Mainly as a result of a massive price increase that not only de facto charges everyone now for electronic filing whether you use it or not, but you now get charged extra for each additional return beyond the first — even to print and mail.
With luck, this is Intuit jumping the shark.
In a break of journalistic lockstep, this London Times guest editorial by Richard Munday discusses the armed citizenry as a deterrent both against crime and against terrorism, pointing out the unpopular truth that India's strict gun control failed to prevent the Mumbai attacks just as it has failed to prevent crime and terrorism everywhere else.
Rhetoric about standing firm against terrorists aside, in Britain we have no more legal deterrent to prevent an armed assault than did the people of Mumbai, and individually we would be just as helpless as victims. The Mumbai massacre could happen in London tomorrow; but probably it could not have happened to Londoners 100 years ago.
In January 1909 two such anarchists, lately come from an attempt to blow up the president of France, tried to commit a robbery in north London, armed with automatic pistols. Edwardian Londoners, however, shot back – and the anarchists were pursued through the streets by a spontaneous hue-and-cry. The police, who could not find the key to their own gun cupboard, borrowed at least four pistols from passers-by, while other citizens armed with revolvers and shotguns preferred to use their weapons themselves to bring the assailants down.
Today we are probably more shocked at the idea of so many ordinary Londoners carrying guns in the street than we are at the idea of an armed robbery. But the world of Conan Doyle’s Dr Watson, pocketing his revolver before he walked the London streets, was real. The arming of the populace guaranteed rather than disturbed the peace.
Meanwhile, Britain is valiantly making the world safe for Englishmen by prohibiting minors from purchasing ... wait for it ... butter knives.