Is Quickbooks the most disgusting software?
David Cherniack
(and use it, for the amazing lack of anything better), I'm curious: can you
think of another piece of software that you use on a regular basis that also
falls into this category?
I can't think of any.
It's amazing to me that the computer press has not picked up on this unique
situation, and unmasked Quickbook's myriad screaming faults. And where is
Microsoft when you really need them?
Tim Teichman
Tim
"David Cherniack" <dc...@canada.com> wrote in message
news:zYT87.109750$2V.25...@news3.rdc1.on.home.com...
David Cherniack
In fact there's nothing else on my list. I've always been able to find an
app that I could like - with this one exception.
"Tim Teichman" <tim_te...@innocent.com.delete.spam.trap> wrote in message
news:e1V87.9092$CQ1.3...@news.pacbell.net...
Mike Block - Tax Cut C.P.A. <>
Did you see this recent discussion in alt.accounting:
What's happening in accounting software these days?
If so you would know that Intuit's QB/Quicken and
Oracle/NetLedger and Microsoft Blue/.net are already
leading us into time of far greater competition in
accounting software. By January we should be able to
choose from far more than the 120+ QuickBooks add-ons
now listed at http://blocktax.com/ Many of these add-
ons will also interchange data with NetLedger and,
soon, Microsoft and many others. Within a short time
we should be able to let an endless array of programs
take over all or part of any function of any of these
programs.
If you read my recent private posts to Time Teichman
and Rich Walker, who are VERY good guys who work for
QuickBooks, you would know I can be very critical of
QB. You also can see http://www.blocktax.com/mar31.htm
for an example of a campaign where I threatened class
action suits and helped lead an uprising against QB,
until they dropped $40 million of proposed price
increases.
None the less, I and my clients in 16 states and three
countries should remain largely tied to QB for a long
time. That is because QB does so much so well, for so
many, at so little cost. QB is kind of like democracy.
It is the worst possible system except for all the rest.
Mike Block - Tax Cut CPA
World's #1 QuickBooks Top Tester
FREE NetLedger accounting
FREE 462p QB books/error codes
100+ QB add-ons http://blocktax.com/
-----------------------------------
Spam bait admin@localhost abuse@localhost
webmaster@localhost postm...@127.0.0.1
enfor...@sec.gov cyber...@nasaa.org
Mike Block - Tax Cut C.P.A. <>
<<mblock...@blocktax.com>> wrote:
>On Sun, 29 Jul 2001 07:07:51 -0700, "Tim Teichman"
><tim_te...@innocent.com.delete.spam.trap> wrote:
>
>>What's on the top of your list?
>>Tim
>>
>>"David Cherniack" <dc...@canada.com> wrote in message
>>news:zYT87.109750$2V.25...@news3.rdc1.on.home.com...
>>> For the multitudes who run the gamut from dislike to
>>> disgust with Quickbooks (and use it, for the amazing
>>> lack of anything better), I'm curious: can you think
>>> of another piece of software that you use on a regular
>>> basis that also falls into this category?
>>>
>>> I can't think of any.
>>>
>>> It's amazing to me that the computer press has not
>>> picked up on this unique situation, and unmasked
>>> Quickbook's myriad screaming faults. And where is
>>> Microsoft when you really need them?
>>>
I meant to add, you need go no further than
http://download.cnet.com/ and search in "accounting"
for 401 free-trial downloadable "accounting programs."
Some are not accounting, as the search seems to be on
accounts, but there enough to keep you busy for years.
Long before then, however, I expect you will come back
to QuickBooks.
David Cherniack
I'm very happy that the competition will be percolating by the end of the
year. Hopefully it will provide some elegant alternatives to the QB kludge,
and stop Intuit (in Canada, at least) from releasing beta tests on their
users.
However, I still find myself wondering whether a similar situation exists in
any other software category. Can't think of any.
David
"Mike Block - Tax Cut C.P.A. >" <<mblock...@blocktax.com> wrote in
message news:iia8mt89rfl17c24f...@4ax.com...
David Cherniack
> http://download.cnet.com/ and search in "accounting"
> for 401 free-trial downloadable "accounting programs."
> Some are not accounting, as the search seems to be on
> accounts, but there enough to keep you busy for years.
> Long before then, however, I expect you will come back
> to QuickBooks.
Which is precisely my point, Mike. It's a sad, perhaps even pathetic?,
situation.
David Cherniack
think its a similar situation. Besides, stability in Quickbooks is not an
issue. Functionality and elegance are.
On the other hand your mere mention of Win98 caused my toes to curl. One of
my happier days was when I junked it and switched to Win2K
So you may have added one to the list - at least during that 5 year period
when Win95/98 was the only game in town. OTOH comparing the situation with
OS's and apps may be like app(le)s and oranges.
Surely there must be some really annoying softare out there that people use
because there's nothing better.
David
"--Shiva--" <NOSPAMs...@pcis.net.invalid> wrote in message
news:9k1gqt$3cv$3...@63.78.119.124...
> On Sun, 29 Jul 2001 13:11:59 GMT, "David Cherniack"
> <dc...@canada.com> wrote:
>
> >For the multitudes who run the gamut from dislike to disgust with
Quickbooks
> >(and use it, for the amazing lack of anything better), I'm curious: can
you
> >think of another piece of software that you use on a regular basis that
also
> >falls into this category?
> >
> >I can't think of any.
>
> I have FAR more problems with the new Mcaffee Office
> collection-which REQUIRED Win98 to work properly.
> I cannot get 1 thing to stay OFF in it...
> My QB99 stays far more stable for me than anything else around.
>
>
>
Tim Teichman
Tim
"David Cherniack" <dc...@canada.com> wrote in message
news:Y5W87.110487$2V.25...@news3.rdc1.on.home.com...
Mike Block - Tax Cut C.P.A. <>
wrote:
>Thanks for the informative post, Mike. I enjoyed reading it.
>
>I'm very happy that the competition will be percolating by the end of the
>year. Hopefully it will provide some elegant alternatives to the QB kludge,
>and stop Intuit (in Canada, at least) from releasing beta tests on their
>users.
>
>However, I still find myself wondering whether a similar situation exists in
>any other software category. Can't think of any.
I agree with other posts that effectively said there had
been less competition in operating systems for the desktop
than there had been in QB, but that also is changing. My
smart new daughter-in-law travels the country teaching a
comprehensive cancer tracking program to hospitals and
specialists that also has far less competition than QB
in its limited area.
I also suspect that it is mainly an issue of your take on
QB problems & responsiveness. Knowledgeable QB Professional
Advisors have seen many recent changes that help us and
expect many more in January, including accountant and
developer versions. The Canadian Qb is one of 20+ needing
special capabilities, which does not have the mass sales of
the U.S. market. I sympathize with many obvious resulting
Canadian and British problems.
This also may relate to your beta test comment, as QB normally
conducts very extensive U.S. tests. Compare them to a major
online accounting supplier, which has no formal outside beta
tests at all. One day you are happy and hoping for a new
feature of two. The next day almost all customers have the
same serious problem.
Mike Block - Tax Cut C.P.A. <>
wrote:
>> I meant to add, you need go no further than
To the contrary, it only seems sad that several hundred
vendors cannot provide even more than QB at a lower price
because QB sets such a high standard. I have used computers
and accounting programs for 40 years. A 1962 small computer
cost $75,000+, or 750 times a bookkeeper's weekly gross.
Programs could easily cost $10,000+. I tried using one such
computer to replace a punch card accounting machine, which
I programmed with dozens of wires on a yard long panel. In
6 months of heavy work I barely started. Few CPAs or clients
then dreamed of computers.
In 1978 a small computer cost $2,500, 13 times a bookkeeper's
weekly gross. For around an extra 5 weeks of gross we could
buy BPI or Peachtree. Many did, but they were still too
expensive and complex for most companies.
First Quicken and then QB later made accounting Intuit-ive.
They were designed for non-accountants, who happen to
outnumber accountants and bookkeepers by more than 10 to 1.
These programs soon outsold competitors by this margin.
Today we buy them with fast computers for little more than
a week of bookkeeper gross. It is, as Intuit planned, a
revolution in how individuals and small businesses manage
their finances.
After almost 10 years of usually very happy QB use & teaching
I know that almost all QB problems relate to not setting 100+
QB Preferences, not getting help from good CPAs (partly because
the low QB price makes people unwilling to pay more than that
low price for help) and not reading a good QB book (including
the manual). The biggest remaining problem relates to being so
spoiled by a $100 product, which does far more than $10,000
products once did (when that $10,000 would cost $35,000 today).
Only mass production lets Intuit sell programs, requiring
millions of dollars of development, at 5 and 10 cent prices.
To expect them to handle all possible situations fast,
exactly as we wish, is not realistic. Wait until next year!
Tim Kroesen
Bucks now though...
Tim K
"Mike Block - Tax Cut C.P.A. >" <<mblock...@blocktax.com> wrote in
message
...The biggest remaining problem relates to being so
VOJ
The have purchased several packages and ruined them IE FoxPro, VISIO.
They built Access to drive others out of the low price database business.
They succeeded in doing so. Now the only low price DB is Access.
It's like complaining about reciprocating engines. There are alternatives
but who can afford low production systems..
Peachtree is much better than QB (BUT) it does require that a person have a
better understanding of business and accounting.
Therein is the problem. Little business wannabes have no clue about
business or accounting.
So. QB will rule for a long time.
"David Cherniack" <dc...@canada.com> wrote in message
news:zYT87.109750$2V.25...@news3.rdc1.on.home.com...
VOJ
I have checked the suggested site.
The big thing still needed is a fully linked interface to an all out DB such
as Access or anything.
"Mike Block - Tax Cut C.P.A. >" <<mblock...@blocktax.com> wrote in
message news:iia8mt89rfl17c24f...@4ax.com...
VOJ
Your post reminds me of the whole scenario with the PC.
Lots of complaints but third party developers made the difference.
"VOJ" <ver...@nospamcontractor.net> wrote in message
news:tY397.59202$C81.5...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
Mike Block - Tax Cut C.P.A. <>
wrote:
In my opinion QB provides absolutely amazing value for an incredibly
tiny amount (around $10 a month on upgrades). This is less than the
cost of one hour of an inexpensive bookkeeper's time. There are many
cheaper accounting programs and quite a few free ones among the 401
listed at http://downlowd.com/ Be my guest & search there or elsewhere
for something that makes you happier. However, never forget that 86%
of the users of small business accounting programs, some 4 million
people, have long since decided that QB gave them their best price &
performance value.
I think that it is very clear that no one reading this, especially
me, has done anywhere near as well in satisfying their own market.
Mike Block - Tax Cut C.P.A. <>
wrote:
>Good post.
>
>I have checked the suggested site.
>
>The big thing still needed is a fully linked interface to an all out DB such
>as Access or anything.
THank you. You will have an Access interface very soon.
There has long been a very good QB to Access export
program at http://datablox.com/ The author of it would
have long since had an Access to QB program if QB IIF
was complete. Due to the coming QBXML interface, which
is the highest priority of the Intuit founder/Chairman,
datablox and others should soon have an Access to QB
interface and lots more. I forget the name of the
translation program that works with dozens of languages
and databases, but they should also soon have an interface
to QB and NL. By 2003 this should extend to Quicken.
Mike Block - Tax Cut C.P.A. <>
wrote:
>P.S.
>Your post reminds me of the whole scenario with the PC.
>Lots of complaints but third party developers made the difference.
>
Exactly. All non-PC compatible manufacturer were badly
punished. We put up with Microsoft to get a public-
utility type OS that other companies could use. However,
until now QB did not give us the tools to link the
thousands of programs that developers and individuals
have and will create. Their participation, and that of
Orackle/NetLedger and Micrsoft/GreatPlains Blue.net,
will mean no one has a monopoly. Differences between
these or versions of them can be translated on the fly
by web servers, as they translate foreign languages.
The result will be billions in extra sales and services
for all participants and gigantic automation savings,
with lower error rates and faster processing, for users.
>> > If you read my recent private posts to Tim Teichman
Tim Kroesen
MANDATORY upgrades CONCEALED in newer versions I VOLUNTARILY upgraded
to; all I ever wanted was the functionality I already PAID for at the
level I paid for. You know damn well as an accounting professional that
the last THREE upgrades REQUIRED for Payroll calculations to continue
for my Pro99 version were superfluous to any Tax Code or Calculation
changes relating to my payroll; all they do is require me to pay qb more
money for payroll calculations to continue within the program WITHOUT
ANY INCREASED FUNCTIONALITY WHATSOEVER; AT THREE TIMES THE COST OF THE
PROGRAM ITSELF!
Where were you when we needed you to combat this RIP-OFF Mr. QB
Crusader... Why is it that the SIMPLE METHOD for NOT PARTICIPATING in
this RIP-OFF remains CENSORED in your personal little advertising
fiefdom called Big8 biz.accounting.quickbooks? Who in hell are you to
decide whom should have access to such money saving info; oh yes, the
"moderator' charged with 'protecting' the integrity of the
'Newsgroup'... BTW; all the ersatz out of date statistics you cite mean
nothing to someone who feels an uninvited hand in their pocket; but they
surely do support your own business riding roughshod on the back of
Usenet. If qb was/is ALL you say they wouldn't need a moderator
quashing legitimate USER OPINION and MONEY SAVING TECHNIQUES on Big8,
now would they... Of course you set yourself up for such criticism via
your own damnable actions as a moderator/censor and acknowledged vested
business interests in this product you tout/defend.
To phrase your own words;
> I think that it is very clear that no one reading this, especially
> me, has done anywhere near as well in satisfying their own market.
Yes; especially your own Usenet qb market, Mr. Block.
Tim K
"Mike Block - Tax Cut C.P.A. >" <<mblock...@blocktax.com> wrote in
message news:31j9mtg3h4vi0nrem...@4ax.com...
VOJ
Potential customers need not be in QB but the data is needed,often for
several years.
Multiple quotes and estimates are created before an order is created.
THEN the link and future history in an accounting system is required.
I know you are probably aware of this but many newbees are here and could
wonder why.
One other less obvious reason is the typical salesperson or estimator or
manager should not have write access to the accounting system.
"Mike Block - Tax Cut C.P.A. >" <<mblock...@blocktax.com> wrote in
message news:4plamt08a9mkeubti...@4ax.com...
Mike Block - Tax Cut C.P.A. <>
moderate biz.comp.accounting and few now post there. Usenet groups
to which Mr. Kroesen is now posting were never moderated. He was
told why his posts were not accepted at bca, which related to libel,
and quickly posted to these other groups. If his repeated libel
still results in his being about the only one ever barred from bca
that is not up to me.
I agree that last three QB updates were not needed for tax tables,
because CPAs have long known that small businesses need only update
for social security or medicare. Withholding tax differences auto
adjust when you file income tax returns in April.
Mr Kroesen should know I was a very outspoken when QB began this.
My comments mainly related to $40 million of since dropped charges
for separate fees for each company using payroll, not for each QB
copy. CNET, at http://www.blocktax.com/mar31.htm, said,
"This major victory for consumers of Intuit's financial products
was almost certainly caused by a gigantic hue and cry in the
Internet discussion group known as "biz.comp.accounting." Block,
the owner of a Florida tax consultancy, BlockTax (no relation to
H&R Block), is the moderator of the discussion group and led the
battle against the new fees."
Intuit charges very little for QB et al. I cannot understand its years
of low financial statement operating income when they had a 69% to 86%
market share in Quicken, TurboTax and QuickBooks. If I ran Intuit all
products would expire annually and have better anti-piracy protection.
I most respectfully submit that those who did not understand that QB
was starting to charge for tax table updates did not read the QB box,
license (to which they had to consent to install) or manual and ask
appropriate questions. Most such users could have gotten refunds if
they acted quickly. Their pre-tax table versions of QB still work.
They can go back to them at the end of any year by entering opening
balances. However, I am among the many reasonably happy QB users &
consultants who value the substantial time QB saves us far more than
its very nominal cost.
I also eagerly look forward to almost all program & technology updates
from all sources & am rarely disappointed. That is why I feel strongly
that today was again the best day we have ever had.
It suspect it is a lot nicer to feel this way than to keep carrying a
grudge against the most successful small business accounting program
vendor.
On Mon, 30 Jul 2001 13:36:59 -0400, "Tim Kroesen" <tkro...@nccw.net>
Mike Block - Tax Cut C.P.A. <>
wrote:
>The reason I said "fully linked" is the typical sequence of events.
>Potential customers need not be in QB but the data is needed,often for
>several years.
>Multiple quotes and estimates are created before an order is created.
>THEN the link and future history in an accounting system is required.
>I know you are probably aware of this but many newbees are here and could
>wonder why.
>One other less obvious reason is the typical salesperson or estimator or
>manager should not have write access to the accounting system.
>
I fully agree. It is interesting to see the well thought out NL
version of the XML linkage getting frequent small updates. These
often relate to the need to add a permanent tag to a transaction,
so changes on account postings or date do not disturb the link
to other systems.
Many salesman should not have write access to anything :)
Unfortunately, few managers really review transactions
before posting. Many feel errors are best found and
corrected later, though the cost is high. This probably
will not change as more automated transactions arise and
it may get worse. That is why those than can spot & quickly
fix errors will remain in demand.
Tim Kroesen
Bull. No longer a Usenet Moderator... THANK GOD! Few posts in that
group now...It virtually only existed via your extensive cross-posting
to it, remember? Refund??? You know damn well you only find out about
the Tax Table Pro99 rip-off until after you've already entered a years
worth of data into the program and discover the calculations CEASE when
the tables expire; unlike all previous versions which only gave you a
warning box you could simply click past and still get calculations based
on the tables you already PAID for. Please point out there this RADICAL
CHANGE in policy was anywhere visible on the box (or upon install) while
every picayune other feature was prominently touted. WITHHOLDING
PERTINENT FACTS IS INTENTIONAL DECEPTION; but I suppose you are well
acquainted with that concept.
BTW...We all know alt. groups are unmoderated and that's exactly why
I've been posting to this ALT. group; YOU censored me out of the group
you Moderated; then complained to your pal a Usenet administrator over
my cross-posts there that YOU YOURSELF initiated. When you actually
find some Libel on my part I fully expect to hear from your attorney as
you've threatened; I still of course await such legal wrath with counter
suit. Until then, thanks for all your 'support' on my behalf;
especially you newly stated wish for all qb customers...
"If I ran Intuit all
> products would expire annually and have better anti-piracy protection.
"
Thanks Again for your Customer advocacy... How's your ancillary qb
business in support and add-on sales doing BTW? I'm profoundly
interested in how much money qb has made you beyond your basic
Accounting practice over the years; care to divulge the figures, or
future projections? Don't you feel the same public you tout this
product to has a reasonable need to gauge your objectivity against your
profit margin; I should think all the smart Businessmen here would
anyway. Please don't consider this Tar and Feathers by intimation;
just a legitimate question to the most pervasive qb tout on Usenet who
has in the past clearly stated that he does sustain profit from this
products sale, use and successful marketing.
I know you think you're being a righteous guy Mr. Block, and many others
do as well; but I sincerely think you should examine the motivation that
causes you need to seek out and answer all criticisms of this product
and it's policies on Usenet. I never once said it was shitty s/w; after
all I both selected it and use it myself for Ten years now; but I do
clearly say that it has been redesigned in function to wring the maximum
profit from it's users; in some cases even you yourself acknowledge
this and fight (at least against decisions that are so odious as to
cause customer and profit loss all the way down to your qb business).
I have no motivation in what I say other than my bottom line either;
what I DON'T SPEND on accounting s/w goes on to enhance my meager
lifestyle via additional profit. What I DID NOT spend on that
unnecessary Payroll table update paid for an Eight concert series at a
local Theatre this year and my business is none the worse for lack of
the upgrade you rec'd; all were paid properly with no IRS penalties in
sight. Imagine my potential attitude here without all that Music to
balm my spirits... <g> In any case qb is pricing it's core group of
customers right out of the product; the next smart competitor with a
conversion utility will prove that soon enough...
Tim K
PS - Sorry to involve yet another NG in this (alt.accounting). I've
never initiated a cross-posted thread to your conference; just responded
to such posting by Mr. Block. At least he didn't set me up to
cross-post a moderated group this time...
(Supporting text quoted below)
"Mike Block, Tax Fighting C.P.A." <mblock...@blocktax.com> wrote in
message news:3a856877...@news.mindspring.com...
> Tonight I rejected five of Tim Kroesen's chronic tired
> and badly uniformed posts to biz.comp.accounting.
>
> They included crossposts to other newsgroups that I did
> not bother to pass on. In each case he got a detailed
> explanation of why it was done. I included potentially
> libelous statements about him, which I did not publish
> publicly. I am not guilty of libel if publishes them,
> like the one below. I do not know if he did not also
> post his original statements because they would show
> they were useless or because he could have been sued
> for libel by Intuit and/or by me.
>
> I did this mainly because he had nothing to say about QB's
> tax tables that he & others have not said many many times
> before. I also did it partly because the posts included
> many libelous statements about me. This is the first time
> I ever rejected a post criticizing me in two years as BCA
> co-moderator, but he set new standards in several ways.
>
> Intuit - QB will not be affected by anything he says.
> However, I promised to sue if he ever libels me again.
> Of course, he is certainly free to libel me in
> alt.accounting, alt.comp.software.financial.quickbooks
> and elsewhere, as long as he does not crosspost to
> biz.comp.accounting. In fact, I really wish he would.
> As I told him, I look forward to costing him legal fees
> and damages that are more than 100 time the cost of
> annual QB upgrades, about which he endlessly complains.
>
> I am sorry to impose this on everyone, but I did what I
> could to avoid it for as long as I could. I will gladly
> help those who want help filtering out either or both
> of us from newsgroup posts.
>
> mike block
> biz.comp.accounting co-moderator
> bloc...@mindspring.com
> 954-566-7540
>
> On Thu, 8 Feb 2001 20:45:11 -0500, "Tim Kroesen" <tkro...@nccw.net>
> wrote:
>
> >What happened to your killfile big guy?
> >(As you said you were, after you could not bully me out of
alt.accounting)
> >
> >Try and deprive me of my legitimate forum and I'll make you look
exactly
> >like you'd deserve to look; afraid of the truth and trying to stifle
it
out
> >of your own greed. I have observed PLENTY of like-minded people
feeling
as
> >ripped-off as I in this conference; did you attempt to bully them
too?
