No one is forcing me to use such a system today, but I was also assured that if I liked my doctor I could keep my doctor, and that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. You are naive if you think the government will act altruistically.
> I do not because it won't be a black box anymore than your tax preparer is a black box
How can you say that with any amount of certainty?
Congress asked the IRS to conduct a feasibility study and instead they went and created a full blown system to accept and process tax returns, in violation of what they were statutorily required to do, spending millions beyond what they were legally authorized to.
If they can't even do the study correctly and in good faith, what assurance does anyone have that they won't build a system that will be used to abuse taxpayers? If the government wants me to trust them, then they should act in a trustworthy manner.
> I'm going to make a guess that you've never lived outside of the US.
I'm going to make a guess that you've never studied history.
> If it means that the lowest incomes now get their $1000 dollar credit and get to keep it, I think that's a lot of money for a lot of them.
I too like it when poor people get money they're entitled to. But that doesn't mean we need to bend over backwards and give the IRS massive new powers to accomplish that goal.
There are tradeoffs involved that need to be seriously considered when giving an agency that has consistently abused its power for at least a century more power in the service of that goal. [1]
1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_allegations_of_misuse_...