Fortune 500 level. There’s a reason the govt was upset that Chevron was overturned by the Supreme Court. The government is funded as much by fines as it is taxes.

 

[riflearm2]

Hell, there have been 15 fines against the banking industry alone for over $1.2 billion (up to over $30 billion).

Here’s a list of the 100 most fined companies. Heck, even good old Warren Buffett has had to pay out $1.4 billion. Not on the list? Intuit. For a business man you don’t seem to know much on this topic.

https://violationtracker.goodjobsfirst.org/top-100-parents

Edit: pay attention to “number of records “. This is how many times these companies have been fined, so every CEO they’ve had has been hit, most multiple times. A couple hundred million ain’t nothing at the Fortune 500 level. There’s a reason the govt was upset that Chevron was overturned by the Supreme Court. The government is funded as much by fines as it is taxes.

That has about as little relevancy as you can hope in this discussion.

You’re trying to compare companies that have been around 100 years longer, meaning, much longer time to break the law. You’re trying to compare histories of companies instead of just the years Bradley was at the helm. You’re trying to compare a company whose main product is consumer tax preparation software with companies whose products are far, far more regulated and potentially harmful.

And most of all, you’re trying to argue that “yeah, those companies have had much longer to get fined, are in industries far more regulated and lucrative which has a direct relation to how much they do get fined, so we should overlook all of the indiscretions that Bradley signed off on because other leaders are ethically bankrupt, too.”

Great logic.

 

[i am herdman]

The government was just mad at Intuit because the government wanted to create a free on line tax program through the IRS. Intuit was battling that.

The government shouldn't be competing with private enterprise.

Second, hey will will tax you and fill out your tax form for you. Conflict od interest and typical. Govt creates the problem and then provides the solution.

Smart move by Intuit. Pay the fine but you still have your software and the government does not.

Our government has weapons zed nearly every agency. We will just fine you. Seize your account.

This battle was over online tax software and the government was pissed off.

 

[riflearm2]

The government was just mad at Intuit because the government wanted to create a free on line tax program through the IRS. Intuit was battling that.

The government shouldn't be competing with private enterprise.

Second, hey will will tax you and fill out your tax form for you. Conflict od interest and typical. Govt creates the problem and then provides the solution.

Smart move by Intuit. Pay the fine but you still have your software and the government does not.

Our government has weapons zed nearly every agency. We will just fine you. Seize your account.

This battle was over online tax software and the government was pissed off.

Not only is your attempt factually wrong, but it is also intellectually wrong.

Filing taxes is absolutely government related. In many other countries, you don't even have to do your taxes: the government sends a pre-filled form to the tax payer, and the tax payer just has to review for any errors and sign. In yet even more countries, filing taxes is easy, straight-forward, and free for all to complete online.

So why is it such a mess and so confusing in the U.S.? It's because of Intuit. The feds tried making filing much easier and free like many other countries do it by the IRS creating a simple online system. Intuit spends millions every single year to lobby politicians in an attempt to make filing taxes confusing, difficult, and profitable for Intuit. No argument about it: Intuit spends millions each year to try and make a simple citizen obligation and duty challenging and difficult so they can profit from it. You should know that, Herdman. After all, you do your adult son's taxes for him since it is too hard for him.

So when the feds tried doing what many, many other countries do for their citizens, what did Intuit do? They ramped up to even more millions in lobbying efforts. Still, the feds refused to budge. They know that easy, free filing should be accessible to the public. So Intuit, with their millions in lobbying, agreed to do what the government wanted: they agreed to make a simple, easy, and free way for low-income citizens to file. Why just low-income? Because Intuit didn't care about fulfilling what the public should have and still wanted to make money.

As a court has since proved, Intuit then deceived both the American public and the government with their product and manipulated the agreement they had with the government.

The government isn't "competing with private enterprise." It is fulfilling a government duty for its citizens. When your tax code is extremely complicated for many, the government has an obligation to make it easy . . . so even your adult son could do his taxes.

There is absolutely no reasonable argument to defend Intuit on this issue or any of the other ones they were guilty of doing, which were unrelated. There is no doubt about it: under Bradley, Intuit was a very unethical company that engaged in egregious illegal acts. And when shit was about to hit the fan, Bradley jumped ship with his coffers and has left the remainder of the company to fix it.