> >
> >"However, it would be better
> >> for QB, for yourself and for other newsgroup readers if you simply
go
> >> elsewhere. " MB'
> >
> >Don't EVER think you have some private forum going on Usenet, Sir.
> >alt.anything does NOT belong to you, and never will; my posts are
without
> >doubt both topical and civil; that is ALL I need to legitimately post
on
> >alt.qb regardless of your personal opinions.
> >
> >Would you care to air the issue of my right to post in every related
> >conference in which you participate? Any action to censor my
legitimate
> >rights to a topical public forum on Usenet will result in such.
That's
YOUR
> >reputation on the line Sir; not mine.
> >
> >Tim K
> >
> >
> >----- Original Message -----
> >From: <mbl...@blocktax.com>
> >To: "Tim Kroesen" <tkro...@nccw.net>
> >Cc: <mbl...@blocktax.com>
> >Sent: Thursday, February 08, 2001 8:03 PM
> >Subject: Re: $129 tax tables?
> >
> >
> >> Rejection notice:
> >>
> >> I am tired of posting this crap.
> >>
> >> They took nothing. You apparently cannot read the QuickBooks box
> >> or the license agreement, which you accepted to install the
program.
> >> You had plenty of time to get your money back. You are so fat off
base
> >> that no attorney will take your case, even if you had money to pay
him.
> >> You apparently have neither the money nor the creativity to put
your
> >> time to better use.
> >>
> >> You can buy the vastly improved QB2001, with tax tables good for a
> >> year, for less than the cost of tables alone. However, it would be
better
> >> for QB, for yourself and for other newsgroup readers if you simply
go
> >> elsewhere.
> >>
> >> mike block
> >> bloc...@mindspring.com
> >> 954-566-7540
> >
>
> Mike Block - Tax Cut CPA
> World's #1 QuickBooks Top Tester
> FREE NetLedger accounting
> FREE 462p QB books/error codes
> 100+ QB add-ons http://blocktax.com/
> QB no-spam news: biz.comp.accounting
> -----------------------------------
> Spam bait admin@localhost abuse@localhost
> webmaster@localhost postm...@127.0.0.1
> enfor...@sec.gov cyber...@nasaa.org
Mr. Gunn -
Perhaps the posturing is now over as to who is gonna' sue who...?
Here's my bottom line Chris; I don't believe I've done anything improper
whatsoever. I only posted to conferences that Mr. Block himself
directed
such (my) posts and threads to. If he continues to either quote or
respond
to me, responses will be placed wherever such action by him decides they
will be. If Mr. Block decided that such issues as I raise deserve
quotation
or comment in his private little biz. NG as he has repeatedly himself
done,
then they will appear there; he opens the door. So as you can see this
issue is resolved as far as I can see; any proposed posts to his biz. NG
will be only at the express invitation of the posting conduct of Mr.
Block
himself. If he wishes to discuss my issues with accounting s/w there he
only needs to quote or respond to such issues and myself there, wherever
they may be found originally. This way there can be no doubt as to
Mr.Bock's express desire to engage me on his "home field' so to say.
I'm
100% sure my ISP will agree I may respond when spoken too, or about;
anywhere on Usenet within topic. I'm also now sure that the topicality
of
business accounting s/w is firmly within the charter of biz. via you
kind
quotation of the NG charter in any case, and my ISP would likewise find
my
posts perfectly allowable considering the same s/w is discussed there
often
by the group in general.
Thanks for your understanding Chris. I would like you to consider one
following item; If I where to have PRAISED certain s/w this issue with
Mr.
Block would _very_ likely never have occurred. this is NOT an issue of
topicality, and NEVER was; this is an issue of someone who doesn't LIKE
what
I have to say on topic. That is censorship; not an issue of Usenet
etiquette or NG charter; plain and simple. Such censoring is a
disservice
to the Usenet where it may occur, plain and simple. I'm sure you would
not
allow yourself to be so unfairly, and IMO abusively censored, while
posting civilly and on topic on Usenet.
Tim K
----- Original Message -----
From: "Chris Gunn" <cg...@bizynet.com>
To: "Tim Kroesen" <tkro...@nccw.net>
Cc: "Mike Block - QuickBooks Tax Cut CPA" <bloc...@mindspring.com>;
"Eric
Salmassy" <er...@salmassy.com>
Sent: Friday, February 09, 2001 1:21 PM
Subject: Re: private
> On Fri, 9 Feb 2001 11:50:06 -0500, you wrote:
>
> >ALL posts to any biz. conferences where made via the direct
cross-posting
of
> >mike Block himself to other conferences. I have never initiated a
thread
in
> >any biz. conference, though topically, it would have been completely
within
> >my rights to do so. I will be glad to forward such posting headers
to
prove
> >this point. (below)
>
> Howdy Tim,
>
> The bickering will stop right now! You had the option when you
replied to
> observe the moderators wishes or ignore them.
>
> The charter for biz.comp.accounting reads:
>
> Charter: biz.comp.accounting provides a forum for discussion of topics
> pertinent to general accounting procedures, accounting
> software problems and solutions, accounting software issues
> related to newer hardware, new OS environments, and features
> such as electronic commerce. Bonafide new product press
> releases relevant to accounting, and occasional new job
> postings, are permitted. Commercial advertising is
> prohibited. It is the moderators sole responsibility and
> unquestioned authority to ensure that articles adhere to the
> charter.
>
> You do not have the right to annoy the moderators or to dictate in any
> fashion what the contents of the newsgroup will be. They have asked
you
to
> stop posting to biz.comp.accounting. If you persist in any fashion,
you
are
> violating the contract you agreed to when you aquired your Internet
access
> account. If notified, they will probably cancel your account.
>
> It is my understanding your messages started being rejected because of
> constant and inappropriate complaints about pricing. The moderated
biz
> newsgroups are intended to support business enterprises.
Anti-business
> tactics are off-topic on all of them. You are welcome to post
whatever
you
> want on the alt newsgroups. If you want to talk business like a
business
> person, then you are welcome on the biz newsgroups.
>
> Please let me know if you plan on continuing to ignore the moderators
and
I
> will personally ask to have your Internet access removed. If you are
willing
> to cooperate, then the matter is closed.
>
> Thanks, Chris http://www.bizynet.com
> BIZynet Coordinator cg...@bizynet.com
> Moderator of biz.general, biz.marketplace.discussion, biz.healthcare,
> biz.marketplace.web-design, biz.marketplace.international & others
"Mike Block - Tax Cut C.P.A. >" <<mblock...@blocktax.com> wrote in
message news:785cmt0lq94he58q9...@4ax.com...
Mike Block - Tax Cut C.P.A. <>
wrote:
>Did I get the NG title wrong Mr. Block? Spare me the rest of your
>Bull. No longer a Usenet Moderator... THANK GOD! Few posts in that
>group now...It virtually only existed via your extensive cross-posting
>to it, remember?
It took a lot more than my cross posts to run biz.comp.accounting at
a sufficiently high level to cause QB to drop $40 million of planned
tax table increases, as it did http://www.blocktax.com/mar31.htm
bca existed long before alt.comp.software.financial.quickbooks and
the QB company forums. It once had 87% of all posts devoted to QB,
so it died as these became stronger. I am proud I kept it so active
for so long.
>Refund??? You know damn well you only find out about
>the Tax Table Pro99 rip-off until after you've already entered a years
>worth of data into the program and discover the calculations CEASE when
>the tables expire;
You only discover this in a year if you do not read or question QB
box, license or manual information or related newsgroups. They said
enough so you surely should have known this early in 1999. It was
not until early 2000, when the payment deadline approached and the
QB box, license and manual gave people a second warning, that enough
people got sufficiently upset to matter. I think your first post on
this came long after this.
People move to other accounting software every day. Most simply take
an hour or so to enter ending balances. Some take hours to transfer
data and others enter all transactions again. They can transfer all
data to Access now for $100 or wait until next year, when they should
be able to transfer data to one of several QBXML compliant programs.
What you cannot do is get QB to convert file formats back to earlier
versions. Based on continued steady market dominance, you also have
not apparently had any significant number of QB sales. The saying
that seeps applicable is that continuing to do the same thing and
expecting a different result is a form of insanity.
>unlike all previous versions which only gave you a
>warning box you could simply click past and still get calculations based
>on the tables you already PAID for. Please point out there this RADICAL
>CHANGE in policy was anywhere visible on the box (or upon install) while
>every picayune other feature was prominently touted. WITHHOLDING
>PERTINENT FACTS IS INTENTIONAL DECEPTION; but I suppose you are well
>acquainted with that concept.
I am only interested in teaching my grandchildren to read. I am
well acquainted with each QB box, license and manual. I examined
them carefully before taking my positions. I would have made them
clearer, but two attorneys (who were upset QB users) agreed that
they were more than legally adequate to put us on notice (meaning
we cannot sue because we should have asked questions that would
have gotten us full information).
>BTW...We all know alt. groups are unmoderated and that's exactly why
>I've been posting to this ALT. group; YOU censored me out of the group
>you Moderated; then complained to your pal a Usenet administrator over
>my cross-posts there that YOU YOURSELF initiated. When you actually
>find some Libel on my part I fully expect to hear from your attorney as
>you've threatened; I still of course await such legal wrath with counter
>suit.
I did not complain about cross posts. I simply rejected posts to
bca which contained libelous information. I often allowed cross
posts to bca, but no newsgroup moderator I know ever posted them
to other groups while rejecting them for his own. That may not
have be possible with the software we use. The overall biz newsgroup
coordinator then made his decision based on what you did next.
>Until then, thanks for all your 'support' on my behalf;
>especially you newly stated wish for all qb customers...
> "If I ran Intuit all
>> products would expire annually and have better anti-piracy protection.
>"
Intuit provides products that are very valuable to millions. I
happen to think that they will not get a decent return on their
investment, much less a return based on the value we all gain
form their products, until they do this. Intuit, Microsoft and
many others are moving in this direction for that reason.
>Thanks Again for your Customer advocacy... How's your ancillary qb
>business in support and add-on sales doing BTW? I'm profoundly
>interested in how much money qb has made you beyond your basic
>Accounting practice over the years; care to divulge the figures, or
>future projections? Don't you feel the same public you tout this
>product to has a reasonable need to gauge your objectivity against your
>profit margin; I should think all the smart Businessmen here would
>anyway. Please don't consider this Tar and Feathers by intimation;
>just a legitimate question to the most pervasive qb tout on Usenet who
>has in the past clearly stated that he does sustain profit from this
>products sale, use and successful marketing.
I am the only CPA I know who repeatedly refers to his CPA gross
in newsgroup posts. If you go to http://deja.com/ which takes
you to a special part of Google, you can find substantially all
newsgroup posts. Researching on me and $ should get you this
information. If that is too hard then it is now over $300,000+,
but my operating income (ala Intuit) is very low.
Except for 15+ years ago, when I lost money on a computer store,
I never tried to make a dime from selling products (all sales are
at direct cost). I still think this is unethical for CPAs to
profit from this, though it is now allowed. What QB and my
http://blocktax.com/ QB Add-ons web site does is help me rapidly
build a good-sized CPA practice, where most of my revenue is QB
related. Most of my revenue also is based on using QB to save
clients far more in tax dollars than they pay me. That lets me
sleep well.
>I know you think you're being a righteous guy Mr. Block, and many others
>do as well; but I sincerely think you should examine the motivation that
>causes you need to seek out and answer all criticisms of this product
>and it's policies on Usenet. I never once said it was shitty s/w; after
>all I both selected it and use it myself for Ten years now; but I do
>clearly say that it has been redesigned in function to wring the maximum
>profit from it's users; in some cases even you yourself acknowledge
>this and fight (at least against decisions that are so odious as to
>cause customer and profit loss all the way down to your qb business).
>I have no motivation in what I say other than my bottom line either;
>what I DON'T SPEND on accounting s/w goes on to enhance my meager
>lifestyle via additional profit. What I DID NOT spend on that
>unnecessary Payroll table update paid for an Eight concert series at a
>local Theatre this year and my business is none the worse for lack of
>the upgrade you rec'd; all were paid properly with no IRS penalties in
>sight. Imagine my potential attitude here without all that Music to
>balm my spirits... <g> In any case qb is pricing it's core group of
>customers right out of the product; the next smart competitor with a
>conversion utility will prove that soon enough...
>
>Tim K
Our bottom lines would be better if we spent less time on newsgroups.
I get clients this way, but you seem to accomplish nothing. The time
you spend knocking QB has to be worth many times what their extra
charges cost you. I obviously do not answer all criticism of QB and
add plenty of my own. For example, the payroll registration is a
monumental waste of our time, especially when we add extra users to
our 5 user copies. It is because I want to end such time wasters
that I think annual expiration is the answer. Our bottom lines also
would be far worse without QB.
I know many who feel they would be far worse if we did not have the
QB99 and QB2001 upgrades. We cannot get these upgrades for nothing.
I happen to feel that Intuit has done amazingly well at satisfying
many of the needs a very large & diverse group for very little money.
I also know many of their own employees do not agree with many of
their decisions, but I have the same problem with my wife, children
and everyone who works with me. Can't we all just get along?
>PS - Sorry to involve yet another NG in this (alt.accounting). I've
>never initiated a cross-posted thread to your conference; just responded
>to such posting by Mr. Block. At least he didn't set me up to
>cross-post a moderated group this time...
To the extent you feel I set you up by my own cross posts it
was certainly not intended and I apologize. However, I still
feel you were posting libelous statements about Intuit and
me. So far other matters have not let me sue, and Intuit is
clearly not interested (though I do not know why). I would
like to keep it that way for both of us.
>> >> You had plenty of time to get your money back. You are so far off
Todd Boyle
>On Tue, 31 Jul 2001 "VOJ" <ver...@nospamcontractor.net> wrote:
>
>>One other less obvious reason is the typical salesperson or estimator or
>>manager should not have write access to the accounting system.
>>
>I fully agree. [...snip]
>
>Many salesman should not have write access to anything :)
>Unfortunately, few managers really review transactions
>before posting. Many feel errors are best found and
>corrected later, though the cost is high. This probably
>will not change as more automated transactions arise and
>it may get worse. That is why those than can spot & quickly
>fix errors will remain in demand.
When business software does not connect with the reciprocal party
to transactions, there is a problem that the bookkeeping tends to
be inaccurate.
I tried to explain this at
http://www.arapxml.net/EVP01.htm#FunctionalDomains and welcome
any comments on that section by the way.
Software developers will focus on solving the underlying problem of this
game, while automating particular types of transactions. The underlying
requirement inside the company is a comprehensive authentication of
transactions by the appropriate levels of people, before booking them (and
the tools for monitoring results). The requirement between 3rd parties is
a comprehensive nonrepudiability between buyers and sellers. Nothing
focuses the mind like accountability and nonrepudiability. When the
actors are accountable, the data will suddenly get better. The ambiguity,
error and losses which today are prevented only by millions of
accountants, will be prevented by responsible behavior by actors
themselves.
To the extent a transaction is truly, rigorously connected to the
offsetting entry in Trading Partners' books, it requires less internal
control within the enterprise. In other words, if sales, cash,
receivables and payables cannot be falsified without also manipulating the
trading partners books, perpetrators of fraud will be less able to conceal
either paper fraud or physical theft. Comprehensive AR/AP integration, in
principle, allow lower expenditure on systems of internal control
(separation of duties) within the enterprise.
In conclusion, the game is not about XML vocabulary itself. It is the
underlying chicanery and thievery. An exhaustive treatment of all the
hundreds of tricks in the accounting domains must remain outside the scope
of this small document.
Thank you
Todd Boyle CPA www.gldialtone.com www.netaccount.com
Tim Kroesen
right in front of me where it announces the radical change in payroll
calculation policy; or even in the quick start manual for that matter;
yes I never read the ENTIRE large manual on the subject; I am after all
an experienced user and didn't feel the need. Yes a warning box
announced pending table expiration JUST LIKE THE PREVIOUS VERSIONS DID;
the difference is that they didn't STOP calculations; pro99 was the
first iteration to perform this money milking trick for customers; this
issue particularly tricky for experienced users USED to seeing such
warning box and simply clicking past it. IMO qb clearly counted on
hiding these new program changes from customers for obvious reasons. In
any case their upgrade game for pro99 is over for any that wish to
employ the following legal method to get the calculations you paid for
already, perhaps later versions too: (I've yet to hear your commentary
on this Mr. Block)
Simply change your system date back before your table expires; open qb
and process your payroll using a check date also before the tables
expire; Click past the warning box that you're writing a check for dated
period already covered by payroll and record the check(s); close qb and
reset your system date to current; open qb and find the checks you just
wrote for payroll in the account they were written then edit the check
date to current and record... THAT simple. AFAIK there is no problem
whatsoever with this technique; all my reports, hours, etc still read
true after check date correction; note that I don't set the sys date
back far enough to enter any 'closed' accounting period set. Spread the
word; hopeful others will examine this technique in later versions too.
Be wary though of any program iterations or service releases since this
was made public a few months back of course; I clearly expect the
programmers to bung this hole if possible...
Clearly simple table updates are their biggest money maker Vs their cost
to produce and distribute to their captive audience. BTW my first post
of complaint about this table rip-off came well after the first year
expired; mater of fact it was delivered when the table update I was
forced unwillingly to buy expired after the second year; they only
twisted my arm for Forty bucks the first year; then upped it to _$130_
the next year for the same unnecessary update. You may recall I'm far
from the only person to chuck a turd or Two into their fan over this
supreme rip-off; though you yourself express dismay now, we heard NONE
before; you continued onward with your Company oriented rationalizations
and rec's to pay up or buy the upgrade to 2000/2001.
Jeez; now I hear y'all won't be suing me... I guess that means Libel
continues to mean writing NON-Truth... Remember this Mr. Block; there
may be legitimate truthful counterpoint to everything you have to say
about qb; quash and spin all you may. This is not disruption of any NG;
quite the opposite in fact. That customers are feeling abused by this
Company's new money grubbing policies is just as germane to discussion
as a technical 'how to' or 'why did'; YOU interrupted my RIGHT to do so
unfairly; IMO an abuse of moderation you may have paid a price for
reputation wise. Of course you label me an illiterate flamer; but I
too survive. As long as I am a qb owner and user you may expect such
legitimate counterpoint to continue just as I expect your shining of the
product to continue; as you state:
"What QB and my
> http://blocktax.com/ QB Add-ons web site does is help me rapidly
> build a good-sized CPA practice, where most of my revenue is QB
> related. Most of my revenue also is based on using QB to save
> clients far more in tax dollars than they pay me. That lets me
> sleep well."
Any WELL APPLIED accounting s/w (or even a sheet of ledger paper) will
save businessmen money; this PARTICULAR s/w allows you personally not
only to sleep well, but sleep in relative luxury based on the reported
income it derives you. This is exactly the reason some counterpoint to
your rhetoric here is needed. I'll pledge we get along civilly enough
to make certain it is regularly delivered. You are most certainly a
knowledgeable gentleman in the nuts and bolts of the program and in that
light an obvious asset to these NG's; I only question your objectivity.
Tim K
"Mike Block - Tax Cut C.P.A. >" <<mblock...@blocktax.com> wrote in
message news:ohedmtka5emfe3ju9...@4ax.com...
Jim Hudspeth
Todd Boyle wrote:
>
>
> Software developers will focus on solving the underlying problem of this
> game, while automating particular types of transactions. The underlying
> requirement inside the company is a comprehensive authentication of
> transactions by the appropriate levels of people, before booking them (and
> the tools for monitoring results). The requirement between 3rd parties is
> a comprehensive nonrepudiability between buyers and sellers. Nothing
> focuses the mind like accountability and nonrepudiability. When the
> actors are accountable, the data will suddenly get better. The ambiguity,
> error and losses which today are prevented only by millions of
> accountants, will be prevented by responsible behavior by actors
> themselves.
This sounds great in theory, however I highly doubt it would work in practice.
What I would forsee is a lot more disputes between entities.
As an example, in the construction industry it is quite common for requests for
payments to be "adjusted" as they move up the payment chain, with the accounts
of the originator being adjusted upon receipt of payment. Accounts are
commonly reconciled between parties at the conclusion of the job.
>
>
> To the extent a transaction is truly, rigorously connected to the
> offsetting entry in Trading Partners' books, it requires less internal
> control within the enterprise. In other words, if sales, cash,
> receivables and payables cannot be falsified without also manipulating the
> trading partners books, perpetrators of fraud will be less able to conceal
> either paper fraud or physical theft. Comprehensive AR/AP integration, in
> principle, allow lower expenditure on systems of internal control
> (separation of duties) within the enterprise.
Again I am doubtful.
--
Jim Hudspeth, CFE, CPA
http://home.att.net/~jdhcpa/mainpage.html
Washington, USA
jd...@networkusa.net
marketed the competition. NO other company markets the way Intuit does, the
others only sell. And now you have alot a people "use to" QB and they are
afraid to change or unwilling. The name Quickbooks is now the same as
computer accounting programs, IE: kleenex: Just because you sell the most
doesn't make you the best, I just think the company is lacking in ethics.
Joe Ogle
In article <31j9mtg3h4vi0nrem...@4ax.com>, Mike Block - Tax Cut
C.P.A. <<mblock...@blocktax.com> writes:
>On Sun, 29 Jul 2001 22:38:46 -0400, "Tim Kroesen"
<tkro...@nccw.net>
>wrote:
>
>>They're working hard on separating the average customer from their
10,00
>>Bucks now though...
>>
>>Tim K
>>
>>"Mike Block - Tax Cut C.P.A. >"
<<mblock...@blocktax.com> wrote in
>>message
>>...The biggest remaining problem relates to being so
>>> spoiled by a $100 product, which does far more than $10,000
>>> products once did (when that $10,000 would cost $35,000
today).
>
>In my opinion QB provides absolutely amazing value for an incredibly
>tiny amount (around $10 a month on upgrades). This is less than the
>cost of one hour of an inexpensive bookkeeper's time. There are many
>cheaper accounting programs and quite a few free ones among the 401
>listed at http://downlowd.com/ Be my guest & search there or
elsewhere
>for something that makes you happier. However, never forget that 86%
>of the users of small business accounting programs, some 4 million
>people, have long since decided that QB gave them their best price &
>performance value.
