This is a prime example of that. H&R Block, etc, benefit from there not being direct file by around $3bn in revenue or around $750m in profit. Rough sums on the time saved by direct file if everyone used it is 8h * average wage * taxpayers, which seems to be approximately $44bn. i.e. in axing direct file, it has "created" $3bn in economic activity to the private infrastructure-owner (the intermediary between you and filing your return), but at the cost of $44bn in lost time & therefore lost activity (the other things you could have been doing) to the rest of the economy.
Infrastructure is not the economy. Infrastructure is the thing the economy runs on top of / has to use. Given that it is the role of government to govern the economy, it is the role of government to ensure that the infrastructure is running well (be the custodian of the infrastructure).
The only alternative is inserting a third party, one that has full access to all your financial information, an extraordinary level of trust for a private sector that has shown unrelenting loyalty to investors over customers. That shouldn't be necessary for the average filer, assuming a bare minimum of competence, like one might assume for the only country to put a human on the moon and bring them safely home.
Trusting the government to be able to do something is not the same them actually doing it, nor is it the same as them doing it well. With roads the people using them have much more incentive in maintaining them than the government. What a person experiences driving down the road everyday is just a statistic to the government.
Are you implying the random people driving down a road also do the maintenance on it? What? How is this any different from literally any other government service?
> Trusting the government to be able to do something is not the same them actually doing it, nor is it the same as them doing it well.
You are absolutely right. My point is not that the government has proven its competency in this domain, it is whether we should expect it.
The monetary incentives for the most governments don't exist to run projects efficiently, so I don't think it is realistic to expect it. The government can just print money or steal money via taxes to cover up inefficiencies. And since government bureaucracy tends to force things to move at a glacial pace that will be reflected in how it executes projects.
Governments have as much incentive as anyone else to save money. I shouldn't even need to type this but raising taxes is unpopular and tends to cause people to get voted out of office.
People need to stop repeating thise weird talking points about "the government" and its incentives. It's a big, complixated entity made up of literally millions of people all of whom have different motivations and incentives and non-government employees affect those not just in the super obvious way by voting but by every interaction we have with anyone who works there.
The government has to maintain some infrastructure to get this sort of thing done. Whether digital or analog. And if it contracts it out, it needs to oversee it. So no matter how it is done, the government has to pay.
Neither system is perfect.
On the flip side, plenty of private companies are expensive and corrupt.
I think it's possible both can be good and both can be bad.
Because if the government is going to accept returns electronically instead of through the physical mail, then it should accept them without requiring an intermediary.
Interestingly, it does this for corporations, but not for individuals.
Gee, I wonder why.
Personally, I think that (a) the government needs to have my PII to process my taxes, and that (b) having the government require me to also hand my PII to a third party in order to pay taxes is a big fucking security nightmare.
This is the case pretty much.