 

[riflearm2]

Here is a very easy and fast read that even you morons can understand about the issue:

Only in America is filing taxes such a complicated mess. Here's how other countries do it better.

Across Europe, governments send people their estimated tax filing instead of making them guess at it under the threat of being charged with tax fraud.

www.businessinsider.com

So, knowing all of these red marks against Bradley, what makes you think that he just jumped shit to come to Marshall for purely altruistic reasons and won't do the same to the school after he damages it with his plans?

 

[i am herdman]

Not only is your attempt factually wrong, but it is also intellectually wrong.

Filing taxes is absolutely government related. In many other countries, you don't even have to do your taxes: the government sends a pre-filled form to the tax payer, and the tax payer just has to review for any errors and sign. In yet even more countries, filing taxes is easy, straight-forward, and free for all to complete online.

So why is it such a mess and so confusing in the U.S.? It's because of Intuit. The feds tried making filing much easier and free like many other countries do it by the IRS creating a simple online system. Intuit spends millions every single year to lobby politicians in an attempt to make filing taxes confusing, difficult, and profitable for Intuit. No argument about it: Intuit spends millions each year to try and make a simple citizen obligation and duty challenging and difficult so they can profit from it. You should know that, Herdman. After all, you do your adult son's taxes for him since it is too hard for him.

So when the feds tried doing what many, many other countries do for their citizens, what did Intuit do? They ramped up to even more millions in lobbying efforts. Still, the feds refused to budge. They know that easy, free filing should be accessible to the public. So Intuit, with their millions in lobbying, agreed to do what the government wanted: they agreed to make a simple, easy, and free way for low-income citizens to file. Why just low-income? Because Intuit didn't care about fulfilling what the public should have and still wanted to make money.

As a court has since proved, Intuit then deceived both the American public and the government with their product and manipulated the agreement they had with the government.

The government isn't "competing with private enterprise." It is fulfilling a government duty for its citizens. When your tax code is extremely complicated for many, the government has an obligation to make it easy . . . so even your adult son could do his taxes.

There is absolutely no reasonable argument to defend Intuit on this issue or any of the other ones they were guilty of doing, which were unrelated. There is no doubt about it: under Bradley, Intuit was a very unethical company that engaged in egregious illegal acts. And when shit was about to hit the fan, Bradley jumped ship with his coffers and has left the remainder of the company to fix it.

My adult son didn't do his taxes because he was away, serving the country. So, I didn't do his taxes because he can't. he wasn't around and had to leave.

Second, the IRS has made it complicated as what much of the govt does. As I said, create the mess and then offer the solution to the mess they created. The govt would flounder around doing while Intuit and the private sector can do it faster and cheaper.

Intuit is not the only game in town. There are other tax software companies out there.

Go to the root of the problem and you mention right in your post. The IRS, govt, has a complicated tax code. That is by design. Do you think they will change that? NOOOOOO.

The govt officials take lobbying money. We agree. So, do you think they are going to change that. I also looked up Intuit, they appear to give a lot of money to one side of the equation.

Blame the govt, they created the mess.

 

[riflearm2]

My adult son didn't do his taxes because he was away, serving the country. So, I didn't do his taxes because he can't. he wasn't around and had to leave.

Because the U.S. doesn't do what many other countries do and make it easy. When the feds wanted to do that, Intuit spent millions each year lobbying against it. The feds still didn't bend. Only after Intuit promised to build a free and easy-to-use system for a certain segment did the feds agree to it. Of course, then Intuit unethically, immorally, and deplorably manipulated that agreement, deceived millions of customers, and ended up getting fined $150MM for it.

So you have to do your adult son's taxes due to Bradley Smith's unethical business practices.

Second, the IRS has made it complicated as what much of the govt does. As I said, create the mess and then offer the solution to the mess they created. The govt would flounder around doing while Intuit and the private sector can do it faster and cheaper.

Clearly, you didn't read the article that I thoughtfully linked for you to learn from. Intuit has lobbied to keep the tax code cumbersome and confusing. The harder it is, the more they can sell their product. They spend millions each year wanting the tax code to not be easier.

Republican candidates frequently will talk about what they want to do with the tax code, almost always, making it far easier and less cumbersome. Intuit spends millions to lobby against that.