>
>I think that it is very clear that no one reading this, especially
>me, has done anywhere near as well in satisfying their own market.
> Mike Block - Tax Cut CPA
> World's #1 QuickBooks Top Tester
> FREE NetLedger accounting
> FREE 462p QB books/error codes
>100+ QB add-ons http://blocktax.com/
>-----------------------------------
>Spam bait admin@localhost abuse@localhost
> webmaster@localhost postm...@127.0.0.1
> enfor...@sec.gov cyber...@nasaa.org
----- Posted via NewsOne.Net: Free (anonymous) Usenet News via the Web -----
http://newsone.net/ -- Free reading and anonymous posting to 60,000+ groups
NewsOne.Net prohibits users from posting spam. If this or other posts
made through NewsOne.Net violate posting guidelines, email ab...@newsone.net
John James
"Jim Hudspeth" <"jdhcpa"@worldnet.att.(NO_SPAM)net> wrote in message
news:0DC97.61412$C81.5...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
buy-sell data exchange, b2b and consumer will use "e" exchange instead
of mail.
Suitable software and the "e" infrastructure is only part of the
problem / solution.
The other part of the problem / solution is existing laws and "e"
practices.
About a year ago I emailed my local Telco to cancel my dialup as I had
switched to DSL.
The bills kept coming.
I phoned customer service.
Yes sir thank you sir we will sent you a refund and take care of that.
Sorry sir.
The refund was sent to my CCard but,
The bills kept coming.
I phone back but by this time the company had gone to "VOICE MAIL"
After 20 min off press x for this service they would drop the
connection.
I phone the credit card company but ONLY the TELCO could remove the
autodebit.
Now this is a case with two good solid companies defrauding me by
incompetence.
If you have given the right to autodebit your CC or bank account you
have given up control on your account.
For another example see Jim's story
http://home.att.net/~jdhcpa/romans.htm
These problems will be solved but in the present they are a headache.
The rules are not in place to make the "actors accountable"
The rules and practices with the draft / cheque system have been in
use from Marco Polo and prior.
> >
> >
> > To the extent a transaction is truly, rigorously connected to
the
> > offsetting entry in Trading Partners' books, it requires less
internal
> > control within the enterprise. In other words, if sales, cash,
> > receivables and payables cannot be falsified without also
manipulating the
> > trading partners books, perpetrators of fraud will be less able
to conceal
> > either paper fraud or physical theft. Comprehensive AR/AP
integration, in
> > principle, allow lower expenditure on systems of internal
control
> > (separation of duties) within the enterprise.
>
> Again I am doubtful.
"Inside activity" is the main source of fraud. Now those persons
have "inside" access 100's of books. Auto comprehensive r/p(s) allow
dummy billing and dummy payments a fraudsters dream. Even with the
current checks and balances there are many companies that pay dummy
invoices or over pay on invoices. If that process is automated that
percentage will grow. Out of sight out of mind and out of pocket,
come to mind. New checks in the - order - receive - pay - use - cycle
will be needed. Not that, that should be a huge problem for software
to monitor. Still when companies can lose 50 billion and blink it off
small % skimming would amount to lota $$$$$
Ron Todd
It is true that you can get initial market with an effective sales
campaign.
It is false to believe that you can hold that market without the
customer perceiving value for cash given for any length of time.
QuickBooks has its problems, but it is perceived as giving value to all
those folks who keep using it and keep paying for their upgrades.
As far as the word "best" goes, like "fair" it really means nothing
unless you can operationally define it.
FWIW I am living in California where the "best" and "fair" solutions are
killing people in traffic accidents that never should have happened and
where there is some reason to believe the electrical supply grid will
fail within the next year (if it doesn't the rates will probably be high
enough to ruin the economy for a decade).
jd...@networkusa.net wrote:
>
> Mike, I do not agree with you that QB has satisfied more people. They out
> marketed the competition. NO other company markets the way Intuit does, the
> others only sell. And now you have alot a people "use to" QB and they are
> afraid to change or unwilling. The name Quickbooks is now the same as
> computer accounting programs, IE: kleenex: Just because you sell the most
> doesn't make you the best, I just think the company is lacking in ethics.
>
> Joe Ogle
...
--
*-------------------------------------------------------------*
* Ronald Lee Todd M.B.A., C.P.A. *
* *
* Retired, but always willing to consider a good job offer. *
* From the Socialist People's Republic of Kalifornia, *
* Ayn Rand was right *
*-------------------------------------------------------------*
Mike Block - Tax Cut C.P.A. <>
>Mike, I do not agree with you that QB has satisfied more people. They out
>marketed the competition. NO other company markets the way Intuit does, the
>others only sell. And now you have alot a people "used to" QB and they are
>afraid to change or unwilling. The name Quickbooks is now the same as
>computer accounting programs, IE: kleenex: Just because you sell the most
>doesn't make you the best, I just think the company is lacking in ethics.
>
>Joe Ogle
I am handicapped by a total inability to read the mind/body
language of someone who is looking at me. A sign given by a
friend says, "subtlety and other foreign languages not spoken
here." Therefore, I cannot disagree with your statement. My
barely educated opinion is that when people keep buying more
of a product, and that product retains 80% to 90% of a highly
competitive market, there are likely to be many satisfied
users of the product. A rudimentary statistical analysis
suggests there are likely to be far more satisfied users of
QB than there are total users of any competing product.
There was a long period of time when Peachtree, BPI & Platinum
had about 100% of the small business accounting market and QB
and Quicken did not exist. I know many who were repulsed by
Intuit advertising then and now. I was an early adopter & many
joined me mainly because of what the programs did, compared to
their competitors. That is, they were designed to be Intuit-ive
for non-accountants, but sufficiently flexible and powerful to
impress CPAs. Your mileage may certainly vary & you are welcome
to explore 401 "accounting" programs at http://download.com/
Mike Block - Tax Cut CPA
World's #1 QuickBooks Top Tester
FREE NetLedger accounting
FREE 462p QB books/error codes
100+ QB add-ons http://blocktax.com/
Todd Boyle
>"Jim Hudspeth" said
>> Todd Boyle wrote:
>>
>>The underlying requirement is a comprehensive authentication of
>>the tools for monitoring results). The requirement between 3rd parties is
>>a comprehensive nonrepudiability between buyers and sellers. Nothing
>>focuses the mind like accountability and nonrepudiability. When the
>>actors are accountable, the data will suddenly get better. The ambiguity,
>>error and losses which today are prevented only by millions of
>>accountants, will be prevented by responsible behavior by actors
>>themselves.
>
>This sounds great in theory, however I highly doubt it would work in
>practice. What I would forsee is a lot more disputes between entities.
>
>As an example, in the construction industry it is quite common for
>requests for payments to be "adjusted" as they move up the payment chain,
>with the accounts of the originator being adjusted upon receipt of
>payment. Accounts are commonly reconciled between parties at the
>conclusion of the job.
Future business applications will send orders and notifications such as
completion of a job, shipping or receipt of goods, etc. on an accountable
basis just as if you were standing across the counter and conducting the
same transaction. Applications will need to be simple, secure and
reliable enough for routine use.
These are basically communications systems, that must be at least as
reliable as printed, signed correspondence and legal work. And I make no
particular claims what it wll look like. Timetable: beginning to
emerge now, 5% penetration in the SMEs, I would say 4-5 years from now.
These systems for ecommerce may be accompanied by whatever technology is
effective in gaining the confidence of both parties. You might see video
enabled email, with the construction worker stating "Hi Fred, I signed
off my completion of X on the contract today. The wall is up and I took
away my trash. Now your payment is due August 15." But the real contract
will be an XML contract that is implemented by machines.
I predict there will be very clear, understandable little flowcharts for
these complicated industries, showing amounts and details of every
commitment in the process and what to do in case of various failures
or error conditions. These workflow apps are quite mature inside
the big corps now and they are being re-architected to flow across
boundaries to the reciprocal party. (NOTE: we all need to change
our vocabulary from "Third Parties". Businesses deal with trading
partners not "Third Parties". )
CPAs need to understand these are not like paper flowcharts, or
project management software that you keypunch everything to yourself.
There are XML languages for these BP applications to connect and deliver
requests and responses to/from reciprocal parties. These applications
are for keeps! If you want things to be automatic then, they have
to be reliable, secure, legally binding, nonrepudiable other than
the exception conditions agreed in the contract.
If the contractor signs his completion and then it turns out
the product or service was deficient then legal remedies will be
applicable. Busybodies like inspectors and insurance adjustors will
certify things just as they do today. But the framework will be
global and MUCH more efficient.
If all that sound scary, or like overkill consider that these busines
collaboration managers (BCMs) will handle ALL of the bookkeeping and
settlement. When a message doesn't go thru, they keep re-trying. Wnen
the time-out limit is reached they fail over to a rollback of the
partial transaction or whatever they're told to do. THIS IS HOW YOU
SAVE ADMIN TIME. Yes you better setup the purchase or sale correctly!
because you're not going to be seeing it fifty times any more, on fifty
pieces of paper. For example there will be no such thing as an invoice,
and no chart of accounts.
When cars were first invented the first thing people did was go
out and get killed in headon collisions. And to this day, 100 years
later, you can still die instantly if you drive over the centerline.
But do you want to go back to walking?
James said,
>About a year ago I emailed my local Telco to cancel my dialup as I had
>switched to DSL. The bills kept coming. I phoned customer service. Yes sir
>thank you sir we will sent you a refund and take care of that. Sorry sir.
>The refund was sent to my CCard but, The bills kept coming. I phone back
>but by this time the company had gone to "VOICE MAIL" After 20 min off
>press x for this service they would drop the connection.
>
>I phone the credit card company but ONLY the TELCO could remove the
>autodebit. Now this is a case with two good solid companies defrauding me
>by incompetence. If you have given the right to autodebit your CC or bank
>account you have given up control on your account.
>
>For another example see Jim's story
>http://home.att.net/~jdhcpa/romans.htm
>
>These problems will be solved but in the present they are a headache. The
>rules are not in place to make the "actors accountable" The rules and
>practices with the draft / cheque system have been in use from Marco Polo
>and prior.
This is a perfect example - -brilliant! What I am suggesting is that
smart individuals and businesses will never put up with such incompetence
in the future. They will say "Hello GTE/Verizon, are you seeing my
service request on your screen? You agreed to this contract in May, and
the requirements are very clear. Please see also document B, the
proof that I paid your bill, signed by my bank. "
Intelligent and productive people have a RIGHT to efficient administration
of their affairs without being held back by complete imbiciles and morons
and thieves, all around us.
Yes--there will be a legally binding framework for this, it's called
the uniform commercial code. What is really lacking is the user interface,
and further work on the XML vocabulary, and XML business process schemas.
The digital signatures are here, and they are binding.
http://www.softwareindustry.org/issues/1digsig.html
Here, this came thru Killen list, today.
Proving that digital signature technology can be used to secure
transactions on the Internet, NACHA announced last week that its
"Internet Secure ATM Payments (ISAP) Pilot" was successful, with 598
digitally signed transactions validated 100% of the time, with an
average authorization response time of 6-8 seconds. The pilot used
consumer ATM/debit cards, with transaction authorization and security
comparable to PIN-based Point-of-Sale purchases. Internet merchants are
provided with "card present" equivalent transactions that are more
difficult to repudiate.
The pilot was supported by both NACHA and STAR Systems. A recent survey
commission by STAR indicated that two-thirds of online transactions are
canceled before checkout, in part due to security and privacy concerns.
The thinking is that digital signature ATM payments may alleviate the
concerns of security-conscious consumers.
NACHA Internet Council website: <http://internetcouncil.nacha.org>
(from the Killen Alert - 30 July 2001 <http://www.killen.com/alert>
>>To the extent a transaction is truly, rigorously connected to the
>>offsetting entry in Trading Partners' books, it requires less internal
>>control within the enterprise. In other words, if sales, cash,
>>receivables and payables cannot be falsified without also manipulating the
>>trading partners books, perpetrators of fraud will be less able to conceal
>>either paper fraud or physical theft. Comprehensive AR/AP integration, in
>>principle, allow lower expenditure on systems of internal control
>>(separation of duties) within the enterprise.
>>
> Again I am doubtful.
>
>"Inside activity" is the main source of fraud. Now those persons have
>"inside" access 100's of books. Auto comprehensive r/p(s) allow dummy
>billing and dummy payments a fraudsters dream. Even with the current
Huh?? No, you don't get it. The fraudsters will be out of business,
because it will be impossible to book additional liabilities (or anything
else!) on the othe company's books! There is only one thing you can
do with a trading partner and that is submit a document. The trading
partner will make his/her sovereign decision whether to book it, and
you will be able to auto-reconcile any time agreed, to find out whether
your receivable exceeds the TP's account payable. These things will become
routine between buyers and sellers who know and trust each other.
I repeat: It will become routine to confirm your A/Rs, AP and bank
and inventory movements by validation against the same entry mirrored
in the trading partners books, and any entry that doesn't agree will
be a focus of some concern. Fraud will be much harder. Banks will
have little role in this scenario, by the way. Think about the
incredible savings and efficiencies of this.
>checks and balances there are many companies that pay dummy invoices or
>over pay on invoices. If that process is automated that percentage will
>grow. Out of sight out of mind and out of pocket, come to mind. New
>checks in the - order - receive - pay - use - cycle will be needed. Not
>that, that should be a huge problem for software to monitor. Still when
>companies can lose 50 billion and blink it off small % skimming would
>amount to lota $$$$$
Jim--you've got a real gift for understanding this problem. Certainly,
electronic business systems must be extremely secure, reliable and also
communicate so clearly and graphically to the owner that they have no
doubt what they are looking at. Personally, I believe it has to be a
physical new product like a tablet computer, with fingerprint reader and
money system built in, PLUS the standard graphic display of what you are
agreeing to. Not todays 20 pages of fine print where every vendor buries
you in total bullshit.
But there is one thing we should not recommend to clients, and that is
further new ways to manually check things twice, three, four or fifty
times.
We want to get the TRANSACTION right, the first time, and never need to go
back. You want the familiarity and certainty similar to dealing in cash,
in person, when you're buying physical goods you know and understand.
There is a LOT of future evolution that depends on getting the basic
transactions more automated. When the transaction framework is really
automatic and problem-free, then we can build complex collaborations
outside the command system which is today 90% of the economy (the
government and corporate sectors with their bosses and hierarchies)
A free economy is one in which consumer demand and suppliers' production
is modulated in a consensual way not dictated in 40 hours of indentured
servitude in a physical offce, doing the exact same thing for dilbert
bosses, for 30 years under threat of losing your family health care,
retirement pension etc. as in America today.
Todd
Todd Boyle CPA 9745-128th Ave NE Kirkland WA
tbo...@rosehill.net 425-827-3107 Oslo [47] 9822-7366
my employer www.netaccount.com
our project www.arapxml.net
my webserver www.gldialtone.com
Jim Hudspeth
Todd Boyle wrote:
>
> >
> >"Inside activity" is the main source of fraud. Now those persons have
> >"inside" access 100's of books. Auto comprehensive r/p(s) allow dummy
> >billing and dummy payments a fraudsters dream. Even with the current
>
> Huh?? No, you don't get it. The fraudsters will be out of business,
> because it will be impossible to book additional liabilities (or anything
> else!) on the othe company's books! There is only one thing you can
> do with a trading partner and that is submit a document. The trading
> partner will make his/her sovereign decision whether to book it, and
> you will be able to auto-reconcile any time agreed, to find out whether
> your receivable exceeds the TP's account payable. These things will become
> routine between buyers and sellers who know and trust each other.
>
Fraudsters are like water seeping through the cracks. If there is a weakness
anywhere the fraudsters will find it and exploit it. Fraudsters have been
around since at least the beginning of recorded history, and will no doubt be
around a long time after I am gone.
Incidentally, it is the people you "know and trust" that get you.
>
> I repeat: It will become routine to confirm your A/Rs, AP and bank
> and inventory movements by validation against the same entry mirrored
> in the trading partners books, and any entry that doesn't agree will
> be a focus of some concern. Fraud will be much harder. Banks will
> have little role in this scenario, by the way. Think about the
> incredible savings and efficiencies of this.
>
> >checks and balances there are many companies that pay dummy invoices or
> >over pay on invoices. If that process is automated that percentage will
> >grow. Out of sight out of mind and out of pocket, come to mind. New
> >checks in the - order - receive - pay - use - cycle will be needed. Not
> >that, that should be a huge problem for software to monitor. Still when
> >companies can lose 50 billion and blink it off small % skimming would
> >amount to lota $$$$$
>
> Jim--you've got a real gift for understanding this problem. Certainly,
> electronic business systems must be extremely secure, reliable and also
> communicate so clearly and graphically to the owner that they have no
> doubt what they are looking at. Personally, I believe it has to be a
> physical new product like a tablet computer, with fingerprint reader and
> money system built in, PLUS the standard graphic display of what you are
> agreeing to. Not todays 20 pages of fine print where every vendor buries
> you in total bullshit.
The 20 pages of fine print are there to assist in fixing blame after an event,
not to provide security or deter fraud.
>
>
> But there is one thing we should not recommend to clients, and that is
> further new ways to manually check things twice, three, four or fifty
> times.
>
> We want to get the TRANSACTION right, the first time, and never need to go
> back. You want the familiarity and certainty similar to dealing in cash,
> in person, when you're buying physical goods you know and understand.
>
> There is a LOT of future evolution that depends on getting the basic
> transactions more automated. When the transaction framework is really
> automatic and problem-free, then we can build complex collaborations
> outside the command system which is today 90% of the economy (the
> government and corporate sectors with their bosses and hierarchies)
>
>
I had a "hands free" cell phone mount installed in one of our pickups this
week. After the installation was completed I presented the clerk with a check
drawn on my business account. She ran it through their verification machine,
which rejected it - seems the machine didn't like the physical size of the
check. She called the verification service and got it approved over the phone.
Then she discovered a mistake in the bill, and asked me to write a second check,
which I did. This one really presented a problem. Not only was it physically
too large for the scanner's comfort, it was the second "large" check I had
presented the vendor, and the machine thought there was something wrong with
that too. Eventually the clerk got it straightened out and I left, but not with
any sense that machines are about to take over the world.
te...@akinli.org
>Mike, I do not agree with you that QB has satisfied more people. They out
>marketed the competition. NO other company markets the way Intuit does, the
>others only sell. And now you have alot a people "use to" QB and they are
>afraid to change or unwilling. The name Quickbooks is now the same as
>computer accounting programs, IE: kleenex: Just because you sell the most
>doesn't make you the best, I just think the company is lacking in ethics.
I'd agree with that. It's funny that I have this program I got for
$100, for which I am now forced to buy tax-table updates annually for roughly
$100. Federal and state tax tables are public information. I need two
lines ou of the table but cannot manually enter them. Instead, I am
FORCED to essentially repurchase my program EVERY year for the roughly 30
bytes of data I use.
Of course, they justify it by saying, "Well, we're including tax forms,
et al with that, too." I need none of that, nor the other 99% of the
tables for that matter. But I have no choice. Switching to another
software is a major pain, so I keep giving them their extortion money.
So the real price of this software is not $100. In just about ANY real
application (e.g. any business with payroll), it's actually $100/yr.
-Cengiz
Ed Zollars
<"jdhcpa"@worldnet.att.(NO_SPAM)net> wrote:
>Fraudsters are like water seeping through the cracks. If there is a weakness
>anywhere the fraudsters will find it and exploit it. Fraudsters have been
>around since at least the beginning of recorded history, and will no doubt be
>around a long time after I am gone.
>
>Incidentally, it is the people you "know and trust" that get you.
So true. In every case of embezzlement from a small business I know
of, the person that pulled off the fraud is someone the owner would
have sworn simply wouldn't do that because he/she was so "trustworthy"
right up until the evidence of the fraud became overwhelming. It is
because they are able to appear so trustworthy that most of them are
able to get into the position to be able to steal as much as they do
without being caught or suspected.
The fraudster, whether internal or external, normally has to be good
at getting the intended victim to trust him/her. That's because most
people who haven't studied fraud tend to drop their defenses entirely
once they decide they trust an individual. Con men have known that
one for years and so work hard to build trust. One unfortunate side
effect of this is that I've seen cases where the fraudster, while in
trust building mode, becomes outwardly very religious and picks up
many victims from the church he/she starts operating in.
As one internal control checklist for clients I use notes, the issue
is not about trust--rather, it's simply implementing good business
practices.
Jim Hudspeth
Ed Zollars wrote:
>
>
> As one internal control checklist for clients I use notes, the issue
> is not about trust--rather, it's simply implementing good business
> practices.
I disagree - strongly - unless "implementing good business practices" also
includes developing a sound basis for trust.
Trust is essential to the operation of any organization, some more so than
others. We cannot function without it.
On the other hand, misplaced trust is an open invitation to disaster. The
objective, in my opinion, is to develop, implement, and maintain business
practices that build trust based on rational expectations within reasonable
limits.
One example would be gun safety. While most of us trust our children, most of us
would not permit them to play with loaded guns.
Another example would be my dear mother. We all love her very much, but given she
has a touch of old age dementia, we don't let her drive.
I recently did a piece for publication locally about reducing the risk of theft in
small organizations. I believe it is pertinent to this discussion. It is at:
http://home.att.net/~jdhcpa/share-the-work.html.
Mike Block - Tax Cut C.P.A. <>
On Tue, 31 Jul 2001 12:33:15 -0400, "Tim Kroesen" <tkro...@nccw.net>
wrote:
>I'm still waiting for your specific location on the pro99 box I've got
>right in front of me where it announces the radical change in payroll
>calculation policy; or even in the quick start manual for that matter;
>yes I never read the ENTIRE large manual on the subject; I am after all
>an experienced user and didn't feel the need. Yes a warning box
>announced pending table expiration JUST LIKE THE PREVIOUS VERSIONS DID;
>the difference is that they didn't STOP calculations; pro99 was the
>first iteration to perform this money milking trick for customers; this
>issue particularly tricky for experienced users USED to seeing such
>warning box and simply clicking past it. IMO qb clearly counted on
>hiding these new program changes from customers for obvious reasons.
