How to find a quicken savvy accountant?

Todd H. · 2005-04-19T03:06:34+00:00

I'm using an accountant for taxes this year for the first time and amthoroughly unimpressed. My taxes have gone on extension and it'sirritating because I'm expecting a pretty hefty refund. This is alsoan all-manual shop, so aside from teh ease of being able to fax themreports from what I've done Quicken's not adding as much value for meas it could and , something's telling me that there may be a moreefficient way to communicate with my accountant.Now, I know some full time small biz owners who use businessaccountants that set them up with Quickbooks, and their communicaitonchannel to the accountant is in the form of a quickbooks file.My little ole side businesses aren't fancy enough to requireQuickbooks, and as a sole proprietorship, everythings mixed with mypersonal tax return anyway. As such I would be interested in findingan accountant that I could communicate with by handing them a CD withmy latest quicken file on it.Do such folks exist, and if so is there a good method of finding em?I'm in a big city, so it can't be that hard! Any success stories out there? Best Regards,

H

Han 21 years ago

Victor Roberts wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com:

We have come to the present and unfair system because we have confused the needs of society with the needs of lobbyists. Nowadays, Congress is entitled to write any tax laws it sees fit, without any real chance the voters will throw its members out. I think the only solution is a constitutional amendment limiting the total of all Federal tax laws to, say, 500 pages, including interpretations, rules and instructions.

(enter your favorite smiley)

Vote

S

Steven Latus 21 years ago

It depends upon what is meant by "fair".

The idea behind the progressive-rate tax system we have now is that those most able to pay are subject to higher taxes.

While not "fair" in the sense that all taxpayers are not taxed at the same rate nor paying the same amount, it is "fair" in the sense that taxpayers who make less money are not subject to having taxes paid out of money they need to provide for life's basic necessities. It's all relative - $1,000 is "worth" much more to the "average" person than it is to a millionaire. The average lower-middle-class person would use the money to buy food, pay rent or some such; the millionaire would invest it. Taking that money from the former would definitely affect his life more than it would the latter's.

The income tax, despite its mind-numbing (and in many cases, unnecessary, IMHO) complexity, does have the basic thrust that those most able to pay do pay more, while taxes such as the sales tax make no such distinction.

Steve

Vote

M

Mike B 21 years ago

We may not see eye-to-eye on everything, but bravo!

Vote

J

John Pollard 21 years ago

Yes: an idea expressed more accurately in the expression, "from each according to their ability, to each according to their need". The system that lived most consistently by that rule is heading down the porcelain facility, while its kissin' cousins still struggle to keep the myth alive that such forced wealth transfers are somehow a "good" thing.

Vote

W

William W. Plummer 21 years ago

Isn't the "From each ... to each..." a quote straight out of Marx? The goal to level all differences between individuals, stifle all creativity and excellence, take all wealth from anybody who has accumulated it and redistribute to those who simply _want_ it.

Personally I dislike communism. Fortunately, it has never worked anywhere except for the very small number of kingpins that run the states involved.

If anybody whines about "It's not fair," he marks himself as a below-average loser who wants a hand-out rather than working for it.

Vote

M

Mike B 21 years ago

At issue is not fairness. At issue is core beliefs of society. Do we believe that educated children grow up to be more productive as adults than uneducated children? Do we believe that an educated workforce improves productivity and technological advantages over an uneducated workforce. Do we believe that an efficient system of crime prevention is better than an expensive system of jails and criminals? Do we believe that efficient transport networks should be available? Do we believe that a "safety net" should exist to help individuals who, through no fault of their own, fall on hard times? Do we believe that medical services should be available to all, or only to those who can afford insurance? Do we believe that after a lifetime of productive activity (and contribution to the economy) individuals are entitled to support to keep them from destitution?

It is in "rich" people's interest as much (if not more so) than "poor" people's to live in an ordered and well-structured society with low crime rates and where dead and dying bodies of victims or the destitute does not litter the streets.

It is a fundamentally accepted fact of economics that the marginal value of a commodity (such as money) decrease in proportion to the availability of that commodity. It is upon that principle that an incremental (or sliding) tax scale is based.

Vote