It's not the IRS doing this. It is Intuit's lack of business ethics and millions spent on lobbying each year. It's why something like 80% of Intuit's large lobby contingent (I think around 80 employees) are former IRS employees and/or Congressional employees!

How about this: before continuing to look like a fool, go read the article that I linked for you.

Go to the root of the problem and you mention right in your post. The IRS, govt, has a complicated tax code. That is by design. Do you think they will change that? NOOOOOO.

Yes! That complicated tax code is by design of INTUIT! That is what they spend millions on lobbying each year! It's why those politicians I referenced aren't successful in changing the code that they mention during campaigns.

Again, it's why something like 80% of Intuit's large lobby contingent (I think around 80 employees) are former IRS employees and/or Congressional employees!

The govt officials take lobbying money. We agree. So, do you think they are going to change that. I also looked up Intuit, they appear to give a lot of money to one side of the equation.

They give to whichever side is in power at the time and won't vote for tax code changes.

Tell me, why does Intuit have such a large lobbying group, have a huge percentage of those lobbyists being former IRS/Congressional employees, and spend so much money each year on lobbying? What could a software provider need to lobby so much for?

Then, when you answer that, go back and answer my questions about Bradley.

 

[riflearm2]

Here, let me dumb this down for you from a few articles:

1) In Washington, lawmakers began pushing the IRS to modernize and get more taxpayers to file electronically. It was a no-brainer: Filing taxes online would be easier, and the IRS would save staff costs on processing paper returns.

The danger to Intuit’s growing business was obvious. If the government succeeded in creating a system that allowed the vast majority of taxpayers to file online for free, TurboTax profits would plummet. Intuit recognized that the notion of “return-free filing” was not going away on its own.
2)
But the success of TurboTax rests on a shaky foundation, one that could collapse overnight if the U.S. government did what most wealthy countries did long ago and made tax filing simple and free for most citizens.

For more than 20 years, Intuit has waged a sophisticated, sometimes covert war to prevent the government from doing just that, according to internal company and IRS documents and interviews with insiders. The company unleashed a battalion of lobbyists and hired top officials from the agency that regulates it. From the beginning, Intuit recognized that its success depended on two parallel missions: stoking innovation in Silicon Valley while stifling it in Washington. Indeed, employees ruefully joke that the company’s motto should actually be “compromise without integrity.”

Internal presentations lay out company tactics for fighting “encroachment,” Intuit’s catchall term for any government initiative to make filing taxes easier — such as creating a free government filing system or pre-filling people’s returns with payroll or other data the IRS already has. “For a decade proposals have sought to create IRS tax software or a ReturnFree Tax System; All were stopped,” reads a confidential 2007 PowerPoint presentation from an Intuit board of directors meeting. The company’s 2014-15 plan included manufacturing “3rd-party grass roots” support. “Buy ads for op-eds/editorials/stories in African American and Latino media,” one internal PowerPoint slide states.

3) https://www.opensecrets.org/news/20...ccusations-of-deceptive-turbotax-advertising/

4)
The boom in Intuit’s lobbying continues despite mounting scrutiny over TurboTax’s marketing practices and Intuit’s history of currying influence.

Several members of Congress called for investigations into the company’s deployment of revolving door lobbyists who previously held government positions, citing reports by OpenSecrets and ProPublica.

After OpenSecrets’ March 2022 reporting on Intuit’s lobbying in Washington, Warren sent a letter to Intuit CEO Sasan K. Goodarzi accusing the company of “extensive lobbying and adroit influence peddling.” In an additional June letter, Warren and Reps. Katie Porter (D-Calif.) and Brad Sherman (D-Calif.) called on federal inspector general offices to investigate Intuit’s “use of the revolving door to influence policy decisions” and the “extent to which Intuit—and other Free File Alliance members—have used the revolving door to exert undue influence on department and agency policies, particularly Free File.”

 

[i am herdman]

Because the U.S. doesn't do what many other countries do and make it easy. When the feds wanted to do that, Intuit spent millions each year lobbying against it. The feds still didn't bend. Only after Intuit promised to build a free and easy-to-use system for a certain segment did the feds agree to it. Of course, then Intuit unethically, immorally, and deplorably manipulated that agreement, deceived millions of customers, and ended up getting fined $150MM for it.