You may disagree with the meaning of this QB99 box notice, but:
Payroll in minutes
Calculates payroll earnings & deductions
Prints 940, 941, on W-2, W-3
>>> Tax tables available through paid subscription
The >>> refers to items I and two personally aggrieved attorneys, who
I consulted about a class action suit, felt were most conclusive. One
is a very experienced in class actions and represented me in them.
Please try to read all this before jumping to CONCLUSIONS, as I put
mine at the end to accommodate your wish to see documents before you got
to discussion. You may well continue to disagree with me, but we should
not disagree on the long and usually indented document section.
From the QB Software License Agreement, to which you must say Yes
to install:
Do not use the Software until you have carefully read the
following Agreement. This Agreement sets forth the terms and
conditions for licensing of the Software from Intuit to you,
and installing and using the Software indicates that you have
read and understand this Agreement, accept its terms and
conditions, and agree to register the Software with Intuit.
If you purchased the Software from a retail store OR directly
from Intuit, and do not agree with this Agreement, promptly
return the Software and accompanying items to the place of
purchase within ten (10) days of purchase with a dated
receipt for a full refund.
Satisfaction Guaranteed
If you are not 100% satisfied with this Software, Intuit's
entire liability and your exclusive remedy shall be either:
(a) if you purchased the Software through a retail store or
directly from Intuit, (1) return of the Software within sixty
(60) days to the store where purchased with a dated receipt
for a full refund (If the store is unable to issue a refund
then return the Software with a dated receipt within 60 days
of purchase to Intuit Returns, ... San Diego CA, ...; or (2)
replacement by Intuit within sixty (60) days, ...
DISCLAIMER OF WARRANTIES
EXCEPT AS PROVIDED ABOVE, THIS SOFTWARE AND ANY RELATED SERVICES
ARE PROVIDED "AS-IS," AND TO THE MAXIMUM EXTENT PERMITTED BY
APPLICABLE LAW, INTUIT DISCLAIMS ALL OTHER REPRESENTATION AND
WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, REGARDING THIS SOFTWARE, DISKS,
RELATED MATERIALS AND ANY SERVICES, INCLUDING THEIR FITNESS FOR
A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, THEIR QUALITY, THEIR MERCHANTABILITY, OR
THEIR NONINFRINGEMENT.
LIMITATION OF LIABILITY AND DAMAGES
THE ENTIRE LIABILITY OF INTUIT AND ITS REPRESENTATIVES (AS DEFINED
BELOW) FOR ANY REASON SHALL BE LIMITED TO THE AMOUNT PAID BY THE]
CUSTOMER FOR THE SOFTWARE AND RELATED SERVICES PURCHASED FROM
INTUIT OR ITS AUTHORIZED RESELLER.
THE LIMITATIONS OF DAMAGES SET FORTH ABOVE ARE FUNDAMENTAL ELEMENTS
OF THE BASIS OF THE BARGAIN BETWEEN INTUIT AND YOU. INTUIT WOULD
NOT BE ABLE TO HAVE PROVIDED THIS SOFTWARE OR SERVICES WITHOUT SUCH
LIMITATIONS.
General Provisions
This Agreement sets forth Intuit's and its Representatives' entire
liability and your exclusive remedy with respect to the Software.
You acknowledge that this Agreement is a complete statement of the
agreement between you and Intuit, and that there are no other prior
or contemporaneous understandings, promises, representations, or
descriptions regarding the Software or any related services.
The validity and performance of this Agreement shall be governed by
California law (without reference to choice of law principles),
except as to copyright and trademark matters, which are covered by
federal laws. This Agreement is deemed entered into at Mountain
View, California, and shall be construed as to its fair meaning and
not strictly for or against either party.
>>> Additional terms for QuickBooks Tax Table Update Service
If you use the QuickBooks Tax Table feature or Service included with
the Software, (the "Service"), the following terms and conditions
apply in addition to those above:
When you: (i) use the Service; or (ii) receive or purchase a
one-time Service update; or (iii) subscribe to the Service annually
and pay the appropriate subscription fee, Intuit grants you a
non-exclusive license to use the Tax Tables and Documentation for
the jurisdictions for which you have subscribed within the United
States ("License"). You may not use the Tax Tables or the
Documentation except with the QuickBooks product. You may only use
or install updates to the Service on the computer(s) used by
individual(s) for whom you have purchased Software Agreement(s) and
Service License(s) and/or Service Update(s) or Subscriptions. This
License may be terminated by Intuit immediately and without notice
if you fail to comply with any term or condition of this Agreement.
From time to time Intuit may change the subscription fee. In this
event you will receive notice of such change.
Your use of the Service acknowledges that you have read this
Agreement and agree to its terms. You further agree that this
Agreement is the complete and exclusive statement between you and
Intuit relating to the subject matter of this Agreement.
From the manual holding the QB CD:
QuickBooks TAx Table Service
>>> Affordable 12 month subscription.
Call 1-800-644-8371 or visit www.intuit.com/tts
<You also go there from Help, About Tax Table.>
<I cannot say what was on this site 2+ years ago. It now has:>
>>> QuickBooks 6.0 and QuickBooks 99 February 15th Tax
Calculation http://tts1.intuit.com/tts/qb6newinfo.asp
After December 31, 2000, Intuit is concerned that QuickBooks
customers using the payroll feature will NOT be in compliance
with new tax laws because federal taxes will change as they
do each January 1. To ensure customers know about the failures
of compliance, starting January 1, 2001, customers using 2000
tax tables will be warned that the tax tables are out of date
at each payroll run. And, instead of allowing users to use the
old 2000 tax tables, all payroll taxes will be zeroed out
starting February 15, a 45 day grace period. The payroll
function will still work; it is the tax calculations which
will zero out.
Customers have three options to ensure compliance:
Use their one-time update to tax tables (available within 60
days of purchase of QuickBooks 6.0 and QuickBooks 99).
Purchase a 12 month tax table subscription which will guarantee
compliance with payroll tax regulations for the entire 12 months.
Manually edit the paychecks and insert the correct tax, the same
functionality that has always been in QuickBooks.
I found nothing in the QuickBooks 99 Installation and Conversion
Guide on tax tables and recent prior QB versions. Introducing
QuickBooks Payroll Solutions says:
2 If you would rather do payroll yourself, order a
subscription to the QuickBooks Tax Table Service. You'll
have the assurance of knowing you'll be in compliance
with payroll tax regulations for 12 full months.
To sign up for or learn more about Quickbooks Tax Table
Service, call toll free: 1-800-644-8371
The QuickBooks 99 User's Guide says:
Index - tax tables -
subscribing - 447
updating - 445
up-to-date, required - 362
Chapter 18 - Payroll
362 - Setting up payroll
QuickBooks cannot compute payroll taxes accurately
unless you have an up to date tax table.
Chapter 22 - Updating QuickBooks
444 The QuickBooks Update Service screen shows:
One-Time Tax Table Update
445 - Updating your tax table
QuickBooks cannot compute payroll taxes accurately
unless you have an up to date tax table.
>>> /!\ When your tax table becomes out of date, it
>>> will stop calculating and return zero amounts.
<The User's Guide only uses an ! in a triangle for the most
important information and it bold faced the above.>
>>> 446 If you do not sign up for either of these services,
>>> your tax table will eventually become outdated and
>>> STOP CALCULATING PAYROLL TAXES. You will need to
>>> manually calculate your payroll taxes outside of
>>> QuickBooks.
The QuickBooks 99 in-program Help, Help Index, says:
tax tables,
calculating taxes without
Intuit recommends that you do one of the following
to make sure that your payroll taxes are always up
to date:
Subscribe to the QuickBooks Tax Table Service.
or
Sign up for the QuickBooks Online Payroll Tax
Service.
If you do not sign up for either of these services,
your tax table will eventually become outdated.
>>> If your tax table is for a previous calendar year,
>>> you will get warning messages from January 1 through
>>> February 14. On February 15, the outdated tax table
>>> will stop calculating and will return zero amounts
>>> in the Preview Paycheck window.
I do not know what QB99 automatically downloaded in January,
1999. A new install today made it download an update I did
not install. Without installing it I cannot run payroll.
>>> CONCLUSIONS:
Two attorneys, who make money by filing law suits, would
not accept money to sue Intuit because of these conclusions.
These attorneys would sue over a since withdrawn $40 million
price increase because nothing above or elsewhere in QB99
put us on notice that there was a separate tax table charge
for each company using QB99 for payroll, as opposed to each
copy of the QB program. See the CNET story on this at
http://www.blocktax.com/mar31.htm and
http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1278-210-3287265-1.html
QB backed down as this story and one from Accounting Today
went to press.
>>> QB99 box notice:
If tax tables are only available through paid subscription
we are legally on notice that QB may not do payroll at all
without extra payment.
>>> QB Software License Agreement:
The agreement title puts us very clearly on notice that we
do not own QB. We own very few computer programs. We all
have a general idea that there is a big difference between
a driver's license, subject to many limits and being revoked,
and owning a car.
The license says, "Do not use the Software until you have
carefully read the agreement .. using the Software indicates
that you have read and understand this Agreement, accept its
term and conditions .. THIS SOFTWARE .. PROVIDED AS-IS ..
INTUIT DISCLAIMS ALL OTHER REPRESENTATIONS AND WARRANTIES..
THE LIMITATIONS OF DAMAGES .. ARE FUNDAMENTAL ELEMENTS OF
THE BARGAIN BETWEEN INTUIT AND YOU. INTUIT WOULD NOT .. HAVE
PROVIDED .. WITHOUT SUCH LIMITATIONS."
Carefully read Additional terms for QuickBooks Tax Table
Update Service. It says even the initial table and one time
table download are subscriptions, so Intuit can change the
price (or stop them from working). Therefore, you take AS-IS,
subject only to a right to get a refund. I understand you
did not know you could lose calculations entirely, so I
discuss this below.
All this should have merely put you on notice that you had
better find out the terms of your subscription. If you sign
agreements without reading I will sell you a brand new Lexus
for $1. Our agreement can say I will deliver and pass title
in 100 years (I am now 60). The law is crystal clear that
only infants and the mentally handicapped may disavow clear
contracts signed. As such agreements go, Intuit's is clear.
>>> From the manual holding the QB CD:
If you can buy an affordable 12 month subscription then it
suggests your free subscription may not last long. The web
site has conclusive information about when free and paid
subscriptions expire. It may not have said this in January,
1999, but I respectfully submit that you already had more
than enough indications so you should have asked questions.
Did you go to this site then, make a free call to QB or
read QB newsgroups?
Here is where I think it starts to get conclusive. You
were an experienced QB6 user. By 2/15/99 you knew QB6
nagged you twice per paycheck. PC World created a fuss
by calling QB6 the Nagware Product of the Year. There
were many newsgroup discussions of this from mid 1998
on, as many saw this early by setting system clocks
ahead. QB99 arrived in January, 1999. Many experienced
QB6 users did what I did as soon as we got it. We set
our clocks ahead to 2/15/2000, found QB99 completely
stopped calculating tax and really started yelling in
newsgroups. Intuit banned many of these discussions
in its forums. Did you never consider doing any of
this as soon as you got QB99?
The web site listed in the QB CD booklet is now clear,
and may always have been clear, about 2/15 expiration
of tables. I even think current automatic downloads
may soon disable current AND prior payroll for both
QB6 and QB99 users. I might not do this to old QB
users if I ran QB, but my attorneys and I feel QB has
a clear legal right to it under its License Agreement,
to which we agreed.
>>> Introducing QuickBooks Payroll Solutions:
This simply again put you on notice to find out what
you are getting.
>>> QuickBooks 99 User's Guide:
The obviously referenced and easily found page 445
and 446 statements are completely definitive. The
446 statement actually says that the table will
stop working when it becomes out dated, which can
happen in days rather than 2/15 of the next year.
I really respectfully submit that this is what we
all should have looked for or called about as soon
as we read the QB box statement that, "Tax tables
available through paid subscription." After all,
nothing said or implied QB came with a tax table.
Those who set clocks ahead, read newsgroups or
called QB knew it without having to read manuals,
but the information was available immediately.
>>> QuickBooks 99 in-program Help, Help Index:
The most readily available route to this information
was the clearest and fastest. The in-program Help
Index quickly took you to tax tables, calculating
taxes without. The explanation there is completely
definitive:
If you do not sign up for either of these services,
your tax table will eventually become outdated.
>>> If your tax table is for a previous calendar year,
>>> you will get warning messages from January 1 through
>>> February 14. On February 15, the outdated tax table
>>> will stop calculating and will return zero amounts
>>> in the Preview Paycheck window.
You were always only few clicks away from this. QB6 & the
QB99 box both very clearly put us on notice of potential
problems. Therefore, my attorneys and I think everyone
should have found the very clear and highly accessible
information in the in-program help or by phone, newsgroup,
web site or User's Guide. We all think we should have seen
it not in February, 2000, but in January, 1999, when we
still could get refunds and still could use QB6 backups.
This is when many of us found it. I found it far earlier
because I won the #1 Top Tester prize for beta testing
QB6 and 99. That is why I let so many know about this so
quickly.
Of course, you can go back to QB6 at any time. Keep your
QB99 file for detail searches. Enter current open bills,
invoices and payroll in QB6 at the end of any month. You
also enter 12/31/99, 12/31/2000 and current end of any
month balances. This is something we and many who convert
to QB do, to a greater or lesser extent, almost every day.
Except for monopolies (which QB has not yet legally become)
and public utilities, we cannot dictate prices and terms to
others. We can only buy or not buy. Audited financials have
long shown that Intuit makes far less net operating income
than it should on QB, Quicken & TurboTax near monopolies.
Most of us think what it did was terrible for customer
satisfaction. I yelled especially loudly at QB defenders
who said it was done to protect us. QB clearly did it for
the money (as was later admitted).
I suspect QB gets very little extra income from this, net
of extra registration expense, for many reasons. Few QB
users need payroll or will pay what QB wants. Some back
and forward date paychecks to get around the tables, but
many further cut costs. They charge all interim owner
draws to loans and manually calculate a paycheck once a
year.
On the other hand, if you really want a reason to yell
sign up for Deluxe payroll & cancel before registration.
This recently cost me about $1,500 of largely unbilled
time and took about a month. During this time our tax
tables were as dead for no reason. Only when I finally
wrote some QB friends, in an email about this long as
this post, did we get 5 minutes of help to get back to
Basic Payroll.
Tim Kroesen
warning) is as buried in your lengthy tome as it is in the main manual;
need I say more as you yourself state that the primary warning pop-ups
are unclear in their wording, as is the box itself. That they are
crafty enough about their SMALL PRINT to avoid suit (only a guy like
you Mr. Block ever and always reads in entirety in every case)
demonstrated even more forethought of intentional sneaky practices
IMO...
I've no reason to reconvert back to 6x whatsoever; payroll calculation
are back with a system date reset and legal program kludge in pro99; you
still skirt this technique as I believe you know it is safe, effective
and beats the QUICKshuckers at their own game; nice brinkmanship once
again Mr. Block! I reiterate that I am only using s/w that is full
paid for and registered without any program modifications.
Once again Mr. Block: I don't want my money back for the pro99 update; I
just want the calculation ability I paid for at the level I paid for;
refund of the first year Forty dollars worth of Table extortion would be
nice too but I guess I can't blame them fully because I did capitulate
and use the tables for a year. Their _$130_ required function ransom
the following year; Vs selling an Upgrade with even more insidious money
milking features and spider web ties to the Company at virtually the
same price makes the picture clear... jam the customer for the cost of a
new major iteration every year no matter what road they opt. Even
better if they think that this new iteration is a better value as it
sets them up for more services they may not want or need all the while
ever in deeper with QUICKnet central computer monitoring all...
Information is power, isn't it; they demand ever more from the customer
you may notice.
Tim K
"Mike Block - Tax Cut C.P.A. >" <<mblock...@blocktax.com> wrote in
message news:df3imt07k29l76irl...@4ax.com...
Mike Block - Tax Cut C.P.A. <>
to Intuit's right to disable its tax tables. However, I
relied only on a QB99 box notice that you said was absent.
It plainly says:
Payroll in minutes
>>> Tax tables available through paid subscription
This, the prominent first part of the Software License,
plus your QB6 knowledge, meant you had an absolute legal
duty to question what (if any) payroll you got with QB99.
The QB99 in-program Help, Help Index, could have & should
have immediately told you:
tax tables,
calculating taxes without
>>> If your tax table is for a previous calendar year,
>>> you will get warning messages from January 1 through
>>> February 14. On February 15, the outdated tax table
>>> will stop calculating and will return zero amounts
>>> in the Preview Paycheck window.
As indicated, you also could have and should have gotten
this information in minutes with a free QuickBooks payroll
phone call, from the User Guide, from a web site, from
newsgroups or from other documents in a few minutes. You
did not fulfill your legal duty during the 60 days you had
to get to get your money back. Intuit said this refund was
their only obligation to you in the plainest possible
language.
Now, 18 to 30 months later, you are still complaining, when
you have long know exactly how to resolve the problem. I
knew someone who thought sex with an 8 year old was OK. Now
he will spend his life in jail because it does not matter what
we think the law should be or what we think QB should have
done. Based on very clearly decided law, and based on the
reasonable understanding of millions of users, Intuit will
not do anything more for you.
Most of us come to newsgroups like this to get or provide
problem solving help. You came with a political agenda that
cannot win legally or otherwise. You are the only one who
can decide when you have wasted enough of your time.
On Thu, 2 Aug 2001 17:09:22 -0400, "Tim Kroesen" <tkro...@nccw.net>
wrote:
>The meat and kapusta of your entire argument (Triangle Exclamation
Mike Block - Tax Cut CPA
John
>> My comments mainly related to $40 million of since dropped charges
> >> for separate fees for each company using payroll, not for each QB
> >> copy. CNET, at http://www.blocktax.com/mar31.htm, said,
(snip)
JEEZ ENOUGH ALREADY!!! Are you going to parade around this figure in
every other post for eternity???
The change was a concession to accountants (who hopefully will push
Quickbooks to their customers... like you do). Unless you run
multiple companies off a single copy of Quickbooks (and tax table
subscription) there was no "victory" for users. The $40 million is
what "would" have resulted it accountants had to pay a tax table fee
for each EIN. This never happened. Even if it had the costs related
to accontants, not end-users.
Feel free to parade around your own interests, but don't imply that
they are the same as ours.
John
D B Munro
increased?
Seems pretty simple; you have to cover all costs before you generate a
profit, therefore, an increase in costs has to be passed on to the customer.
Dennis B Munro
"John" <brun...@excite.com> wrote in message
news:d4a53ed0.01080...@posting.google.com...
Mike Block - Tax Cut C.P.A. <>
>Mike Block - Tax Cut C.P.A. <<mblock...@blocktax.com>> wrote in message news:<ohedmtka5emfe3ju9...@4ax.com>...
>
>>> My comments mainly related to $40 million of since dropped charges
>> >> for separate fees for each company using payroll, not for each QB
>> >> copy. CNET, at http://www.blocktax.com/mar31.htm, said,
>
>(snip)
>
>JEEZ ENOUGH ALREADY!!! Are you going to parade around this figure in
>every other post for eternity???
>
>The change was a concession to accountants (who hopefully will push
>Quickbooks to their customers... like you do). Unless you run
>multiple companies off a single copy of Quickbooks (and tax table
>subscription) there was no "victory" for users. The $40 million is
>what "would" have resulted it accountants had to pay a tax table fee
>for each EIN. This never happened. Even if it had the costs related
>to accontants, not end-users.
I mention this only when someone says I always defend QB, when I often
criticize it. The Google newsgroup archive has my 496 posts to these
groups since this happened (2/14/2000). I mentioned it about 15 times
(223 less than every other post).
You are right that this only affected accountants, but wrong if you
think it never happened. The increase was in effect from 1/1/2000 to
2/13/2000. Countless accountants paid it and few probably got refunds.
I was not affected because I got two free 5 users copies. One came
from a second win of the #1 Top Tester beta test prize (near doubling
the second place score). The other was part of Certified Pro Advisor
membership.
Tim Kroesen
still blissfully silent when mine (and all the other screwed for
unnecessary table updates) are mentioned...
So how about it Mr. Block; True or False We can successfully NOT buy tax
table updates for at least pro99 and possible ALL later versions to date
by simply resetting your system clock to write payroll based on the
tables you bought and own... completely legal and in no way modifying
the program itself...
Tim K
"Mike Block - Tax Cut C.P.A. >" <<mblock...@blocktax.com> wrote in
message news:9mokmt0lc3tp8dd65...@4ax.com...
Mike Block - Tax Cut C.P.A. <>
wrote:
>You seem loud enough when YOUR interests are at stake Mr. Block; yet
>still blissfully silent when mine (and all the other screwed for
>unnecessary table updates) are mentioned...
>
>So how about it Mr. Block; True or False We can successfully NOT buy tax
>table updates for at least pro99 and possible ALL later versions to date
>by simply resetting your system clock to write payroll based on the
>tables you bought and own... completely legal and in no way modifying
>the program itself...
I said repeatedly before that this was true, starting very long
before you discovered it. However, I also say it is a big waste
of time. We do it only when companies having 3 or more employees
lose tables temporarily, as happened with a recent Deluxe payroll
cancellation.
As I again said, in response to your earlier post, the better way
involves treating most payroll-type payments as loans. You then
issue one payroll-type check per employee, per quarter or more
often per year. Deductions are best calculated manually, based on
prior tax and projected current tax. You credit most or all of the
check to the prior loans. With only one or two pay checks per tax
period, QB tax forms take more time than manual forms.
Countless CPAs have used and taught this better way for 40+ years.
I never heard of a government agency bothering any small business
over it. Once again, you can waste your time any way you like.
Wendell
the start.
We are switching to QB (from Peactree)at the insistance of the accountant.
No big deal I thought as long as it does the job. That is until I
started to load it.
IE MUST be installed.
What a crock. More M$ BS. Why is intuit in bed with M$.
Under the pretense of giving constant updates it is also mining your system.
I will find a way to bypass IE.
To answer your original question, WINDOWS
Wendell
Mike Block - Tax Cut C.P.A. <>
wrote:
>I actually read all of these posts and am more appalled than I was at
>the start.
>We are switching to QB (from Peactree)at the insistance of the accountant.
>No big deal I thought as long as it does the job. That is until I
>started to load it.
>IE MUST be installed.
>What a crock. More M$ BS. Why is intuit in bed with M$.
