All the rants raves and ramblings by Rhinoceroses Donkeys and Jackasses not fit to print
Tuesday, March 21, 2006
Spitzer Hates Poor People Update
"Someone needs to explain to Attorney General Eliot Spitzer's gubernatorial- campaign brainiacs that class warfare only works as a political tactic when you attack rich people." Bob Barr
I have seen a few articles on this program offered by H&R Block..several stated they "prayed" upon the poor and ignorant and that the fees were high and erased any money to be made by the folks investing in it.
Other articles said it was a good program..for H&R Block to make money off since the poor dumb folks wouldn't leave their money in there long enough to amount to anything and the company depended on that from the get go..which is basically the same thing..no?
Only thing to me thats important is this..H&R Block made some bucks..however paltry, off folks by having their tax preparers shill the program to their customers. And what exactly is their customer base? The working stiffs that don't possess enough intelligence to do their own taxes.
But the "poor" people that they supposedly preyed upon wouldn't make enough to actually have an itemized return, would they? SO these are basically your short form filers that are paying H+R Block fifty bucks to fill out a few spaces essentially? Now thats sad and as I have said before I have done taxes for such people many times but the fact is that there are also free services in many communities and there is a lesson to be learned when you pay that much money and a lesson to be learned about really taking control of your financial decisions. As a bleeding heart case worker right from the start I went to the finances- fake checkbooks and field trips to the bank. Whatever it took. I worked with people to buy homes, save homes, get off welfare, etc. and I really believe that people want to be on track. Many had no way to afford a typical IRA, and no way to enjoy the tax advantages. Yet we liberals claim all tax benefits go to the rich.
See the trouble is that we are very quick to demonize a company because it SEEMS to take advantage of the naive. But invariably we find that the truth was available. I believe in consumer rights but I also think that the consumer should avail themselves of as much info as possible. Is a $500 dollar pocketbook a fair deal? Well we happily pay it in America. Is it a great deal to pay $3.50 on a latte??? NO, its stupid, but we willingly pay it.
So why is this so different? They get money as administrators, etc. If a person does not follow through with paying into the IRA- sure, H+R Block could profit. But thats not really much different than typical American business. When they lie or pollute or hurt people- I am all over that shit. But when it comes to this, I have to agree that Spitzer is putting on the Gub show. New Yorkers are quite used to being played.
I know what you are saying but I guess my point is that we cannot legislate decency. We can have a system where DISCLOSURE is mandatory so people entering into any kind of contract have the information needed to decide. WEc an require that safety concerns and risk be disclosed, things like that from a consumer safety point of view.
But unfortunately I don't think we can legislate 'fair deals'. At Blognonymous this was also my view on predatory lending. Deception is not the same thing as borrower's remorse.
You have to consider how far the LAW, via suits and actions and punitive prosecutions, should go in legislating fairness. I think that law should intrude on business transactions between consumer and business when a legal criteria has been met: unfair/assymmetrical contract disclosure, risk or threat to people or the environment, or when a 'reasonable person standard' applied to a contract's language or intent has been viewed by a court to be inadequate, like if it was full of legalese or jargon or access to information was burdensome or complicated.
If H+R Block used language to express stipulations that an average person could not comprehend=legal action is appropriate.
If H+R Block coerced or intimidated a client by either real or implied threat to enter into an investment relationship=legal action is appropriate
If H+R Block hid the terms in a lockbox at the bottom of the Hudson, preventing realistic access=legal action is appropriate.
What I have trouble with is finding anyone that can tell me the SPECIFIC criteria Spitzer is utilizing as the basis of his challenge. We know WHAT his motives are. What is the basis he is using? Grounds?
4 comments:
I have seen a few articles on this program offered by H&R Block..several stated they "prayed" upon the poor and ignorant and that the fees were high and erased any money to be made by the folks investing in it.
Other articles said it was a good program..for H&R Block to make money off since the poor dumb folks wouldn't leave their money in there long enough to amount to anything and the company depended on that from the get go..which is basically the same thing..no?
Only thing to me thats important is this..H&R Block made some bucks..however paltry, off folks by having their tax preparers shill the program to their customers. And what exactly is their customer base? The working stiffs that don't possess enough intelligence to do their own taxes.
Dusty-
But the "poor" people that they supposedly preyed upon wouldn't make enough to actually have an itemized return, would they? SO these are basically your short form filers that are paying H+R Block fifty bucks to fill out a few spaces essentially? Now thats sad and as I have said before I have done taxes for such people many times but the fact is that there are also free services in many communities and there is a lesson to be learned when you pay that much money and a lesson to be learned about really taking control of your financial decisions. As a bleeding heart case worker right from the start I went to the finances- fake checkbooks and field trips to the bank. Whatever it took. I worked with people to buy homes, save homes, get off welfare, etc. and I really believe that people want to be on track. Many had no way to afford a typical IRA, and no way to enjoy the tax advantages. Yet we liberals claim all tax benefits go to the rich.
See the trouble is that we are very quick to demonize a company because it SEEMS to take advantage of the naive. But invariably we find that the truth was available. I believe in consumer rights but I also think that the consumer should avail themselves of as much info as possible. Is a $500 dollar pocketbook a fair deal? Well we happily pay it in America. Is it a great deal to pay $3.50 on a latte??? NO, its stupid, but we willingly pay it.
So why is this so different? They get money as administrators, etc. If a person does not follow through with paying into the IRA- sure, H+R Block could profit. But thats not really much different than typical American business. When they lie or pollute or hurt people- I am all over that shit. But when it comes to this, I have to agree that Spitzer is putting on the Gub show. New Yorkers are quite used to being played.
I believe I said they aren't smart enough to do their own taxes..therefore they were a prime target for shills like their tax preparer at HR block..
Its like buying a car..can the dumb without credit get a good deal? no..but they want a car. Everyone wants to save for retirement..
Some people are better equipped to move themselves upward..others rely on the help of others..sometimes to their own demise.
I know what you are saying but I guess my point is that we cannot legislate decency. We can have a system where DISCLOSURE is mandatory so people entering into any kind of contract have the information needed to decide. WEc an require that safety concerns and risk be disclosed, things like that from a consumer safety point of view.
But unfortunately I don't think we can legislate 'fair deals'. At Blognonymous this was also my view on predatory lending. Deception is not the same thing as borrower's remorse.
You have to consider how far the LAW, via suits and actions and punitive prosecutions, should go in legislating fairness. I think that law should intrude on business transactions between consumer and business when a legal criteria has been met: unfair/assymmetrical contract disclosure, risk or threat to people or the environment, or when a 'reasonable person standard' applied to a contract's language or intent has been viewed by a court to be inadequate, like if it was full of legalese or jargon or access to information was burdensome or complicated.
If H+R Block used language to express stipulations that an average person could not comprehend=legal action is appropriate.
If H+R Block coerced or intimidated a client by either real or implied threat to enter into an investment relationship=legal action is appropriate
If H+R Block hid the terms in a lockbox at the bottom of the Hudson, preventing realistic access=legal action is appropriate.
What I have trouble with is finding anyone that can tell me the SPECIFIC criteria Spitzer is utilizing as the basis of his challenge. We know WHAT his motives are. What is the basis he is using? Grounds?
Post a Comment