So you have to do your adult son's taxes due to Bradley Smith's unethical business practices.


Clearly, you didn't read the article that I thoughtfully linked for you to learn from. Intuit has lobbied to keep the tax code cumbersome and confusing. The harder it is, the more they can sell their product. They spend millions each year wanting the tax code to not be easier.

Republican candidates frequently will talk about what they want to do with the tax code, almost always, making it far easier and less cumbersome. Intuit spends millions to lobby against that.

It's not the IRS doing this. It is Intuit's lack of business ethics and millions spent on lobbying each year. It's why something like 80% of Intuit's large lobby contingent (I think around 80 employees) are former IRS employees and/or Congressional employees!

How about this: before continuing to look like a fool, go read the article that I linked for you.




Yes! That complicated tax code is by design of INTUIT! That is what they spend millions on lobbying each year! It's why those politicians I referenced aren't successful in changing the code that they mention during campaigns.

Again, it's why something like 80% of Intuit's large lobby contingent (I think around 80 employees) are former IRS employees and/or Congressional employees!


They give to whichever side is in power at the time and won't vote for tax code changes.

Tell me, why does Intuit have such a large lobbying group, have a huge percentage of those lobbyists being former IRS/Congressional employees, and spend so much money each year on lobbying? What could a software provider need to lobby so much for?

Then, when you answer that, go back and answer my questions about Bradley.

Intuit alone is influencing US Tax Code? Cmon. Do they have influence yes. You can look up and see who they are supporting for POTUS( what color is the sky?). But, Congress is not going to change the US Tax Code. Intuit isn't that influential and they are young as compared to US tax code.

The govt by design has a complicated tax code. If they wanted to make it simple they would just go to a flat tax or consumption tax.

I don't doubt Intuit has lobbyists. That is how the game is played in DC. But, to say they alone are dictating US tax code is absurd.

 

[elginherd]

Yes! That complicated tax code is by design of INTUIT! That is what they spend millions on lobbying each year! It's why those politicians I referenced aren't successful in changing the code that they mention during campaigns.

Again, it's why something like 80% of Intuit's large lobby contingent (I think around 80 employees) are former IRS employees and/or Congressional employees!

To be fair, Intuit is not the only entity that has a hand in making tax code/regulation the labrith that it is.
I'm not defending Intuit saying this.

 

[riflearm2]

Intuit alone is influencing US Tax Code? Cmon. Do they have influence yes. You can look up and see who they are supporting for POTUS( what color is the sky?). But, Congress is not going to change the US Tax Code. Intuit isn't that influential and they are young as compared to US tax code.

The govt by design has a complicated tax code. If they wanted to make it simple they would just go to a flat tax or consumption tax.

I don't doubt Intuit has lobbyists. That is how the game is played in DC. But, to say they alone are dictating US tax code is absurd.

To be fair, Intuit is not the only entity that has a hand in making tax code/regulation the labrith that it is.
I'm not defending Intuit saying this.

I didn't say that Intuit was alone in dictating tax code nor did I say that they were the only entity in town. They are, however, leading both in number of lobbyists and lobbying spending. They are, however, leading in trying to stop numerous government actions that would have provided far easier tax code and filing for Americans. And Intuit was led, at the time their scheme and scam started, by the person currently tasked with leading Marshall.

There is a reason why so many politicians from both sides of the aisle have spoken out against Intuit's actions and lobbying efforts and what it does to Americans (targeted previously, at the lower income Americans).

Herdman, since you refuse to answer my questions about Bradley, how about trying some other questions that may be easier for you:

1) Why is Intuit spending so much money on lobbying efforts?
2) Why is Intuit breaking laws and getting fined?
3) What is Intuit lobbying against with their investments of many millions each year?
4) Why has Intuit's lobbying expenses continued to increase during Bradley's time which coordinated with the IRS' efforts to make filing easy and free for Americans?
5) Why has Intuit's lobbying expenses continued to increase during the time the Inflation Reduction Act was trying to get passed?

 

[i am herdman]

I didn't say that Intuit was alone in dictating tax code nor did I say that they were the only entity in town. They are, however, leading both in number of lobbyists and lobbying spending. They are, however, leading in trying to stop numerous government actions that would have provided far easier tax code and filing for Americans. And Intuit was led, at the time their scheme and scam started, by the person currently tasked with leading Marshall.