>Under the pretense of giving constant updates it is also mining your system.
>I will find a way to bypass IE.
>
>To answer your original question, WINDOWS
>
Intuit got into bed with M$ initially because of a then program
limit in Netscape. This was explained on the NG before, but I
have now forgotten what I did not initially understand. They
also were paid by M$, though I never heard how much or whether
they are still being paid.
Many would probably appreciate a way around this as M$ continues
on the path that got it convicted of anti-trust violations. If
I were Netscape/AOL I would amend my antitrust complain to say
M$ was engaged in a criminal conspiracy of anti-trust violations
and ask for a total forfeiture of all M$ property. Of course, I
also would like legislators to have made monopoly violations
carry heavy jail time, so the Bill crew would be placed on weekly
reporting on probation.
>David Cherniack wrote:
>
>>For the multitudes who run the gamut from dislike to disgust with Quickbooks
>>(and use it, for the amazing lack of anything better), I'm curious: can you
>>think of another piece of software that you use on a regular basis that also
>>falls into this category?
>>
>>I can't think of any.
>>
>>It's amazing to me that the computer press has not picked up on this unique
>>situation, and unmasked Quickbook's myriad screaming faults. And where is
>>Microsoft when you really need them?
Mike Block - Tax Cut CPA
A lj Sigelman
Was that at the time MS was attempting to acquire Intuit or is my memory totally
whacked?
Tim Kroesen
think we can safely say the date change kludge works perfectly for
pro99 at least. Any other reports for other versions all? I mean, why
in Hell would anyone buy unnecessary table updates; THINK of the MONEY
SAVING POTENTIAL using this kludge; kind of makes Mr. Blocks'
consumer/professional qb money saving boasts niggardly by comparison!
You say you are aware of this method "starting very long
before you discovered it " before I ever posted here. Why in hell
didn't YOU offer it to me as one of your "money saving tips" Mr.
Block...? YOU were aware of exactly the technique myself and others
sought to get the calculations they paid for based on the tables they
paid for yet you offered NOTHING but advice to spend more money on table
or program 'upgrades'...
Tell us all once more how objective and customer oriented you are Mr.
Block; I'm loosing sight of it once again...
Tim K
"Mike Block - Tax Cut C.P.A. >" <<mblock...@blocktax.com> wrote in
message news:jgknmts3v347fd7od...@4ax.com...
Mike Block - Tax Cut C.P.A. <>
system date back a few years before you open QB99 - 2001. You
can then create a pay check with deductions as of the early
date, using your otherwise expired tax tables. Once you save
the check you can change its date and pay period to the
present without losing deduction amounts.
-----------------------------------------------------------
This is the simple answer. However, based on 40+ years of
highly applicable full time computer and accounting user
and CPA consultant experience, I think the QB date kludge
(as you properly term it) is almost always a stupid waste
of time AND money. If I often suggested it clients would,
for the first time, sue for CPA malpractice.
The most important reason for this relates to many cases of
absolute panic when many entries disappear. Some involve
repeat entry of dozens of entries after the disappearance.
This happens because QB usually stores checks & deposits in
transaction date order, not by entry date. Therefore, if you
use dates that are much earlier than intended the entries
disappear from the bottom of check registers as soon as
you save them.
Many accounting programs make you close old periods. Very
few close old QB periods and those that do often ignore
warnings when entering old transactions. This very often
happens when users set back system clocks, as you suggest.
It also often happens when users enter many transactions
with old dates when they meant to enter only one. QB users
are mainly non-accountants & few are computer professionals.
Therefore, my experience clearly shows they often make such
errors & do not know what happened or how to find or correct
the errors.
Please do not say people will notice a missing entry before
entering a new one. I sometimes see this with 100+ entries
and often see it with 30+. I also see letters and invoices
improperly dated do to this. When it happens to checks banks
return them. My very extensive QB experience strongly shows
that this risk is far too high to routinely suggest weekly
system clock back dating, especially since there is a far
better way.
For 40+ years CPAs have routinely used this better way. I
cannot understand why you do not understand this extremely
simple and much better way to save time WITHOUT buying QB
tax tables. For starters, it lets you pay payroll taxes
annually, not quarterly or monthly, while slashing paperwork
and related time.
It involves treating most payroll-type payments as loans.
You offset loans with one paycheck per employee per quarter
or (more often) per year. Figure deductions manually, based
on prior tax & projected current tax, using a non-paycheck.
You also can backdate the system date, while avoiding errors
by doing it rarely (not weekly). With only one pay checks
per employee per quarter or year, manual tax forms take much
less time than QB forms. I never heard of a government agency
bothering a small business that did this.
40 to 50 years ago I thought teachers wasted lots of time
when they taught several different ways to do the same thing.
That is one of many other reasons why I very rarely mention
this payroll kludge. Only someone lacking understanding AND
knowledge, or set on trying to hurt an elephant (Intuit) with
a tiny pin, would keep preaching the use of the kludge.
Don't you realize that the fact that this still works with
QB2001 shows you are beneath Intuit's notice? If not they
would have long since changed QB to permanently disable
the tables or the entire program if you backdate a system
date. Many programs, including trial versions of Norton
Anti-virus, have long done exactly this.
On Sat, 4 Aug 2001 16:56:27 -0400, "Tim Kroesen" <tkro...@nccw.net>
wrote:
Mike Block - Tax Cut CPA
Wendell
QB refused to run.
I was hoping that one of our hacker friends would point to a registry
cure (make it look to Netscape or Mozilla).
Wendell
--Shiva-- wrote:
>>>I actually read all of these posts and am more appalled than I was at
>>>the start.
>>>We are switching to QB (from Peactree)at the insistance of the accountant.
>>>No big deal I thought as long as it does the job. That is until I
>>>started to load it.
>>>IE MUST be installed.
>>>What a crock. More M$ BS. Why is intuit in bed with M$.
>>>Under the pretense of giving constant updates it is also mining your system.
>>>I will find a way to bypass IE.
>>>
>>>To answer your original question, WINDOWS
>>>
> Ok I use 99, which doesn't REQUIRE 5.5. IE
>
>suggestion... SOMEBODY That DOES USE QB2001, try the following.
>with Win 98, make 2 or 3 COPIES of your files BEFORE doing this,
>and CLOSE DOWN the company file. and open the sample file for
>now. close QB program.
> Find the IE.exe file and RENAME IT. ie.EXX for instance
>
> start QB and see what happens...OPN THE SAMPLE COMPANY FILE.
> I have no ideas what this will do, but I DO KNOW that my 98SE is
>content running the entire windows program WITHOUT having IE
>accessible to it.
>
>
>
>
Wendell
change their attitude at Intuit.
I am a privacy freak and If I had to stay connected to a site that was
going to moniter my coming and going I would do the same thing as your
friend.
Wendell
--Shiva-- wrote:
>On Sun, 05 Aug 2001 07:14:00 -0500, Wendell
><w...@lgNOSPAMgraphics.com> wrote:
>
>>The first thing I did after the install was to disable IE.
>>QB refused to run.
>>I was hoping that one of our hacker friends would point to a registry
>>cure (make it look to Netscape or Mozilla).
>>
>>Wendell
>>
>
> it wont... they belong to Bill.
> another note. friend hasnt updated past 99 yet, because they
>attempted to load 2000, which promptly changed the IE to a LATER
>version, which 95B cant run, and they were also told (over the
>phone,BTW) it was REQUIRED that the computer be online all the
>time while using QBPro. They returned it immediately.
>
>
>computer doesn't even have a modem in it, but it didn't care, it
>HAD to connect to Intuit.
>So, they still use 99, and pay the whatever price for payroll
>updates, sent on a disk.
>
>
>
>
Mike Block - Tax Cut C.P.A. <>
than it saves them in time or marketing effectiveness. However,
I suggest you install the free Zonealarm programs and monitor
what QB sends. That MAY let you feel it is of no consequence.
On Sun, 05 Aug 2001 13:11:57 -0500, Wendell <w...@lgNOSPAMgraphics.com>
wrote:
Mike Block - Tax Cut CPA
#1 QuickBooks Top Tester
FREE NetLedger accounting &
462p QB book,error codes,shortcuts
120+ QB Add-ons http://blocktax.com/
Tim Kroesen
Bottom line Mr. Bock; you're play withholding this information in my
regards was asinine. If on the first day I posted my complaints you
would have said , 'naughty qb; here's a work around'. I would have
been GONE with a Thanks... And the rest is history... <g>
Tim K
L. R. Du Broff
monthly (or weekly or ...) paycheck from the small business that I
own, I take a check for a "loan." Then, on a quarterly basis, I take
a paycheck to pay back the loans. The advantage being that I only
have to fool around with payroll tax issues for the quarterly
paychecks. If my understanding is correct, I have a question:
Doesn't the IRS expect me to pay interest on any loan from the
business? If so, this isn't the interest taxable income to the
business on the 1120 or 1120S? And isn't it a NON-deductible personal
expense on the 1040? Or am I missing something here?
--lrd
On Sat, 04 Aug 2001 07:32:40 -0400, Mike Block - Tax Cut C.P.A.
<<mblock...@blocktax.com>> wrote:
...
Tim Kroesen
dates to get results identical to normally written payroll. Someone is
only trying to obfuscate this obvious answer to unnecessary table
updates and shutdown of program function you paid for.
Tim K
<LRD at Lee-Reid dot com (L. R. Du Broff)> wrote in message
news:3b6df71e...@news.mindspring.com...
Ranny Meier
then it does not matter. If Intuit decided it was the best solution at the
time that were making the version, then likely it is the best for the QB
users.
The argument made sounds more like a prejudice than a description of a
technical problem.
Ranny
"Mike Block - Tax Cut C.P.A. >" <<mblock...@blocktax.com> wrote in
message news:lacomt885evgl1gjs...@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 04 Aug 2001 07:41:53 -0500, Wendell <w...@lgNOSPAMgraphics.com>
> wrote:
>
> >I actually read all of these posts and am more appalled than I was at
> >the start.
> >IE MUST be installed.
Mike Block - Tax Cut C.P.A. <>
Broff) wrote:
>If I understand correctly, you are suggesting that instead of taking a
>monthly (or weekly or ...) paycheck from the small business that I
>own, I take a check for a "loan." Then, on a quarterly basis, I take
>a paycheck to pay back the loans. The advantage being that I only
>have to fool around with payroll tax issues for the quarterly
>paychecks. If my understanding is correct, I have a question:
>
>Doesn't the IRS expect me to pay interest on any loan from the
>business? If so, this isn't the interest taxable income to the
>business on the 1120 or 1120S? And isn't it a NON-deductible personal
>expense on the 1040? Or am I missing something here?
>--lrd
In every case I ever read, and in the experience of all CPAs I
know, no government agency ever bothered a small business that
cleaned up employee loans annually. The amounts are small and
you are taxed on total S corp income annually, whether or not
distributed. This usually leads to the important question,
which is why should S owners take a paycheck?
IRS always wins when big money ($100,000+) is involved and
there are no salaries. However, they lost when there was a
$25,000 salary out of an $80,000 profit (the smallest case
I know). Therefore, you can save 15.3% in social security
and medicare tax on most or all your small business profits,
and save on tax tables, form filing and paying accountants.
Saving lots of tax and cutting fees are my specialty, not
taking unjustified risks and wasting time to save $10 a
month, particularly when you do not need tax tables at all.
Most states tax only $7,000 of wages for unemployment, so
we usually give them that. However, we do not use tax tables
when many companies file the same amounts.
>On Sat, 04 Aug 2001 07:32:40 -0400, Mike Block - Tax Cut C.P.A.
><<mblock...@blocktax.com>> wrote:
>...
>>As I again said, in response to your earlier post, the better way
>>involves treating most payroll-type payments as loans. You then
>>issue one payroll-type check per employee, per quarter or more
>>often per year. Deductions are best calculated manually, based on
>>prior tax and projected current tax. You credit most or all of the
>>check to the prior loans. With only one or two pay checks per tax
>>period, QB tax forms take more time than manual forms.
>>
>>Countless CPAs have used and taught this better way for 40+ years.
>>I never heard of a government agency bothering any small business
>>over it.
Mike Block - Tax Cut CPA
#1 QuickBooks Top Tester
FREE NetLedger accounting &
462p QB book,error codes,shortcuts
120+ QB Add-ons http://blocktax.com/
Mike Block - Tax Cut C.P.A. <>
wrote:
>"Mike Block - Tax Cut C.P.A. >" <<mblock...@blocktax.com> wrote in
I probably provide more free QB help than anyone. Is that
why you felt entitled to initially get complete answers,
that ultimately took hours to fully assemble?
Most people here only want to know good ways to do things.
Few will get help if we must fully explain all reasons and
alternatives.
My bottom line was I owed you nothing. The first time I
really noticed you was when, after many well thought out
answers from many people, you called a Intuit thieves and
worse. You did this after they acted with full disclosure
(as I recently showed) and entirely within their rights.
That was libel.
You then publicly libeled me. This was amazing because you
were privately on notice of multiple libels before posting.
That clearly qualified as reckless and willful, justifying
big punitive damages even when there are no actual damages.
The above post adds to the libel. I answered a repeated
challenge that, in my opinion, shows you did not read very
well. In adding "in my opinion" I am complying with legal
advice on avoiding a libel countercharge.
My answer made me disclose SOME of many reasons for rarely
using a time wasting kludge, so others can decide if they
are always more careful than all the clients & accountants
I have known. It also made me disclose one of the best ways
I help people cut taxes, which had nothing to do with QB
or this newsgroup.
I surely did not do this for your benefit.
Mike Block - Tax Cut CPA
#1 QuickBooks Top Tester
FREE NetLedger accounting &
462p QB book,error codes,shortcuts
120+ QB Add-ons http://blocktax.com/
Tim Kroesen
tremendously padding his own private business on the back of Usenet.
You are a shameless tout who selectively disseminates information and
help on this forum as to facilitate his own (and those in to it's) most
profitable advantage while skirting real everyday user money saving and
legal techniques to not pay the tax table update game. Furthermore you
have made attempts to quash and censor any such fair criticism of both
yourself and the product you monger on Usenet via abuse of your former
group "moderator" status; and it may have cost you that position.
I'll of course document every word with your own; bring em' on,
Mr.Block.
Tim K
"Mike Block - Tax Cut C.P.A. >" <<mblock...@blocktax.com> wrote in
message news:7ugsmtsnelqspgo88...@4ax.com...
Willem van der Eijk
From a Canadian perspective, an employer has a duty to deduct correct
withholding taxes from his employees, and tax tables change twice a year.
Although I would be able to calculate withholding taxes separately and enter
them onto the payroll preview screens, this would be a waste of precious
time for any but the smallest employers. Tim's so-called date kludge would
make us non-compliant and liable for fines. I find the annual subscription
well worth it.
In addition, having used some other accounting s/w in the past, my personal
preference as a non-accountant is definitely for QB - in my experience it is
the easiest and most comprehensive package around for small businesses.
Tim Kroesen
is in error; I guess this would apply in any country. The FACT is that
ALL versions of the pro99 tax tables including the first one included in
the first iteration of pro99 would be computing my US taxes correctly
today; even the brand new 2001 and a half requirements would be
fulfilled by an over TWO YEAR OLD TABLE in the US (and my state of OH).
In other words the last three mandatory table updates are superfluous
money makers for those in to it and of no benefit to me (and likely
hundreds of thousands of other users) whatsoever for the money.
You should furthermore remember that qb *IS* market specifically for
small businesses BTW; and MOST of those have under Ten employees; so a
date change "kludge" is perfectly reasonable; ESPECIALLY as the number
of employees decreases or the payroll period expands (as in monthly).
You also ignore the fact that extra withholding is easily added within
the program as to cover any recurring imbalance between actual
withholding rates and those of the table used; though unnecessary at
this time. Actual I use this feature to withhold additional amounts
past my basic salary withholding to cover yearly estimated s-Corp
profits on a per check basis.
I'm so glad you're amused by this tax table rip-off Willem...Perhaps you
should drop the soaps and try the cop shows for more satisfaction ...
<g>
Tim K
"Willem van der Eijk" <wvd...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:3B7335FD...@sympatico.ca...
spam is love
the Tax Tables, not a right. You are correct that they are public info, but
Intuit is providing a service and a product - these things cost money. You
don't actually think that you are paying for the tables themselves do you??
What you are paying for is the result of your own laziness. Perform the
calculations yourself, and enter them manually into a paycheck. Keep a timer
running. How much is your time and skill worth? Multiply that by the number
of times you process a paycheck in a year, and tell me you came up with less
than $172.
I dare you :)
<te...@akinli.org> wrote in message news:9k91gr$fot$1...@news.netmar.com...
> In article <9k61lb$jua$1...@news.netmar.com>, <jd...@networkusa.net> writes:
> >Mike, I do not agree with you that QB has satisfied more people. They
out
> >marketed the competition. NO other company markets the way Intuit does,
the
> >others only sell. And now you have alot a people "use to" QB and they
are
> >afraid to change or unwilling. The name Quickbooks is now the same as
> >computer accounting programs, IE: kleenex: Just because you sell the
most
> >doesn't make you the best, I just think the company is lacking in ethics.
>
> I'd agree with that. It's funny that I have this program I got for
> $100, for which I am now forced to buy tax-table updates annually for
roughly
> $100. Federal and state tax tables are public information. I need two
> lines ou of the table but cannot manually enter them. Instead, I am
> FORCED to essentially repurchase my program EVERY year for the roughly 30
> bytes of data I use.
>
> Of course, they justify it by saying, "Well, we're including tax forms,
> et al with that, too." I need none of that, nor the other 99% of the
> tables for that matter. But I have no choice. Switching to another
> software is a major pain, so I keep giving them their extortion money.
>
> So the real price of this software is not $100. In just about ANY real
> application (e.g. any business with payroll), it's actually $100/yr.
>
> -Cengiz
>
> ----- Posted via NewsOne.Net: Free (anonymous) Usenet News via the
eb -----
> http://newsone.net/ -- Free reading and anonymous posting to 60,000+
groups
> NewsOne.Net prohibits users from posting spam. If this or other posts
> made through NewsOne.Net violate posting guidelines, email
ab...@newsone.net
Tim Kroesen
REASON IN CALCULATIONS; they would compute correctly if those in to it
didn't turn off a switch they never used to turn off...I NEEDED NOT,
BUT WAS *FORCED* TO BUY TABLES, as to maintain the program functionality
I already paid for.
Why not let the CUSTOMER decide when they need an update a program...???
GREED!
Tim K
"spam is love" <spam....@spam.com> wrote in message
news:Hd4e7.10075$NB4.2397046093@newssvr15.news.prodigy.com...
spam is love
the package does it say 'Hey, there's payroll calc's in here.' The only
functionality you paid for was the ability to have your machine multiply
rate times hours and give you a gross, and to deduct any amounts YOU enter.
The tax tables are optional. Always have been.
Now, think about this. There are so many people out there using QB that
would call in to support and post in ng's that since they were using out of
date tax tables in QB they got penalties from the IRS and their state dept's
of revenue for being out of compliance, or paying the wrong amounts for
liabs. If you were on the receiveing end of these complaints, what would you
do?? Give the service away? Yeah right. You would say, 'OK, you want ME to
make sure you stay in compliance and you want ME to make sure that you don't
pay penalties for your own laziness? Fine. Then you're gonna have to deal
with mandatory updates to make sure of that, and you're gonna have to pay
for this service too.'
Intuit is an American corporation. America is the definition of capitalism.
Capitalism means money. It also means choice. Quit complaining about the
money and make some. That's what you should be worried about. $172 a year is
peanuts for any business. And if it isn't, then you aren't going to be in
business long enough anyhow.
"Tim Kroesen" <tkro...@nccw.net> wrote in message
news:tnip1e...@corp.supernews.com...
David Smith
news:eHje7.1076$cH2.17...@newssvr15.news.prodigy.com...
| You DID NOT pay for the functionality to begin with though Tim. Nowhere on
| the package does it say 'Hey, there's payroll calc's in here.'
| money and make some. That's what you should be worried about. $172 a year
is
| peanuts for any business. And if it isn't, then you aren't going to be in
| business long enough anyhow.
|
| "Tim Kroesen" <tkro...@nccw.net> wrote in message
Thank God, Spam, somebody else is sick of this chronic complainer as well.
'bout time.
LAter...
David S.
Mike Block - Tax Cut C.P.A. <>
wrote:
>You DID NOT pay for the functionality to begin with though Tim. Nowhere on
>the package does it say 'Hey, there's payroll calc's in here.' The only
>functionality you paid for was the ability to have your machine multiply
>rate times hours and give you a gross, and to deduct any amounts YOU enter.
>The tax tables are optional. Always have been.
>Now, think about this. There are so many people out there using QB that
>would call in to support and post in ng's that since they were using out of
>date tax tables in QB they got penalties from the IRS and their state dept's
>of revenue for being out of compliance, or paying the wrong amounts for
>liabs. If you were on the receiveing end of these complaints, what would you
>do?? Give the service away? Yeah right. You would say, 'OK, you want ME to
>make sure you stay in compliance and you want ME to make sure that you don't
>pay penalties for your own laziness? Fine. Then you're gonna have to deal
>with mandatory updates to make sure of that, and you're gonna have to pay
>for this service too.'
I have no problem with Intuit charging for tables. The program
is a very good buy and the box notice adequately prepares you
for the full disclosure in the in-program help and manual. I
would, however, like to pay more initially for tables that did
not expire (QB5 and earlier, QB6 nagged). The current system of
registering and un-registering wastes far more of our money and
the money of our clients than Intuit gets.
More important, only non-accountants would mention small business
tax penalties because of outdated tax tables. Intuit makes many
such mistakes because it seems to either lack experienced CPAs
in development or does not listen to them.
CPAs all know that social security and medicare rates have not
changed in years. Unemployment rates are set by users. In the
last 40+ years (this issue predates Intuit by 20+ years) I HAVE
NOT EVEN BEEN ABLE TO FIND OR RESEARCH ONE CASE WHERE A SMALL
BUSINESS WAS PENALIZED FOR WITHHOLDING IMPROPERLY!
Businesses are only penalized for withholding tax when it is
not paid timely. This certainly will not change now that IRS
has almost stopped tax audits, unless the founder of Intuit
(who probably still sits on the IRS oversight board) helps get
it changed. You certainly cannot spot withholding mistakes
without audits. In hundreds of tax audits over 40 years (for
years I only did them) I never saw agents check a withholding
tax calculation, much less do so in a small business. Why
should they?
Such errors are self correcting, in that employees get April
15 credit only for the amounts actually withheld (not amounts
that should be withheld). In addition, IRS laws and policies
generally tell agents not to assess tax which will be offset
by compensating adjustments to taxes paid in other periods
or by affiliates.
>Intuit is an American corporation. America is the definition of capitalism.
>Capitalism means money. It also means choice. Quit complaining about the
>money and make some. That's what you should be worried about. $172 a year is
>peanuts for any business. And if it isn't, then you aren't going to be in
>business long enough anyhow.
It is now $129 a year, so it is cheaper to upgrade annually
for only $67 (regular) to $132 (Pro). That is $127 or $212,
less $60 to $80 rebate. Unless you can do better, see
http://www.blocktax.com/affiliates.htm
Clients get my 5% commission.
Mike Block - Tax Cut CPA
Allan Martin
"David Smith" <ke...@execulink.com> wrote in message
news:tnjlls6...@corp.supernews.com...
Here I thought I was the only one that thought he was a troll. If I'm wrong
then he has to get a life. Its getting rather dull reading all of his
moronic whining and crying over having to pay for tax tables. I sell and
support a mid-range line of software and all of my clients that process
payroll subscribe to the annual tax table service and anti up anywhere from
250 to 350 per year for the service. I can't imagine any of them wasting
their time bitching and complaining about the cost on a Usenet. These people
have businesses to run and utilize their time with far more important
endeavors.
> LAter...
>
> David S.
>
>
Tim Kroesen
remember; you once bought it as an extra; later it was _included_ as a
NEW FEATURE of the program. I PAID for a set of tables to base such
calculations on; I EXPECT those calculations to continue based on the
tables I ALREADY PAID FOR USE OF. I furthermore demand that _I_ decide
when the tables I paid for no longer calculate accurately enough for my
use and need an upgrade, not the company SELLING the damn tables; there
is an obvious conflict of interests there picking my pocket ...
Simple enough for you? Get used to the noise gents; I'm not going
anywhere so long as there is a need for OTHER opinions in this group
related to the policies of the s/w discussed here by group charter.
There is a BIG need for such in this group; so sorry if Company Men in
to it don't see it; other plainly do...
(Quoting private e-mail)
> Dear Sir,
> Please forgive me for writing directly to you from the UK.
> Your posts to relevant newsgroups about Quickbooks, and replies to the
> ramblings of M.Block are a joy to read.
> I have experienced the rip-off policies of Intuit and support you
fully.
> It is a shame that your talents are not shared by a wider audience.
> Please keep up the good work.
> from
> ******
Later; QUICKShuckers...
Tim K
"spam is love" <jra...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:eHje7.1076$cH2.17...@newssvr15.news.prodigy.com...
spam is love
> Payroll tax calculation *WAS* optional Sir; they called it QUICKPay;
> remember; you once bought it as an extra; later it was _included_ as a
> NEW FEATURE of the program. I PAID for a set of tables to base such
> calculations on; I EXPECT those calculations to continue based on the
> tables I ALREADY PAID FOR USE OF. I furthermore demand that _I_ decide
> when the tables I paid for no longer calculate accurately enough for my
> use and need an upgrade, not the company SELLING the damn tables; there
> is an obvious conflict of interests there picking my pocket ...
Sorry Tim, but they ARE optional. The payroll feature in QB is an entirely
optional portion of the program. You don't have to use it at all. The tables
are another optional portion as well. The only tax table that was included
in previous versions of QB was a ONE TIME free tax table update.
> Simple enough for you? Get used to the noise gents; I'm not going
> anywhere so long as there is a need for OTHER opinions in this group
> related to the policies of the s/w discussed here by group charter.
> There is a BIG need for such in this group; so sorry if Company Men in
> to it don't see it; other plainly do...
I for one would NEVER expect you to leave. You have every right to put forth
your opinion on any matter you wish. More power to you. We are all human,
and all have the right to express our feelings about what is going on with
QB (and anything else in the world for that matter...)
I actually think that this forum would be a piece of shit if we all praised
QB in every post. I'm just trying to clear up some misinformation that I see
posted here. Hell, you never know, maybe I'm the misinformant (not likely
though :). In any case, we're all bound to disagree with each other at some
point, and hopefully we'll all get a better understanding from the
discussions.
Tim Kroesen
payroll table function; when it was an add on AND when I paid to
upgraded to a qb program that now included it in base function, touted
as new included feature... Those tables NEVER CEASED CALCULATION
FUNCTION IN THE PAST; it was MY choice and responsibility in the past to
decide when I needed new ones; all was well and I had what I paid for;
calculations based on the tables I paid for.
Splain me this huge change in policy today; save it makes tremendously
more money for those in to it as a table "upgrade" is CLEARLY NOT
NECESSARY EVERY YEAR FROM A CALCULATION STANDPOINT; WE DIDN'T NEED THE
LAST THREE IN THE US TO MAINTAIN CORRECT ENOUGH ACCOUNTING TO AVOID IRS
PENALTY... BUT YOU GET JAMMED FOR THEM ANYWAY AT A COST GREATER THAN YOU
LIKELY PAID FOR THE *WHOLE* PROGRAM TO BEGIN WITH...
Sorry; I was hoping volume helped to see the obvious chicanery... <g>
Tim K
"spam is love" <jra...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:8QGe7.2582$pd4.44...@newssvr15.news.prodigy.com...
spam is love
Look, the tax tables in past versions always got killed on February 15th of
the year following the tax table's release. So your point about them never
ceasing calculation in the past is invalid.
And the change in policy? Again, if people called you all the time
complaining that you didn't keep them up to date on something, when it's
THEIR resposibility to do so in the first place, would you not be forced to
respond?? You obviously give away a lot of services/products to your
customers, or you would agree with Intuit's choice on this.
Or, maybe your product/service is so good that you don't ever get complaints
(is anyone's?) . And on this topic, what industry are you in? This may clear
up some of the smoke you are blowing.
"Tim Kroesen" <tkro...@nccw.net> wrote in message
news:tnmhiie...@corp.supernews.com...
David Smith
Tim's issue is that he believes the program's payroll functionality should
continue without updated tables. For example Computer Associates "Simply
Accounting" (at least in Canada) will continue to do paycheques with
outdated tax tables and will warn you of this before each paycheque is
printed. It also has a manual mode for entering whatever deductions you wish
on the paycheque.
Intuits claim that they could be held liable for withholding deficiencies
because of out dated tables, thus no functionality without subscription, I
think is a red herring.
There is a range of value placed on QB payroll in the US with Tim at the one
extreme (value 0) and the several recent posters that think $1,000 US for
3-4 employees on payroll deluxe is worth it. Most see it as a cost of doing
business (very small) and get on with it.
QB Tax table subscription in Canada is very cheap at $60 CDN ($40 US) by
internet or $70 ($47 US) by sent disk.
Later...
David S>
spam is love
method of getting tables. I haven't seen a copy of QB Canada since 4.5.
I don't completely disagree with Tim. Intuit could certainly improve the
customer's experience a bit. But the one thing I surely do disagree with is
the cheating he employs. The human race is so screwed up with cheating and
lying and [insert societal problem here], that it makes me wonder how some
people get along in life at all.
I'm not trying to make it sound like I have the answer for everything (sorry
if it seems that way), I'm not that egotistical. It is just hard to not
respond to him. I know I cannot change his view, but I can show him mine,
and hope that he sees where I'm coming from.
I agree that Intuit is throwing a red herring. It is not their
responsibility to baby sit their users. They are probably just so sick and
tired of all the people that waste their time, and support rep's resources,
bitching about the tax table issue. Was their choice about how to handle the
situation the best one to make? Probably not. But, you live and you learn.
Get my drift?
"David Smith" <ke...@execulink.com> wrote in message
news:tnmopvh...@corp.supernews.com...
Mike Block - Tax Cut C.P.A. <>
marked box that says the entire program will expire in one
year or on a certain date. The only upgrade should be to the
new version.
On Thu, 16 Aug 2001 06:27:17 GMT, "spam is love" <jra...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
Mike Block - Tax Cut CPA
Tim Kroesen
BOTH know that pro99 is NOT labeled as such... Nor did ANY of the
previous versions quit calculations based on the tables that you already
paid for.
Spammy; you're BILLOWING SMOKE here! Just like the MONEY TRAIN those in
to it are riding over our backs... <g>
BTW Spammy; I'm so dumb I never needed to pay for product support; never
paid IRS penalties; never had a single accounting problem of
importance... Check yourself before you wreck yourself by further
intimating that I'm a thief; I FULLY PAID for the accounting s/w (and
it's built in tables) that I'm using. Changing dated on any transaction
is ALLOWED by DESIGN; my system clock is EXCLUDED from mention in my
s/w license.
Part of MY 'live and learn" is to NEVER voluntarily allow MYSELF TO BE
CHEATED... It just isn't a cost effective way to run a small
business...
Tim K
"Mike Block - Tax Cut C.P.A. >" <<mblock...@blocktax.com> wrote in
message news:t8mnntc16ih2puo1a...@4ax.com...
spam is love
you'll never be able to let your mind think clearly on this subject. You
ignore most of what I post, then regurgitate yourself over and over.
You whine about an imaginary past, and don't fully understand the present
state of things.
You don't understand computing, and don't deserve to use a computer. You are
the infamous 'luser'. Hell, you're the definition of luser.
I would suggest then, that you throw away QB and think about a different
solution. Excel comes to mind. And if you've already got that installed,
everything else is free. Free is what you're looking for, right? That's
seems to go without saying. Hell, here's an idea, throw your machine out the
window and do everything on paper, you probably won't be satisfied until
then anyway.
"Tim Kroesen" <tkro...@nccw.net> wrote in message
news:tno6vob...@corp.supernews.com...
spam is love
QB. Why would the entire program expire?
"Mike Block - Tax Cut C.P.A. >" <<mblock...@blocktax.com> wrote in
message news:t8mnntc16ih2puo1a...@4ax.com...
Tim Teichman
asked to.
QuickBooks has a Manual mode, too.
Tim
"David Smith" <ke...@execulink.com> wrote in message
news:tnmopvh...@corp.supernews.com...
>
David Smith
news:Yw0f7.7729$HA3.2...@news.pacbell.net...
| A subscriber doesn't have to update every 45 days with QB2001. You're
only
| asked to.
| QuickBooks has a Manual mode, too.
Yes, but does it work without a subscription? That is the point with SA -you
can look the deductions up in the paper tax table book.
Later.....
David S>
Teracyte
You know it's amazing. Reading this thread from top to bottom and still no
one gets it. Everyone's focused on their particular problem. No one person
has taken the time to think about what the problem means, rather then what
it's doing for them.
Everyone's a victim. Few provide intellegent explainations.
Do you really think that Intuit wants to tick you off? There was talk
previously about how Intuit holds it's market share because of its marketing
campain. Think about it. With tens of millions of users signed up in the
USA alone, that would mean that every month those millions would decide that
QB's is a bad product and move on to something else; and at the same time,
ten's of millions perchase the product; maintaining Intuits market share.
Come on. That's a turn over rate similar to when Micorsoft releases a new
version of Windows - and how long do those numbers last for them? This must
be the explaination why Intuit has been so far ahead of the competition for
years (not!).
IE is an intregral part of Windows, like it or not. Netscape is a
struggling company. 80-90% of users today use IE. What descision do you
think Intuit is going to make? The vast majority of the public has decided
to use IE (for whatever reason). Admit it. You'd be ticked-off if they
decided to use Netscape instead.
What about using the browser of your choice? Sure its possible. Let me ask
you this, when is the last time you created a website? If you have done so,
you're aware of the differences between all web browsers. If you're not,
you can go to another newsgroup on HTML development and see for yourself.
Just getting your web page to display the same way in ALL browsers is a
nightmare and imposible. Most designers select the top 4 browsers and
design their page for these. Even then, we're just talking general layout
and javascript. Forget about anything dynamic like DHTML, Java Servets,
HTML forms, etc; Anything with enough power to give the user a feature or
system that will help them manage their business.
You do not know what you're asking when you say "I wanna use the browser of
my choice". When you say that, you ignore that Intuit employes at all
levels are computer users. Do you think they all love Microsoft and IE? If
they are going to build something, don't you think it makes good business
sense to use what likely already on the users machine and in common use; For
better or for worse.
With that note, don't you think that there are a number of Intuit employees
that use their own products? Do you think they arn't conserned about their
privacy when they use QuickTax, Quicken, or QuickBooks? Obviously not,
right? They must enjoy sending their information out in to oblivion. Who
cares. It just my personal security right? Intuit must LOVE this!
At least, many people in this newsgroup seem to think that's the way Intuit
opperates. I wonder how many of them own a business that distributes a
desktop product to people across the globe?
FYI to the wise: You always hear about the handful of people who have a
chip on their shoulder, you never hear from the millions of others who have
an uneventful day.
My 2 cents. Take it or leave it.
"Ranny Meier" <Ra...@RespMech.com> wrote in message
news:utEbRQiH...@rmsv06.resmec.net...
Tim Kroesen
Of course I knew you were a Troll BTW; the handle says it all... <g>
Tim K
"spam is love" <jra...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:tTXe7.3844$Ot3.57...@newssvr15.news.prodigy.com...
Tim Teichman
pay, you get calcs until Feb 15 of the following year.
Even if you do pay, you don't **have** to update.
Tim
"David Smith" <ke...@execulink.com> wrote in message
news:tnpam4i...@corp.supernews.com...
David Smith
have for QB manual mode to work. I believe you need a payroll subscription
whether trial or not.
--
-
"Tim Teichman" <tim_te...@innocent.com.delete.spam.trap> wrote in message
news:4Bkf7.2847$Vs2.2...@news.pacbell.net...
Mike Block - Tax Cut C.P.A. <>
wrote:
>You still didn't answer the question. The question was what do you have to
>have for QB manual mode to work. I believe you need a payroll subscription
>whether trial or not.
If you ever had tax tables and you back date your system
clock to a time when your tables worked (before you open
QB) the tables will work again. If you then change the
transactions to the current date the tax will not change.
If you forger to immediately change back the system clock
and exit & enter QB you may enter many transactions with
dates that are years old. These will appear missing, as
they are way up (in date order) in your checking account
register, which is why I really think this is a very bad
thing to do.
Regardless of whether you ever had payroll tables (you
Internet subscribe free to get them in 2001), there is
nothing to stop you from using regular checks, with
manually computed split amounts, as payroll checks. You
can even make them memorized transactions that repeat as
often as you like. This is a better idea if you feel you
cannot afford the tables, do not want a QB computer on
the Internet or feel buying tables is contrary to your
principles.
In either event, QB reports can give you the information
needed to manually prepare payroll tax forms because you
may not be able to use the forms in QB. Forms can be
quickly downloaded from IRS.
Tim Kroesen
works just fine; now even confirm it works on much more current versions
than pro99.
Give us users some credit for being able to follow simple instructions
to this task at hand and change their system date back when done doing
payroll; no worries Mike; we're experienced users... <g>
Simple procedure:
Change system date, start qb and write payroll using old date, exit qb.
Change system date back, start qb and EDIT the checks you just wrote.
Big Deal, eh...
; - ) Tim K
<Tax Table Fee Cutting QB Pundit Saving Millions, Billions>
"Mike Block - Tax Cut C.P.A. >" <<mblock...@blocktax.com> wrote in
message news:enusnts6r2rfqmivl...@4ax.com...
Mike Block - Tax Cut C.P.A. <>
wrote:
>SO; as you concede once again this method to avoid tax table rip-off
>works just fine; now even confirm it works on much more current versions
>than pro99.
>
>Give us users some credit for being able to follow simple instructions
>to this task at hand and change their system date back when done doing
>payroll; no worries Mike; we're experienced users... <g>
>
>Simple procedure:
>Change system date, start qb and write payroll using old date, exit qb.
>Change system date back, start qb and EDIT the checks you just wrote.
>Big Deal, eh...
How many reasons must QB professionals give for our widely
held (and probably universal) belief that the QuickBooks tax
table date kludge (setting the system date back to re-enable
expired tax tables) is a stupid waste of time and money?
I NEVER said the kludge did not work. To the contrary, I was
one of many QB6 and QB99 pre-release testers who set our
system clock back & forth to try this on our test copies.
Fortunately for users, before you got your copies QB fixed
bugs I found in winning both #1 Top Tester prizes.
The key point is the date kludge does not work JUST FINE!
You long ago got many good reasons for not using the kludge
from many experienced users and QB professionals. I recently
gave you still more reasons and will now add many more
conclusive ones.
My recent reasons is included the FACT that QB professionals
like us have probably SEEN HUNDREDS OF CASES WHERE QB USERS
IMPROPERLY ENTERED UP TO 100 BACK DATED TRANSACTIONS after
setting back the system clock or otherwise entering a date
in an earlier year. This often resulted in transactions
being double and triple entered and consultants having to
make expensive changes.
You deride QB professionals who recommend against the date
kludge as if we want to waste client money on updates. To
the contrary, it is precisely because we try to save them
money we recommend against it. No QB professional I know
makes money when clients upgrade tax tables or do not
upgrade them. We rarely install QB upgrades for experienced
users. To the contrary, we all charge when we must correct
major errors like the ones that often result from improper
application of the kludge.
All QB professionals I know have long been aware of the kludge,
but rarely if ever use it. If we wanted to increase billable
time we might all recommend it, as it surely increases the
chance of extra fix-up work. However, none of us does so. This
reflects our fiduciary (trustee) obligation to clients, that
requires us to place their interests ahead of our own. It also
reflects a desire to help them stay efficient and profitable,
so they keep using us. The date kludge works so badly that
most would probably say that recommending it would be a good
way to get ourselves sued for professional malpractice.
NOW FOR SOME OF MANY OTHER REASONS WE HAVE FOR RECOMMENDING
AGAINST THE KLUDGE. Here are even more new ways in which it
wastes time and money and produces FATAL tax computation
errors.
It wastes time because IT TAKES EXTRA TIME TO USE THE KLUDGE
than it does to not use it. I use a rather fast P3-700 with
256m main memory at home. I confirmed the wasted time with a
tiny test file with no 1999 entries. I set the system date
back two years, entered QB99, created and recorded a paycheck
and found the entry in my check register (I could not change
the entry date before recording). I then edited it to move
both paycheck and pay period dates forward 2 years (with the
required calendar, as I would not print a
check with two year old dates), recorded the change, printed
the check and exited QB. I then reset the system date ahead
two years and entered QB again.
Despite 9 years of substantial full time QB experience, this
cost me more than an extra minute, compared to entering a
check with a current tax table. If a typical user did this
he would have to find his backdated checks mixed in with
hundreds of real 1999 transactions. Few users know how to
use or actually so use the find function (^F), so finding
and re-dating of the checks could easily increase the extra
time wasted to more than 5 minutes. Multiply by 52 weeks to
see that the date kludge wastes a minimum of 4+ hours a year
for the average user.
A second or third employees will substantially increase time
wasted, but not double or triple it. You also may waste two
hours a year by not having QB print on current tax forms. If
IRS rejects non-cutrrent forms it takes much more time. This
means AN AVERAGE ONE-EMPLOYEE USER CAN EASILY DIRECTLY WASTE
6+ HOURS ON THE DATE KLUDGE A YEAR. They really waste many
times this amount by not using the countless time saving
features of QB2001. If you use Norton AntiVirus or other
date sensitive programs then the repeated use of the kludge
is likely to time out updates to these programs.
QB99 date kludge users also WASTEs FAR MORE MONEY THAN
THE COST OF UPGRADES. They do not benefit from better
business management tools. They also waste lots of extra
money on accountants. Again, this is something informed QB
professionals tell clients, though it may seem like we will
want them to pay us lots of extra money. This is because QB
professionals work far faster and more efficiently if we tend
to specialize in the latest QB version. We also minimize the
chance of expensive mistake if we upgrade a client file to a
new version and return a file the client cannot use. We do
reports faster due to far better menus and batch (multiple)
report processing. We integrate with the current version of
TurboTax, which we cannot do with old versions. That is why
we gave clients a written guarantee that QB2001 would save
them more than its cost on our fee right after we completed
beta tests.We may have been unique in making this guarantee.
However, lots of CPA work is billed based on time and 2001
time would be less.
THE KLUGE CAUSES FATAL TAX ERRORS. These are not withholding
errors, which I always loudly said were not relevant because
government agencies do not bother small business for them.
They are serious because they are related to the immediately
obvious fact that current and year to date payroll on the
kludge checks are the same. This means that a kludged QB99
check will not limit unemployment, social security and similar
tax withheld or accrued based on applicable annual limits.
These types of mistakes screw up your balance sheet, profit
and loss statement and management decisions. They also are
the type of mistakes that government agencies ARE SURE TO
NOTICE unless you make manual corrections before filing tax
returns. This means that you waste more time to not make
the same mistake that QB made or you pay more taxes and
then must waste more time on government tax notices.
This is all so stupid. My website Affiliate page shows you
can get QuickBooks 2001 for $63 to $125, including a year
of tax tables. Others have lower prices, as I recently saw
QB Pro for $75.
You run a business and occasionally spend some time with QB.
People like me spend 40+ hours a week supervising and helping
many novice to highly experienced QB users, directly and with
other part and full time QB professionals. As QB professionals
we are constantly trying to improve our procedures to cut costs
and increase accuracy for ourselves and our clients. We do not
think the date kludge is bad. We know it is ridiculous waste
of time and money.
If you never make a mistake setting back and restoring your
system clock then you can use the kludge. However, I pity you
if your time is worth so little that this saves you money. I
also pity you because it looks like you are only persisting
with this because it is one of the only worthwhile things
you think you created. Most of all, I pity you because it
looks like you were incapable of effectively reading a very
clear QB tax table box warning and related in-program help.
It makes me wonder what other business documents you cannot
effectively read, including perhaps the QB date when you should
turn it back.
Tim Teichman
Tim
"David Smith" <ke...@execulink.com> wrote in message
news:tnrq6ok...@corp.supernews.com...