There is a reason why so many politicians from both sides of the aisle have spoken out against Intuit's actions and lobbying efforts and what it does to Americans (targeted previously, at the lower income Americans).

Herdman, since you refuse to answer my questions about Bradley, how about trying some other questions that may be easier for you:

1) Why is Intuit spending so much money on lobbying efforts?
2) Why is Intuit breaking laws and getting fined?
3) What is Intuit lobbying against with their investments of many millions each year?
4) Why has Intuit's lobbying expenses continued to increase during Bradley's time which coordinated with the IRS' efforts to make filing easy and free for Americans?
5) Why has Intuit's lobbying expenses continued to increase during the time the Inflation Reduction Act was trying to get passed?

They are playing the game. Why are congressional members getting rich? They call it the swamp for a reason.

That's your answer. That is how are country is ran now.

 

[riflearm2]

They are playing the game. Why are congressional members getting rich? They call it the swamp for a reason.

That's your answer. That is how are country is ran now.

They are "playing the game" by essentially paying people off to stunt what is good for the American people? They are "playing the game" by manipulating their agreement with the government by scamming the lowest income earners in the country? They are "playing the game" by breaking the law with deceptive ads?

That's not "playing the game." That is being an ethically bankrupt company that is breaking the laws and taking advantage of the American public in order to stack the coffers of their executives. This has nothing to do with the government and everything to do with repeated unethical and illegal acts by the Marshall president at his last job.

 

[i am herdman]

They are "playing the game" by essentially paying people off to stunt what is good for the American people? They are "playing the game" by manipulating their agreement with the government by scamming the lowest income earners in the country? They are "playing the game" by breaking the law with deceptive ads?

That's not "playing the game." That is being an ethically bankrupt company that is breaking the laws and taking advantage of the American public in order to stack the coffers of their executives. This has nothing to do with the government and everything to do with repeated unethical and illegal acts by the Marshall president at his last job.

Ugghhh you realize that's how DC works??

I don't disagree with you. But that's how it works.

 

[riflearm2]

Ugghhh you realize that's how DC works??

I don't disagree with you. But that's how it works.

I had two offices on K Street (look it up) for about five years. I had many friends who were/still are lobbyists. That's not "how DC works." Lobbyists don't push for things that are bad for the American public, and ethical companies don't lobby for that. More, those type of people do not have to be hired to do the same thing while leading Marshall. Lobbyists don't push for illegal activities by their companies.

 

[i am herdman]

I had two offices on K Street (look it up) for about five years. I had many friends who were/still are lobbyists. That's not "how DC works." Lobbyists don't push for things that are bad for the American public, and ethical companies don't lobby for that. More, those type of people do not have to be hired to do the same thing while leading Marshall. Lobbyists don't push for illegal activities by their companies.

What? Lawyers lobby. Pharmaceutical lobby. Military Industrial Complex.

It is corruption to Nth Degree.

 

[riflearm2]

What? Lawyers lobby. Pharmaceutical lobby. Military Industrial Complex.

It is corruption to Nth Degree.

Lobbying does not equal corruption. Corrupt companies led by corrupt leaders allow their lobbyists to engage in corruption.

So again, explain how breaking the law and working against making things better for Americans is just "playing the game." Because that is what Bradley repeatedly did while at Intuit, both in a management role and as the CEO.

"Compromise without integrity." Sounds like the type of guy we should trust at Marshall, huh?

 

[Rock98Dog]

Taxes were complicated before the internet existed. Anyone that thinks tax filing services are the reason taxes are convoluted is simply ignorant.

Frankly, I don’t trust the government to build an online tax filing system. I have called the IRS for clarification on issues and they really have no idea what they’re doing. Plus, if they tell you something wrong it does not absolve you of the penalties and interest if your return is wrong based on their direct guidance.

Anyone that remembers the Obamacare website issues and how long it took to develop should be very afraid of a government developed tax filing site.

 

[riflearm2]

Taxes were complicated before the internet existed. Anyone that thinks tax filing services are the reason taxes are convoluted is simply ignorant.

Frankly, I don’t trust the government to build an online tax filing system. I have called the IRS for clarification on issues and they really have no idea what they’re doing. Plus, if they tell you something wrong it does not absolve you of the penalties and interest if your return is wrong based on their direct guidance.