Allan Martin
The point you are missing is one of human nature. There are those people
that are so convinced in their ways that no amount of logic and reasoning
can sway them. In any event it is hard to believe that any QB payroll user
that refused to purchase tax updates or at the very least upgrade QB once a
year for the nominal cost would ever consider paying a QB consultant for
their advice. As a matter of fact who would want them as clients to begin
with?
I remember one of my first consulting engagements many years back. A client
of the firm I was working for at the time hired us to install and train them
on a full suite of accounting packages. The cost of the system ran them in
excess of $25,000. Two years after the installation I was at the client site
for an unrelated matter and noticed that they were doing a bank
reconciliation and each of the 1,500 plus checks that came back with the
statement were hand written. When I asked the VP of the company (the son of
the principle owner) if there was something wrong with the accounting system
that required the checks to be hand written. His reply was that just prior
to installing the system, they got a great deal on manual check stock and
purchased several years worth. There is no way, he said, that they were
going to waste money by not using up all of these checks before purchasing
computer checks that could be used by the system.
The VP handled payables for the company and wrote each check himself and
then manually entered the check into the accounting system. I might add that
he was drawing a salary in excess of 250,000 per year. One must know when to
hold them and when to fold them. In this case I smiled, nodded my head in
approval and walked out without saying a word.
Perhaps its time to put this outdated discussion concerning QB tax tables to
rest and move on the far more important issues.
"Mike Block - Tax Cut C.P.A. >" <<mblock...@blocktax.com> wrote in
message news:lkevnts20isujnq0o...@4ax.com...
Mike Block - Tax Cut C.P.A. <>
<accp...@optonline.net> wrote:
>Mike
>
>The point you are missing is one of human nature. There are those people
>that are so convinced in their ways that no amount of logic and reasoning
>can sway them. In any event it is hard to believe that any QB payroll user
>that refused to purchase tax updates or at the very least upgrade QB once a
>year for the nominal cost would ever consider paying a QB consultant for
>their advice. As a matter of fact who would want them as clients to begin
>with?
>
He said before his CPA did quarterly taxes. That probably means
his CPA only uses QB for needed information and does not update
the erroneous data in his files. I question whether this common
practice is not malpractice, in that it knowingly perpetuates
bad information used in future management decisions.
>I remember one of my first consulting engagements many years back. A client
>of the firm I was working for at the time hired us to install and train them
>on a full suite of accounting packages. The cost of the system ran them in
>excess of $25,000. Two years after the installation I was at the client site
>for an unrelated matter and noticed that they were doing a bank
>reconciliation and each of the 1,500 plus checks that came back with the
>statement were hand written. When I asked the VP of the company (the son of
>the principle owner) if there was something wrong with the accounting system
>that required the checks to be hand written. His reply was that just prior
>to installing the system, they got a great deal on manual check stock and
>purchased several years worth. There is no way, he said, that they were
>going to waste money by not using up all of these checks before purchasing
>computer checks that could be used by the system.
>
>The VP handled payables for the company and wrote each check himself and
>then manually entered the check into the accounting system. I might add that
>he was drawing a salary in excess of 250,000 per year. One must know when to
>hold them and when to fold them. In this case I smiled, nodded my head in
>approval and walked out without saying a word.
>
I have gone near berserk internally over such client statements many
times. However, I always honored my perceived professional obligation
to set them straight after I calmed down (or almost calmed down).
>Perhaps its time to put this outdated discussion concerning QB tax tables to
>rest and move on the far more important issues.
>
It is time for some new pages on my web site, so short standard
messages may stop him from repeatedly hurting others with his
nonsense.
Tim Kroesen
There is no calculation reason why date setback doesn't work PERFECTLY;
you keep harping on USER mistakes of not setting the date right again.
That is a BS trip around the point that the kludge does indeed work
perfectly; for any CLEAR MINDED ENOUGH TO PERFORM THE SIMPLE TASK AT
HAND. So you found some idiots that couldn't follow simple
instructions... that's why we have qb ' advisors' now isn't it. HELL;
one of you even SELLS VARIOUS QB KLUDGES ON HIS PERSONAL SITE!
Back to ALL THE TIME it takes to do the workaround; it isn't doodley for
a small number of paychecks; MY time less than a minute a month to
PERFORM the actual kludge ITSELF; which is setting the date on your
computer TWICE (at start and midpoint) then editing the date only on
payroll checks just written. All other Payroll relayed time is the SAME
even if you have current tables! So maybe 15 minutes a year to save a
couple hundred bucks for MY small business; and perhaps hundreds of
thousands of others...
BUT your boys in to it don't make a buck so you don't endorse it...use
the problems of those that can't follow SIMPLE instructions as example
to all supposed competent users not to do what FUNCTIONALLY WORKS
PERFECTLY if you're FOCUSED ENOUGH TO CHANGE THE DATE ON YOUR SYSTEM A
FEW TIMES ALONG WITH THE CHECKS YOU JUST WROTE. Who here will admit to
being unable to FOCUS AND COMPLETE such a simple task; while otherwise
bantering picayune or technical oddities of this complicated s/w here?
This kludge has the potential to save more users in unnecessary s/w
update costs than all your boasted customers tax 'savings' combined.
None here have documented ANY TAX SAVINGS qb supplies over PROPERLY
APPLIED LEDGER PAPER; yet recommend every costly update that comes along
for THIS s/w; while MOST of you are in business and DIRECTLY making
money off use of the product and ancillary services
Does anyone see a conflict of interests here between such advice and
professional accounting responsibility to the client; let alone the
PUBLIC you address on Usenet??
Tim K
"Allan Martin" <accp...@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:_XSf7.28872$ZV5.5...@news02.optonline.net...
> Mike
>
> The point you are missing is one of human nature. There are those
people
> that are so convinced in their ways that no amount of logic and
reasoning
> can sway them.
PS: Does that shoe fit YOU Sir?
Allan Martin
True but you are a CPA by profession not a shrink. In any event what do you
say to a client that insisted on doing a print screen after entering
information in any field during a training session? There you are watching
this dot-matrix printer slowly spitting out hundreds of useless screen
captures. Do you ask them for mercy? Help! I'm dehydrating from all this
crying.
Tim Kroesen
kludge works PERFECTLY and you know it. More deference from reality Mr.
Block? All my CPA requires of qb on my part is a printed report of
quarterly payroll activity; he doesn't run the program, nor needs to.
I also feel my CPA offers more competent advice than you do Mr. Block;
you know nothing of my business OR my CPA's advice to comment on such.
Of course you do anyway in yet another attempt to discredit what I say
regarding unnecessary but required tax table updates; and how to NOT PAY
FOR WHAT YOU DON'T WANT OR NEED.
Tim K
"Mike Block - Tax Cut C.P.A. >" <<mblock...@blocktax.com> wrote in
message news:qc40ot41n7f6e2lsj...@4ax.com...
scoffer
bullshit - and you are full of it.
You talk about honesty?? I remember you - you are the oh so ethical
electrical contractor that charges Master Electrician Rates for an
Apprentices work. Go blow smoke up someone else's ass, kroesen, you will
NEVER EVER get another dime of my money - and when these people here start
looking for someone to sue because you screwed them up, you can be damned
sure they will have your address and contact info as the snake oil salesman
who is pushing this crap.
"Tim Kroesen" <tkro...@nccw.net> wrote in message
news:to07dsd...@corp.supernews.com...
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
Check out our new Unlimited Server. No Download or Time Limits!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! ==-----
Tim Kroesen
Sure got you all Lit Up like a Christmas Tree though, Numbnuts... <g>
Yet another BS attempt to personally discredit anyone who won't kow-tow
to those in to it... Ya ' gotta wonder who this loser troll is in
reality...
Someone's gonna' Sue me over Usenet advice offered in good
faith...<hehehe> Now I'm a "scoffer"... <bwahahaha>
; - ) Tim K
"scoffer" <sco...@newsfeeds.com> wrote in message
news:3b808...@goliath.newsgroups.com...
Tim Kroesen
use...
Tim K
From: "scoffer" <sco...@newsfeeds.com>
Newsgroups: alt.comp.software.financial.quickbooks
References: <tnlb74j...@corp.supernews.com>
<8QGe7.2582$pd4.44...@newssvr15.news.prodigy.com>
<tnmhiie...@corp.supernews.com>
<_7Je7.2675$nh2.46...@newssvr15.news.prodigy.com>
<tnmopvh...@corp.supernews.com>
<Yw0f7.7729$HA3.2...@news.pacbell.net>
<tnpam4i...@corp.supernews.com>
<4Bkf7.2847$Vs2.2...@news.pacbell.net>
<tnrq6ok...@corp.supernews.com>
<enusnts6r2rfqmivl...@4ax.com>
<tntc9jo...@corp.supernews.com>
<lkevnts20isujnq0o...@4ax.com>
<_XSf7.28872$ZV5.5...@news02.optonline.net>
<to07dsd...@corp.supernews.com>
Subject: Re: Is Quickbooks the most disgusting software?
Date: Sun, 19 Aug 2001 20:54:06 -0700
Lines: 68
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4522.1200
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200
Message-ID: <3b808...@goliath.newsgroups.com>
X-Authenticated-User: bozo666
X-Comments: This message was posted through Newsfeeds.com
X-Comments2: IMPORTANT: Newsfeeds.com does not condone, nor support,
spam or any illegal or copyrighted postings.
X-Comments3: IMPORTANT: Under NO circumstances will postings containing
illegal or copyrighted material through this service be tolerated!!
X-Report: Please report illegal or inappropriate use to
<ab...@newsfeeds.com> You may also use our online abuse reporting from:
http://www.newsfeeds.com/abuseform.htm
X-Abuse-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers, INCLUDING
the body (DO NOT SEND ATTACHMENTS)
Organization: Usenet.com - #1 Newsgroups service on the planet! -
http://www.Usenet.com
Path:
sn-us!sn-xit-03!supernews.com!newsswitch.lcs.mit.edu!news-spur1.maxwell.
syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!news.stealth.net!feed.textport.net!local-ou
t2.newsfeeds.com!news.usenet.com
Xref: sn-us alt.comp.software.financial.quickbooks:7488
"scoffer" <sco...@newsfeeds.com> wrote in message
news:3b808...@goliath.newsgroups.com...
Mike Block - Tax Cut C.P.A. <>
wrote:
>WHAT LOGIC; just more OFF the point deference...
>
>There is no calculation reason why date setback doesn't work PERFECTLY;
You are, once again, PROVING you cannot read. You are also proving
you cannot multiply. You confirmed exactly what I said about this
taking an extra minute per paycheck for a user with a small test
file. That is apparently all your business needs. For the many of
the real businesses that QB professionals handle, 5+ minutes a
week would be more like it (due to the need to find back dated
transactions among hundreds or thousands of other 1999 entries).
You then prove you have a tiny business when you say it takes you
a minute a month. That means you so not pay weekly, which is most
common for small businesses, and have no other employees. For real
businesses the extra minute is multiplied by 52 weeks a year. not
12, to get the 260 minutes I called 4 hours.
You previously said you had a CPA do your payroll taxes, which
means you waste far more dollars than the extra 30+ wasted minutes
I calculated, because many QB users save this money by having QB
do payroll tax forms. You also probably did not factor in the
likelihood of tripping Norton AntiVirus tables and other date
related software this way because you are not properly protected
against viruses. That means what I think is a probable pathetic
business may soon lose its QB file and other computer records.
These larger files are examples of the hundreds of files that we,
as QB professionals, work on each year. For marginal businesses,
like the one you apparently have, CPAs who want to save clients
money do not have owners enter any payroll checks. We also report
payroll only once a year, so we do not waste client money on
either tax tables or CPA fees for quarterly tax returns.
Other QB professional I know help thousands of such users and all
recommend against the date kludge because our clients collectively
have made tens of thousands of mistakes by back dating entries,
including many mistakes made PRECISELY BECAUSE THEY TRIED TO USE
THIS DATE KLUDGE. I know, you say it never happened to you, but
that only means that you are probably not aware of it happening.
FAR MORE IMPORTANT, you could not read the difference between
the old reasons I summarized and the completely new one I gave
as to why NO QB PROFESSIONAL I RECOMMENDS THE KLUDGE.
YOUR QB BOOKS ARE ALMOST SURELY SCREWED UP BY IMPROPER TAX
CALCULATIONS unless you make less than $7,000 a year, which
seems increasingly likely. Any company doing this would have
ridiculously screwed up books if the owner made more than
about $70,000 a year. That because every check done this way
shows, RIGHT IN THE PAYROLL DETAIL WINDOW, that year-to-date
payroll is the same as current payroll. This shows QB IS
ABSOLUTELY GUARANTEED TO CALCULATE EXTRA UNEMPLOYMENT TAX ON
WAGES OF MORE THAN $7,000 A YEAR. It will calculate extra
state disability or other taxes will annual limits and extra
workers comp insurance on wages of more than 15,000+ a year,
depending on state. It will calculate lots of extra social
security tax on wages of more than about $70,000 a year.
THIS MEANS YOUR CPA WASTES TIME MANUALLY RUNNING REPORTS OR
ADDING NUMBERS, instead of being able to use QB calculated
amounts, unless you make less than $7,000 a year. It also
means that he probably either does not bother to adjust the
extra taxes accrued in you tax liability & expense accounts
(which can result in your making bad management decisions)
or wastes time in correcting your errors.
If you cannot understand how these improper tax calculations
apply to you, as I suspect, I CHALLENGE YOU TO LET ME EXPLAIN
THEM TO YOUR CPA WITHOUT CHARGE. IT SHOULD ONLY TAKE A MINUTE
(call 954-566-7540) and I will gladly pay for his time.
>BUT your boys in to it don't make a buck so you don't endorse it...use
>the problems of those that can't follow SIMPLE instructions as example
>to all supposed competent users not to do what FUNCTIONALLY WORKS
>PERFECTLY if you're FOCUSED ENOUGH TO CHANGE THE DATE ON YOUR SYSTEM A
>FEW TIMES ALONG WITH THE CHECKS YOU JUST WROTE. Who here will admit to
>being unable to FOCUS AND COMPLETE such a simple task; while otherwise
>bantering picayune or technical oddities of this complicated s/w here?
>
>This kludge has the potential to save more users in unnecessary s/w
>update costs than all your boasted customers tax 'savings' combined.
>None here have documented ANY TAX SAVINGS qb supplies over PROPERLY
>APPLIED LEDGER PAPER; yet recommend every costly update that comes along
>for THIS s/w; while MOST of you are in business and DIRECTLY making
>money off use of the product and ancillary services
>
>Does anyone see a conflict of interests here between such advice and
>professional accounting responsibility to the client; let alone the
>PUBLIC you address on Usenet??
>
You are again proving that you did not read my post, as you proved
that you did not read the QB box label and related in program help
about the tax table. I told you that all QB professionals I knew
recommended against the this kludge BECAUSE WE WERE TRYING TO SAVE
CLIENTS MONEY & INCREASE THE ACCURACY OF THEIR RECORDS. I also said
that none charged for tax table or QB version updates installed by
clients. I further explained that updated versions would cut the
time we spent on jobs and our related fees, but we tended to suggest
them to save clients time and the money they would otherwise pay us.
I also explained why we did this even though recommending the kludge
would definitely tend to increase the fees we can charge for fixing
the occasional errors most of us have already seen caused by the
date kludge.
Therefore, our training and professional ethics made many CPAs, in
different states, who have never met or expressly discussed this
specific ethical problem, all instinctively resolve our conflict
in favor of he interest of our clients. We did this even though
their interest was seemingly in conflict with our interest in
getting more money from them.
Perhaps I could have made this clearer if I said that it was in
the interest of all CPAs that we help save money for our clients,
as we all try to do whenever practical, even if it cuts our fees.
That is one of the many ways we prove we care about them whenever
we care. It also is the only ethical, legal and ultimately
profitable way that we can work.
By the way, it is in your own selfish interest not to try to get
others to use this method. This is my opinion, the opinion of all
the other QB professionals with whom I discussed this and the
opinion of QB employees I often email and occasionally call. That
is because we all think QB has a clear right, under the Software
License Agreement we Accept to install, to terminate your license
to use QB at all. We all have no doubt the date kludge violates
your limited license to use the tax tables, so QB can revoke your
license to use the entire program. QB actually does not need to
give a reason for termination, so it could decide to terminate
your license based on your frequent libel or for no reason at
all.
It is unlikely that QB would terminate your use of the entire
program, but it would be child's play for an update to detect
the kludge and permanently disable related tables. If you ever
got more than a few people to use this method I have no doubt
this would be done, though I think it is pathetically unlikely.
I could discuss with QB's beta department, but your persistence
probably means that they have already seriously considered this.
So keep it up if you want to insure this result. The more you
libel them and the more people you get to blindly follow you,
despite the time and money they waste, the more likely it will
be that QB will protect all of you from hurting yourself with
a program you obviously do not understand and clearly cannot
be trusted to use properly.
David Smith
| means you waste far more dollars than the extra 30+ wasted minutes
| I calculated, because many QB users save this money by having QB
| do payroll tax forms.
Mike, that nails Tim right there, he wont spend $10 month for the payroll
tax update. But is willing to spend hundreds of dollars on a CPA to prepare
forms 4 times per year.
Later...
Tim Kroesen
"Mike Block - Tax Cut C.P.A. >" <<mblock...@blocktax.com> wrote in
message news:k711ots452308pk9b...@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 19 Aug 2001 16:11:21 -0400, "Tim Kroesen" <tkro...@nccw.net>
> wrote:
>
> >WHAT LOGIC; just more OFF the point deference...
> >
> >There is no calculation reason why date setback doesn't work
PERFECTLY;
>
> You are, once again, PROVING you cannot read. You are also proving
> you cannot multiply. You confirmed exactly what I said about this
> taking an extra minute per paycheck for a user with a small test
> file. That is apparently all your business needs. For the many of
> the real businesses that QB professionals handle, 5+ minutes a
> week would be more like it (due to the need to find back dated
> transactions among hundreds or thousands of other 1999 entries). ]
Christ in a Pieshell; Mr. Block; don't you think that I WOULD
SPECIFICALLY SET A BACKDATE ON THE SYS AND CHECK THAT I COULD REMEMBER ;
LIKE JAN 1: furthermore remember it for the LESS THAN ONE MINUTES it
takes to close qb a, reset sys date and reopen qb; I know where to look
in the register; it's NEVER taken more than SECONDS to find a check;
SECONDS TO EDIT; ALL IS NOW RIGHT! If it takes you more than a few
SECONDS to set your computer date you're in the wrong end of the
business; back to ledger paper for you... <g> LESS THAN A MINUTE PER
MONTH AS I STATE FOR TWO PAYS OF THREE CHECKS EACH! THE CHECKS ARE OF
COURSE WRITTEN ON THE SAME BACKDATE AND RESIDE RIGHT NEXT TO EACH OTHER
VIA CHECK NUMBER IN THE REGISTER BY DATE.
>
> You then prove you have a tiny business when you say it takes you
> a minute a month. That means you so not pay weekly, which is most
> common for small businesses, and have no other employees. For real
> businesses the extra minute is multiplied by 52 weeks a year. not
> 12, to get the 260 minutes I called 4 hours.
That only makes the businessman $50 per hour for his time Vs $200
upgrade. I have a real business ; even an Inc, BTW... QB IS advertised
for "Small Businesses" don't you know...
>
> You previously said you had a CPA do your payroll taxes, which
> means you waste far more dollars than the extra 30+ wasted minutes
> I calculated, because many QB users save this money by having QB
> do payroll tax forms.
REVIEW Tax deposits and spend 5-10 minutes filling out the SIMPLE
quarterlies; then I Sign, write checks and mail them. My CPA includes
this GRATIS; it keeps his eye on my overall picture during the course of
the year too via a P&L and Trial Balance report; and of prevents
under-withholding problems via my s-Corp income. I suppose you riffle
your clients for a CC number when they ring your phone or doorbell just
like QUICKshucker Corporate does to their customers...
Before you cry the poor CPA isn't making any money...I ESTIMATE that he
spends PERHAPS *FIVE* WORK HOURS TOTAL devoted to me on a yearly basis;
he thusly makes in excess of $110 an hour for his time... I'm sure you
demand a much higher average premium from your clients though; along
with strong suggestions they use YOUR s/w choice at further and
perpetual additional cost.
You also probably did not factor in the
> likelihood of tripping Norton AntiVirus tables and other date
> related software this way because you are not properly protected
> against viruses.
WTF is this tangent about??? Since I don't d/l table updates or connect
to Mother qb Central computer; or risk auto- updates through THEIR
COMPUTERS; I have a MUCH LESS CHANCE OF VIRUS THAN THOSE SWALLOWING YOUR
UPDATES AND UPGRADES. I SCAN WHEN I WANT AND DON'T LEAVE SUCH BLOATWARE
RUNNING; NO PROBLEM WITH VIRUS S/W EVER NOTED. Virus s/w furthermore
*may* be tripped up when the BOOT DATE is abhorrent to it's tables; the
qb payroll kludge does NOT require rebooting; just the system date
changed before you run qb itself. You're grasping at straws now
Company man; why not though, as you're manufacturing a straw house of
logic.
That means what I think is a probable pathetic
> business may soon lose its QB file and other computer records.
>
So I guess we get personal now and I call you a "Pathetic" shill...
> These larger files are examples of the hundreds of files that we,
> as QB professionals, work on each year. For marginal businesses,
> like the one you apparently have, CPAs who want to save clients
> money do not have owners enter any payroll checks. We also report
> payroll only once a year, so we do not waste client money on
> either tax tables or CPA fees for quarterly tax returns.
Perhaps it's your fee's that may be excessive and a waste of your
clients money? For such poor advice IMO also; as to have a small
business employ a specialized payroll services while recommending s/w
that includes payroll function... PAYROLL IS SIMPLE ACCOUNTING FOR
APPARENTLY ALL BUT QUICKshuckers in to it...
>
> Other QB professional I know help thousands of such users and all
> recommend against the date kludge because our clients collectively
> have made tens of thousands of mistakes by back dating entries,
> including many mistakes made PRECISELY BECAUSE THEY TRIED TO USE
> THIS DATE KLUDGE. I know, you say it never happened to you, but
> that only means that you are probably not aware of it happening.