Anyone that remembers the Obamacare website issues and how long it took to develop should be very afraid of a government developed tax filing site.

Completely different discussion.

Maybe you want to answer the basic questions that Herdman has hidden from? There is no denying that Intuit, under Bradley's direction, committed serious illegal acts and unethical business practices. There is no denying that Bradley, when those things started to unravel and become known, left Intuit.

So what makes you comfortable that he is doing the right thing for Marshall and not just himself now? What makes you comfortable that a guy who took advantage of the low-income segment of our country is the leader of a college of impressionable young adults?

 

[i am herdman]

Lobbying does not equal corruption. Corrupt companies led by corrupt leaders allow their lobbyists to engage in corruption.

So again, explain how breaking the law and working against making things better for Americans is just "playing the game." Because that is what Bradley repeatedly did while at Intuit, both in a management role and as the CEO.

"Compromise without integrity." Sounds like the type of guy we should trust at Marshall, huh?

are you serious? The whole thing is corrupt.

 

[i am herdman]

Completely different discussion.

Maybe you want to answer the basic questions that Herdman has hidden from? There is no denying that Intuit, under Bradley's direction, committed serious illegal acts and unethical business practices. There is no denying that Bradley, when those things started to unravel and become known, left Intuit.

So what makes you comfortable that he is doing the right thing for Marshall and not just himself now? What makes you comfortable that a guy who took advantage of the low-income segment of our country is the leader of a college of impressionable young adults?

What we would be his gain? he has $700 million. What would he gain from being the President of Marshall?

 

[sluggo72]

I was on a call with @i am herdman and @big_country90 this morning discussing where in Chicago we were going to meet for breakfast, and we got talking about Marshall academics and enrollment.

Big Country mentioned a really good discussion point: When Bradley Smith was leading Intuit, the company took extreme advantage over the poorest Americans while also showing horrendous ethics by manipulating an agreement with the U.S. government. Intuit did this for the sole sake of earning more revenue (with direct deposits into Bradley's personal account). You can read about that issue here:

Inside TurboTax’s 20-Year Fight to Stop Americans From Filing Their Taxes for Free

Using lobbying, the revolving door and “dark pattern” customer tricks, Intuit fended off the government’s attempts to make tax filing free and easy, and created its multi-billion-dollar franchise.

www.propublica.org

Big Country felt like Bradley's initial strategies for success at Marshall is his way of making amends for the illegal and morally repugnant practices he led at Intuit: even though he took extreme advantage over the poorest of Americans, he seems to be making amends by giving many Appalachian youths the chance of college by watering down entrance requirements.

@i am herdman then mentioned that Intuit, just this year, got hammered by the FTC for "deceptive advertising" during Bradley's reign leading the company. Intuit immediately appealed by arguing an unconstitutional aspect of the proceedings. All 50 state attorney generals formed a coalition urging the government to reject the appeal. It's important to note that even though Intuit, during Bradley's time leading the company, spent tens of millions of dollars lobbying the government (including high donations to Biden) and hiring away top IRS employees, the company still had to pay nearly $150 million in punishment for other deceptive business practices related to the same issues. You can read about those lawsuits here:

Attorney General Kaul Joins Coalition Urging Court to Uphold FTC’s Ban on Deceptive TurboTax Advertising | Wisconsin Department of Justice

www.doj.state.wi.us

https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/blog/2024/01/closer-look-ftcs-ruling-intuits-free-claims-deceived-consumers

TurboTax customers to receive checks for $141M settlement

In a settlement agreement last year, TurboTax’s owner Intuit Inc. was ordered to pay $141 million to low-income consumers who were deceived into paying TurboTax to file their federal returns — despite being eligible for free, federally-supported tax services. Checks to the 4.4 million Americans...

apnews.com

Of course, Bradley personally made hundreds of millions of dollars as a direct result of the company's growth from these unethical and illegal tactics, then took his coffers of cash and ran home before the litigation started, leaving the mess to be cleaned up by more loyal and far less compensated employees. Does anybody think his compensation will be clawed back from these huge fines and lawsuits? Of course not.