Must we now idiot proof the entire world to save a few idiots from their
fate? There are also a THOUSAND other reasons why someone might change
a date in qb and have the date STAY CHANGED; as qb LOVES TO DO; perhaps
THAT IS A HUGE PART of incorrect date problems you cite, RATHER than a
little known payroll kludge you and those in to it are doing your
damnedest to KEEP OBSCURE......
>
> FAR MORE IMPORTANT, you could not read the difference between
> the old reasons I summarized and the completely new one I gave
> as to why NO QB PROFESSIONAL I RECOMMENDS THE KLUDGE.
>
New reasons; Old reason; they all reek of cash for those in to it. As
you already confirmed; NO CALCULATION REASON NOT TO USE THE KLUDGE!
> YOUR QB BOOKS ARE ALMOST SURELY SCREWED UP BY IMPROPER TAX
> CALCULATIONS unless you make less than $7,000 a year, which
> seems increasingly likely. Any company doing this would have
> ridiculously screwed up books if the owner made more than
> about $70,000 a year. That because every check done this way
> shows, RIGHT IN THE PAYROLL DETAIL WINDOW, that year-to-date
> payroll is the same as current payroll. This shows QB IS
> ABSOLUTELY GUARANTEED TO CALCULATE EXTRA UNEMPLOYMENT TAX ON
> WAGES OF MORE THAN $7,000 A YEAR. It will calculate extra
> state disability or other taxes will annual limits and extra
> workers comp insurance on wages of more than 15,000+ a year,
> depending on state. It will calculate lots of extra social
> security tax on wages of more than about $70,000 a year.
>
MY TAXES ARE COMPUTED WITHIN THE 90% WITHHOLDING REQUIREMENT PERFECTLY;
STATE PAYROLL TAXES ARE *KLUDGE* NUMBERS TO BEGIN WITH ONLY REFLECTING
PROPOSED LIABILITY for many with true reconcillation quarterly or
bi-annually; additional calculations occur NOT covered by qb anyway,
like a changing workers comp discount that must be calculated on form
to reveal your TRUE liability.
> THIS MEANS YOUR CPA WASTES TIME MANUALLY RUNNING REPORTS OR
> ADDING NUMBERS, instead of being able to use QB calculated
> amounts, unless you make less than $7,000 a year. It also
> means that he probably either does not bother to adjust the
> extra taxes accrued in you tax liability & expense accounts
> (which can result in your making bad management decisions)
> or wastes time in correcting your errors.
What BS... As I observe my CPA checking all my qb calculations/reports
in MINUTES, as he then writes it on a form. 10-15 minutes per quarter
total right in front of me. I question your competence as a CPA if it
takes you longer; or worse yet that you should shirk such simple checks
and balances for your clients and HOPE your pet s/w did it's thing
right...
>
> If you cannot understand how these improper tax calculations
> apply to you, as I suspect, I CHALLENGE YOU TO LET ME EXPLAIN
> THEM TO YOUR CPA WITHOUT CHARGE. IT SHOULD ONLY TAKE A MINUTE
> (call 954-566-7540) and I will gladly pay for his time.
I know enough to easily do all the payroll calculations manually; the
only other concern is to keep a running total of salary for the
threshold items like FICA, FUTA and some State taxes; simple math all.
Please conjure, mystify and blow your professional smoke over the word
"Payroll"Sir; it'll make you and those in to it more money.
The Payroll kludge DOES NOT EFFECT THE ACCURACY OF YOUR RECORDS; YOU'VE
ALREADY CONFIRMED IT WORKS PERFECTLY SO LONG AS THE USER DOES HIS
*SIMPLE* PART.
I also said
> that none charged for tax table or QB version updates installed by
> clients. I further explained that updated versions would cut the
> time we spent on jobs and our related fees, but we tended to suggest
> them to save clients time and the money they would otherwise pay us.
> I also explained why we did this even though recommending the kludge
> would definitely tend to increase the fees we can charge for fixing
> the occasional errors most of us have already seen caused by the
> date kludge.
NO ERRORS: NO EXTRA FEE'S; No Penalties, Right ? See above...
>
> Therefore, our training and professional ethics made many CPAs, in
> different states, who have never met or expressly discussed this
> specific ethical problem, all instinctively resolve our conflict
> in favor of he interest of our clients. We did this even though
> their interest was seemingly in conflict with our interest in
> getting more money from them.
>
Ethics...!!! <He- Haw> Ethics like someone in to it demanding you buy
what you don't want or need???
> Perhaps I could have made this clearer if I said that it was in
> the interest of all CPAs that we help save money for our clients,
> as we all try to do whenever practical, even if it cuts our fees.
> That is one of the many ways we prove we care about them whenever
> we care. It also is the only ethical, legal and ultimately
> profitable way that we can work.
Then recommend the kludge immediately to all your clients that wish to
save money on s/w they don't really need; especially updates to the same
they don't need... But you DON'T do that in practice; rather rationalize
FOR THEM; 'you'll screw up your data, bla bla bla, sis boom bah'. For
their own good; eh... JUST WHAT THE qb rep said when she demanded my CC#
for a table update I didn't want or need...
>
> By the way, it is in your own selfish interest not to try to get
> others to use this method.
What "selfish interest" is that; fame and fortune in this community
<snicker> Do you and those in to it propose a Bribe to keep my mouth
shut? Perhaps a more effective strategy to silence me than threats...
<g> Do y'all have a number in mind to buy my integrity; there after all
must be some magic number judging by all the integrity bought and sold
by those in to it.
YOU AND YOURS are making money off this s/w; you and yours pump it
ceaselessly; who's kidding who about "selfish interest"?
This is my opinion, the opinion of all
> the other QB professionals with whom I discussed this and the
> opinion of QB employees I often email and occasionally call. That
> is because we all think QB has a clear right, under the Software
> License Agreement we Accept to install, to terminate your license
> to use QB at all. We all have no doubt the date kludge violates
> your limited license to use the tax tables, so QB can revoke your
> license to use the entire program. QB actually does not need to
> give a reason for termination, so it could decide to terminate
> your license based on your frequent libel or for no reason at
> all.
I'm waiting...I will of course require compensation in my proposed
countersuit for Harassment , Libel, Mental Anguish, Breach of
Contract, et al. (There is NO PR like *BAD* MARKET SHARE BUSTING
PR...) Perhaps you should discuss LEGALITIES with Lawyers; rather than
the Coffee KLUDGE Cronies; you're getting even more laughable as you
stray from your *PRACTICED* avocation.
>
> It is unlikely that QB would terminate your use of the entire
> program, but it would be child's play for an update to detect
> the kludge and permanently disable related tables. If you ever
> got more than a few people to use this method I have no doubt
> this would be done, though I think it is pathetically unlikely.
I think a program patch to eliminate this loophole would do more to
damage those in to it than I ever could; piss your customers off even
more (those stupid enough to bite on this proposed patch anyway)...Go
ahead; document your GREED for all your customers to see; HOW MANY
*MORE* CUSTOMERS LIKE ME YOU CAN SHAKE OUT OF THE WOODWORK... <g>
>
> I could discuss with QB's beta department, but your persistence
> probably means that they have already seriously considered this.
> So keep it up if you want to insure this result. The more you
> libel them and the more people you get to blindly follow you,
> despite the time and money they waste, the more likely it will
> be that QB will protect all of you from hurting yourself with
> a program you obviously do not understand and clearly cannot
> be trusted to use properly.
Gee... I used it successfully for Ten years now and paid over $500 for
the privilege; I guess I know it pretty well. Now those in to it expect
me to "blindly" let my pocket be picked as to "protect all of you from
hurting yourself"... If you weren't lining your pockets on this s/w I'd
think you might be joking; especially after you confirm this kludge
works perfectly.
I will continue to insure that all who want access to this kludge info
WILL get it; and those that don't wish to use it will at least know it
exists. That's MY perceived responsibility on Usenet; disseminating the
USE-FULL in a Legal and Conscientious way. Take a lesson there Mr.
Block...Advocating unnecessary and unwanted updates does NOT serve the
masses; Just those in to it and their Company Men.
I'm through with your 300 line Smokestack Posts too Mr. Block. You're
so obviously a Huckster for this product that I doubt the average
passer- by here could possibly mistake your motives; so I'll simply be
devoting my time from now on to maximize awareness of the payroll
kludge. I'll use your own words to defend it too if necessary, as
completely functional; and be *SURE* to remind all to RESET the DATE
when done, to appease your only real stated concerns in it's use. I
look forward to seeing it listed PROMINENTLY on your site as one of the
"FREE" and "money saving" tools you proffer there; SOON!
Tim K
Tim Kroesen
I pay less than $600 per year for my CPA to *review* payroll
withholding and fill out Quarterlies, all year end tax returns Business
and Personal, W2's, and yearlong advice as reasonable requested along
with an early December year end strategy session designed to minimize my
tax liability.
If you guys charge more for Five hours work you're either inefficient or
overcompensated. QB clients hand in their filing information on a
Silver Platter; making your work EASY for YOU; so you rec the hell out
of it; yet some of you are apparently not charging professional rates
that reflect your newfound accounting ease, to the detriment of your
customers wallet.
Tim K
"David Smith" <ke...@execulink.com> wrote in message
news:to29k3h...@corp.supernews.com...
Mike Block - Tax Cut C.P.A. <>
wrote:
>"Mike Block - Tax Cut C.P.A. >" <<mblock...@blocktax.com> wrote in
>message news:k711ots452308pk9b...@4ax.com...
>> On Sun, 19 Aug 2001 16:11:21 -0400, "Tim Kroesen" <tkro...@nccw.net>
>> wrote:
>
>That only makes the businessman $50 per hour for his time Vs $200
>upgrade. I have a real business ; even an Inc, BTW... QB IS
>advertised for "Small Businesses" don't you know...
$200? One of the many things you cannot read enough to is find a good
buy on QB. You can buy QB2001, net of upgrade rebate and my 5% rebate,
for only $63. QB pro is only $125 from me. Others have it for less,
though I make NOTHING at this price.
>> You previously said you had a CPA do your payroll taxes, which
>> means you waste far more dollars than the extra 30+ wasted minutes
>> I calculated, because many QB users save this money by having QB
>> do payroll tax forms.
>REVIEW Tax deposits and spend 5-10 minutes filling out the SIMPLE
>quarterlies; then I Sign, write checks and mail them. My CPA includes
>this GRATIS; it keeps his eye on my overall picture during the course of
>the year too via a P&L and Trial Balance report; and of prevents
>under-withholding problems via my s-Corp income. I suppose you riffle
>your clients for a CC number when they ring your phone or doorbell just
>like QUICKshucker Corporate does to their customers...
>
>Before you cry the poor CPA isn't making any money...I ESTIMATE that he
>spends PERHAPS *FIVE* WORK HOURS TOTAL devoted to me on a yearly basis;
>he thusly makes in excess of $110 an hour for his time... I'm sure you
>demand a much higher average premium from your clients though; along
>with strong suggestions they use YOUR s/w choice at further and
>perpetual additional cost.
I had one other CPA and 3 bookkeepers repeatedly run the date kludge
today in real files, with fast systems, with and without your date
technique. If you are saying you properly do the entire date kludge
process 4 times a month, in one minute than you either cannot tell
time or you are a liar.
You also confuse time spent with you & time spent working. That
includes setting appointments, getting files, doing returns, making
copies and filing. None of the 500+ CPAs & bookkeepers I have known
in 40+ years could do this in less than an hour a year. Most are
glad to double that. I also want all your free stuff when you buy
one and get one free. There is no gratis. Unless he is a good friend
or otherwise compensated, a CPA will not do quarterly taxes free if
you pay someone else for annual CPA work. Therefore, his wasted hour
cost you $110. If you add your wasted time at minimum wage, which is
probably about all you are worth, then you waste about twice what
you should pay for annual QB upgrades.
You can cut this sharply, without paying anything to QB. Have no
paychecks or one a year. Use loans at other times. If your CPA did
not tell you this he incompetently wasted your time and money.
I do not take credit cards or arrange "instant refunds" because
costs are excessive.
>> You also probably did not factor in the
>> likelihood of tripping Norton AntiVirus tables and other date
>> related software this way because you are not properly protected
>> against viruses.
>
>WTF is this tangent about??? Since I don't d/l table updates or connect
>to Mother qb Central computer; or risk auto- updates through THEIR
>COMPUTERS; I have a MUCH LESS CHANCE OF VIRUS THAN THOSE SWALLOWING YOUR
>UPDATES AND UPGRADES. I SCAN WHEN I WANT AND DON'T LEAVE SUCH BLOATWARE
>RUNNING; NO PROBLEM WITH VIRUS S/W EVER NOTED. Virus s/w furthermore
>*may* be tripped up when the BOOT DATE is abhorrent to it's tables; the
>qb payroll kludge does NOT require rebooting; just the system date
>changed before you run qb itself. You're grasping at straws now
>Company man; why not though, as you're manufacturing a straw house of
>logic.
Not at all. As I repeatedly said before I only gave you a few of the
reasons not to do this. One of our many difference is I do not assume
that what works for one person on one system is what works on all
systems and people. Like many QB and computer professionals I repeat
tests with different people and systems. I always have Norton AntiVirus
active in all computers. During my date kludge tests NAV popped up and
said its virus tables were out of date and had EXPIRED WHILE THE SYSTEMS
WAS SET TO 1999, WITHOUT A REBOOT. It happened again today to one (only
one) bookkeeper. Other memory resident programs may also react this way.
By the way, newsgroup & email activity is very much more likely to
produce viruses than QB. In the 9 years I & many associates used QB
there was one CD with a virus. We never heard of a virus in a QB
download. To the contrary, NAV notified me it intercepted a virus as
I wrote this. Therefore, if your virus protection is not running,
and your virus definitions are not up to date (which costs money too),
by the time you read this far you may never again be able to run a
date kludge on your current QB file. This will be especially true
if this message has an attachment and guaranteed if you open the
attachment.
>> Other QB professional I know help thousands of such users and all
>> recommend against the date kludge because our clients collectively
>> have made tens of thousands of mistakes by back dating entries,
>> including many mistakes made PRECISELY BECAUSE THEY TRIED TO USE
>> THIS DATE KLUDGE. I know, you say it never happened to you, but
>> that only means that you are probably not aware of it happening.
>
>Must we now idiot proof the entire world to save a few idiots from their
>fate? There are also a THOUSAND other reasons why someone might change
>a date in qb and have the date STAY CHANGED; as qb LOVES TO DO; perhaps
>THAT IS A HUGE PART of incorrect date problems you cite, RATHER than a
>little known payroll kludge you and those in to it are doing your
>damnedest to KEEP OBSCURE......
CPas are the world's recognized authorities at dispassionately adding
up costs, savings & risks, in addition (after lawyers) to reading
business agreements. The many CPA QB professionals I know deal with
thousands who do good QB jobs (only a few mistakes) and others making
many mistakes. All of us are against the date kludge because we see
countless related errors committed by both types of clients.
You are a universe of one. It is sad when someone keep proving that
they cannot read, add or multiply. It is tragic when they then say
others are idiots. I guess you include all QB professionals in this
idiot group, as all try to protect our clients from the date kludge.
Your supposed cost/benefits are the real idiocy. If this were a
close call you should have certainly gotten a few CPAs to agree with
you by now, but none have.
By the way, if I wanted to keep this obscure, I would ignore you,
but I am trying to stop you from severely damaging others I will
never meet.
>As you already confirmed; NO CALCULATION REASON NOT TO USE THE
>KLUDGE!
THAT IS NOT AT ALL WHAT I SAID. The kludge works only because
government agencies are not known to bother any small businesses
for its WITHHOLDING TAX (ONLY) errors.
THE KLUDGE DOES NOT WORK AT ALL FOR UNEMPLYMENT AND OTHER TAXES,
DEPENDING ON YOUR STATE AND LEVEL OF ANNUAL COMPENSATION. Read
this next section carefully if you can:
>> because every check done this way shows, RIGHT IN THE PAYROLL
>> DETAIL WINDOW, year-to-date payroll is the same as current
>> payroll.
This means that each date kludge check ignores all prior checks
in calculating related taxes.
>MY TAXES ARE COMPUTED WITHIN THE 90% WITHHOLDING REQUIREMENT PERFECTLY;
>STATE PAYROLL TAXES ARE *KLUDGE* NUMBERS TO BEGIN WITH ONLY REFLECTING
>PROPOSED LIABILITY for many with true reconcillation quarterly or
>bi-annually; additional calculations occur NOT covered by qb anyway,
>like a changing workers comp discount that must be calculated on form
>to reveal your TRUE liability.
You have now proven that you know nothing about payroll tax law,
besides again proving you cannot read, add or multiply. This has
nothing to do with withholding, federal or state. If you can read
at all you should have quickly seen that payroll detail screens
of date kludge checks show the same amounts in the current and
year-to-date columns.
QB, when properly set up, works like most other modern payroll
computing programs. That is, it calculates AND accrues (even on
the cash basis) the employer share of unemployment (federal
and state), social security & other taxes on each check. These
are, in most cases, exactly the right amounts, not estimates.
You probably thought they were estimates only because your
numbers were always wrong, for good reason (the date kludge).
MANY taxes and payroll related insurance (not income withholding
tax) ONLY APPLY TO THE FIRST $7,000 (or other legal amount) OF
WAGES PER EMPLOYEE PER YEAR. Each date kludge check clearly does
not count payroll from prior checks on the payroll detail screen.
This means QB keeps accruing state and federal unemployment tax
after you pay $7,000 a year in wages. With $20,000/year in wages
QB calculates an extra $455 in unemployment tax (3.5%). With
$100,000 a year QB calculates an extra $3,200 in unemployment &
around $3,700 of extra social security (about $30,000 @ 12,4%
<I forget the exact number because QB does it>.
I understand your CPA probably does not make these mistakes on
your tax returns. However, those using QB (not CPAs) quarterly
are likely to make such errors on tax returns and waste many
times the above cost of QB upgrades. In addition, based on the
little time your CPA can apparently stand to spend with you,
he probably does not correct your books for this. Perhaps you
personally waste still more time, by repeatedly correcting
such errors without understanding why they occur. If neither
of you does this then I guarantee that your payroll liability
account will keep getting more overstated each year.
>What BS... As I observe my CPA checking all my qb calculations/reports
>in MINUTES, as he then writes it on a form. 10-15 minutes per quarter
>total right in front of me.
What BS is right. He has already slowed down from 5-10 minutes
at the start of this post to 10-15 minutes now. Whatever it is,
it could have and should have been less if you did your job
right and let QB do its job right. Regardless, there is now no
question that your QB vendetta costs you far more than a QB
upgrade.
>> If you cannot understand how these improper tax calculations
>> apply to you, as I suspect, I CHALLENGE YOU TO LET ME EXPLAIN
>> THEM TO YOUR CPA WITHOUT CHARGE. IT SHOULD ONLY TAKE A MINUTE
>> (call 954-566-7540) and I will gladly pay for his time.
>
>I know enough to easily do all the payroll calculations manually; the
>only other concern is to keep a running total of salary for the
>threshold items like FICA, FUTA and some State taxes; simple math all.
>Please conjure, mystify and blow your professional smoke over the word
>"Payroll"Sir; it'll make you and those in to it more money.
In other words, you are too chicken to risk letting me show your
own CPA that you are completely wrong, even though I would do so
quickly and pay for his time.
Whenever we hear keeping a running total from someone like you we
look for the frequently inaccurate manual records kept outside of
QB, by those who will not let the program do its job. We do payroll
returns only under protest, in connection with reviews of QB. We
try, whenever possible, to teach clients how they can do trivial
returns themselves.
>NO ERRORS: NO EXTRA FEE'S; No Penalties, Right ? See above...
No, guaranteed errors for everyone who makes more than $7,000
a year. It is a waste of time and money for everyone. However,
I am beginning to understand why it works perfectly for you.
As you cannot read, add, multiply or understand payroll taxes,
and as you lie, you probably make less than $7,000 a year.
>> QB has a clear right, under the Software
>> License Agreement we Accept to install, to terminate your license
>> to use QB at all. We all have no doubt the date kludge violates
>> your limited license to use the tax tables, so QB can revoke your
>> license to use the entire program. QB actually does not need to
>> give a reason for termination, so it could decide to terminate
>> your license based on your frequent libel or for no reason at
>> all.
>
>I'm waiting...I will of course require compensation in my proposed
>countersuit for Harassment , Libel, Mental Anguish, Breach of
>Contract, et al. (There is NO PR like *BAD* MARKET SHARE BUSTING
>PR...) Perhaps you should discuss LEGALITIES with Lawyers; rather than
>the Coffee KLUDGE Cronies; you're getting even more laughable as you
>stray from your *PRACTICED* avocation.
Here are some quotes from the QB Software License Agreement to which
you agreed. Under the law (I spoke to my attorneys several times in
each of the last few days) you may get this waived if you admit you
cannot read:
The Software also contains Intuit trade secrets, and you may not
decompile, reverse engineer, disassemble, or otherwise reduce the
Software to human-perceivable form OR DIABLE ANY FUNCTIONALITY
WHICH LIMITS THE USE OF THE SOFTWARE. (capitals mine)
Additional terms for QuickBooks Tax Table Update Service:
This License may be terminated by Intuit immediately and without
notice if you fail to comply with any term or condition of this
Agreement.
In the opinion of my two lawyers and everyone with whom I discussed
this, the date kludge unquestionably disables a functionality which
limits the use of this software. This is EXACTLY why the agreement
was written as it was.
>> It is unlikely that QB would terminate your use of the entire
>> program, but it would be child's play for an update to detect
>> the kludge and permanently disable related tables. If you ever
>> got more than a few people to use this method I have no doubt
>> this would be done, though I think it is pathetically unlikely.
>
>I think a program patch to eliminate this loophole would do more to
>damage those in to it than I ever could; piss your customers off even
>more (those stupid enough to bite on this proposed patch anyway)...Go
>ahead; document your GREED for all your customers to see; HOW MANY
>*MORE* CUSTOMERS LIKE ME YOU CAN SHAKE OUT OF THE WOODWORK... <g>
>
If you still cannot see how ridiculous it is to waste time and
money in this illegal way, then QB has nothing to lose with you.
Posts in this newsgroup clearly show that many, including me,
strongly object to QB's current payroll tax charge and related
registration. However, it is very strong evidence that very few
are using this widely known payroll kludge. The more you persist
in trying to get people to hurt themselves this way the more I
will have to show how this will hurt them.