In the meantime, Bradley has moved onto Marshall University under the guise of wanting to turn around the college allegedly out of altruism. However, what he is now doing is (as I have posted about before) concerning for the long-term success and viability of the college. He is utilizing tactics to give a quick boost in enrollment and revenue (both of which will directly benefit him) while ignoring the long-term harm it will do to the college. Herdman and Big Country made a good point that the quick success from Bradley's strategy will earn him some wins in front of west virginian taxpayers who are too short-sighted to see the damage it will eventually cause. But if/when Bradley then runs for office, he will secure those votes and can point to his "success" leading Marshall to all-time revenue and enrollment numbers. When the shit hits the fan, he will be long gone from Marshall, onto his next allegedly altruistic pursuit, while leaving the mess to be cleaned up by others.

It's a good talking point about if Bradley's strategy of dumbing down admittance (and eventually retention) at Marshall constantly taking pictures of his name on buildings is best for Marshall's long-term success.

@MichiganHerd , since you're a fan of a school with great academics, that just won a national championship in football, and that has had major cheating/ethical issues from multiple leaders at its institution, what are your thoughts on Herdman's and BC's views? Are they misguided or are their concerns legitimate for a poor, downtrodden, overlooked school like Marshall?

if things are as unethical at Intuit as you say, Intuit should just move into the sub prime auto lending industry. They seem to be somewhat more transparent about who they are trying to rip off. Now may not be a great time for that though, as the sub prime auto loans seem to be getting into trouble. for example https://wolfstreet.com/2024/05/18/subprime-auto-loans-are-getting-messy/

 

[riflearm2]

What we would be his gain? he has $700 million. What would he gain from being the President of Marshall?

Based on his constant boasting on social media, his constant need to post pictures of his name on/in front of buildings, and his constant self-promotion, I wouldn't be surprised to see him angling for a political run at some point. What better for a state position than greatly increasing the revenue and enrollment of the second biggest state school even if, long-term, it hurts Marshall? He will be long gone in his new role, just like he did to Intuit.

This is a guy who, literally, took a goodbye tour of his company's offices around the world so they could celebrate him.

if things are as unethical at Intuit as you say, Intuit should just move into the sub prime auto lending industry. They seem to be somewhat more transparent about who they are trying to rip off. Now may not be a great time for that though, as the sub prime auto loans seem to be getting into trouble. for example https://wolfstreet.com/2024/05/18/subprime-auto-loans-are-getting-messy/

You're a moron. First, lenders have a risk that is highly associated with the likelihood that the consumer will default. If the consumer has a history of defaulting, the lender needs to offset that risk by charging the selling business a fee and/or higher interest rate on the consumer. If lenders don't use things like a FICO score (my company didn't, as I think FICOs are a bad representation compared to other aspects of the underwriting process data that we acquire) to identify their risk, those lenders eventually go out of business and/or simply stop providing loans to subprime consumers.

Second, lending overall (not just subprime auto) tends to be cyclical. It is linked to the economy. It just is magnified with consumers who have a history of defaulting, as they tend not to have savings and/or realize that defaulting won't have much negative impact on them since they already have poor credit.

Third, you realize that there are state maximums on auto loans, right? The industry is extremely highly regulated by things like the CFPB, so "ripping off" can't really happen. There are literally hundreds upon hundreds of subprime auto lenders around the country. If lenders could make money on subprime consumers by giving them prime APRs, then those companies would skyrocket to the top of origination volume. The reality is that all subprime lenders have APRs within the same range due to needing that to offset the humongous losses they incur due to these type of consumers defaulting and due to regulatory maximums.

Fourth, I haven't worked at that company in nearly a year. In fact, I haven't worked at all in nearly a year. We were acquired by a publicly traded company for a shit-ton of money. As an equity partner, I was contractually obligated to work there for a certain amount of time, as my payout was put in escrow and released at certain time intervals of continued employment. The acquiring company, for obvious reasons, didn't want to buy the company and then have its leaders all depart after their payday without getting significant time to put their own team in place to lead the company. It's why, last year, I went to Prague, Paris, Puerto Vallarta, Stockholm, Oslo, Vienna, Tokyo, Brussels, Havana, London . . . followed the Mets to their games in Miami, Oakland, Denver, Chicago, Los Angeles, San Diego, Philadelphia, San Francisco, Minneapolis, Atlanta, Pittsburgh, Houston, Phoenix, Boston, and Baltimore . . . why I went to other places (Memphis, NY x 3, Dallas x 5, Tampa, Orlando, Tulsa, Seattle, etc.). Before my accident, I had planned on going this year to Dubai, Istanbul, Barcelona, Bangkok, Beijing, Rio de Janeiro, Zurich, Geneva, Seoul, and Mexico City . . . because, ya' know, wealthy.





Now, instead of being obsessed with me and trying to make every conversation about me, how about weighing in and defending Bradley on what he did while at Intuit.

 

[sluggo72]

Based on his constant boasting on social media, his constant need to post pictures of his name on/in front of buildings, and his constant self-promotion, I wouldn't be surprised to see him angling for a political run at some point. What better for a state position than greatly increasing the revenue and enrollment of the second biggest state school even if, long-term, it hurts Marshall? He will be long gone in his new role, just like he did to Intuit.

This is a guy who, literally, took a goodbye tour of his company's offices around the world so they could celebrate him.


You're a moron. First, lenders have a risk that is highly associated with the likelihood that the consumer will default. If the consumer has a history of defaulting, the lender needs to offset that risk by charging the selling business a fee and/or higher interest rate on the consumer. If lenders don't use things like a FICO score (my company didn't, as I think FICOs are a bad representation compared to other aspects of the underwriting process data that we acquire) to identify their risk, those lenders eventually go out of business and/or simply stop providing loans to subprime consumers.

Second, lending overall (not just subprime auto) tends to be cyclical. It is linked to the economy. It just is magnified with consumers who have a history of defaulting, as they tend not to have savings and/or realize that defaulting won't have much negative impact on them since they already have poor credit.

Third, you realize that there are state maximums on auto loans, right? The industry is extremely highly regulated by things like the CFPB, so "ripping off" can't really happen. There are literally hundreds upon hundreds of subprime auto lenders around the country. If lenders could make money on subprime consumers by giving them prime APRs, then those companies would skyrocket to the top of origination volume. The reality is that all subprime lenders have APRs within the same range due to needing that to offset the humongous losses they incur due to these type of consumers defaulting and due to regulatory maximums.

Fourth, I haven't worked at that company in nearly a year. In fact, I haven't worked at all in nearly a year. We were acquired by a publicly traded company for a shit-ton of money. As an equity partner, I was contractually obligated to work there for a certain amount of time, as my payout was put in escrow and released at certain time intervals of continued employment. The acquiring company, for obvious reasons, didn't want to buy the company and then have its leaders all depart after their payday without getting significant time to put their own team in place to lead the company. It's why, last year, I went to Prague, Paris, Puerto Vallarta, Stockholm, Oslo, Vienna, Tokyo, Brussels, Havana, London . . . followed the Mets to their games in Miami, Oakland, Denver, Chicago, Los Angeles, San Diego, Philadelphia, San Francisco, Minneapolis, Atlanta, Pittsburgh, Houston, Phoenix, Boston, and Baltimore . . . why I went to other places (Memphis, NY x 3, Dallas x 5, Tampa, Orlando, Tulsa, Seattle, etc.). Before my accident, I had planned on going this year to Dubai, Istanbul, Barcelona, Bangkok, Beijing, Rio de Janeiro, Zurich, Geneva, Seoul, and Mexico City . . . because, ya' know, wealthy.

View embedded media

Now, instead of being obsessed with me and trying to make every conversation about me, how about weighing in and defending Bradley on what he did while at Intuit.

hmmm maybe Brad should sue his employer for overtime pay.

 

[riflearm2]

hmmm maybe Brad should sue his employer for overtime pay.

Again, try to stay on topic, moron. Why are you one of the morons so obsessed with turning every subject on here about me? And I didn't sue for "overtime pay." That would make no sense to do as a college football coach. I sued for simply not getting paid . . . or at least when I was supposed to, for the amount that I was supposed to, etc.

 

[sluggo72]

Again, try to stay on topic, moron. Why are you one of the morons so obsessed with turning every subject on here about me? And I didn't sue for "overtime pay." That would make no sense to do as a college football coach. I sued for simply not getting paid . . . or at least when I was supposed to, for the amount that I was supposed to, etc.

look at me , look at me. oh why is this about me?