<p>Student101–exactly.</p>
<p>That’s why I bet most of these major corporations or wealthy clients would prefer a CPA versus a computer program.</p>
<p>“Creativity”</p>
<p>After listening to chatter about IBM’s latest earnings report, I have to think that creativity is highly desired in accounting.</p>
<p>Still, that “creativity” is based on following a linear path (of tax laws or whatnot) and coming up with a result, which is far from “innovation.”</p>
<p>Either that “creativity” can also be incorporated into software, or, it is downright against the law and will be cracked down on.</p>
<p>Even for our small company, we need to make decisions about how to structure things. A computer program couldn’t do that for us. Some of those decisions are based on educated guesses and estimates of what will be happening in the future, so a CPA is vital for that. There’s a lot of “routine” in accounting, but that’s not all there is to it. </p>
<p>That’s all I’m going to say about this, because you’re convinced computers can do everything. I guess you can decide for yourself once you have your own business.</p>
<p>^ I’m not convinced about anything. I’m asking questions to see how airtight some arguments are.</p>
<p>The strategy with the IRS seems to be to try gray areas which are open to different interpretations. If the IRS leaves you alone, then you may be good. If they challenge you, then you may have to go to court and fight your case. Computer software at the current state of technology, isn’t that good at the “gray area” stuff.</p>
<p>student01,</p>
<p>There are two points to consider:
- computers don’t do strategy and planning by themselves and certainly can’t exercise professional judgement. humans may use computers softwares to help them generate outputs under difference scenarios/crunch numbers, but it still takes a human to “mastermind”. CPAs that do tax planning and strategy for corporations use their financial statements and look at their entire business and then “think about” what the available loopholes or alternatives are. Taking advantage of “loopholes” and deciding what to do in gray areas require “interpretation” of the existing laws. None of these can be done by computers. This isn’t about one or two line items or numbers. i think you have an overly simplistic view of how things work. It’s tempting to think how tax is about numbers only. You will be amazed how legally-oriented tax work actually is. I don’t think you ever think computers replace lawyers.
- to the extent that computers can do what humans do, they still need inputs from humans. so that requires the person that use them to have certain level of competence. a lot of people don’t have the time, energy, or will to learn/acquire all the knowledge and skills (MaineLonghorn just gave herself as an example).</p>
<p>If you want a good look at how hard this is to do, read a few pages of the tax code. Or any couple of pages of our legal code. Federal, state, etc. I’m involved in legislation for education and you be amazed at what is and isn’t assumed and what can be assumed and what can’t be assumed and how many bad laws there are out there.</p>
<p>Oh in the case of financial planning, I guess you’re right. I personally saw accountants as number-crunchers basically.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>…no, accountants have computers to do that for them.</p>
<p>I think the fundamental issue at hand is that student01 has no idea what CPAs actually do. I can go to the CPA and describe what I need to be done in natural language, and the CPA can interpret my situation (which may go beyond precisely what I say) and develop one or more solutions to my problem.</p>
<p>Show me any computer program that can do that for any sufficiently complex problem domain, and we can talk.</p>
<p>I maintain that CPAs can and should and do use software to help them in their work; without this software, there would be lots of routine jobs people could do. New software may increase productivity enough that fewer CPAs will be needed; but they’ll never go away completely, if for no other reason, you would need them to work with the computer scientists and software engineers writing the accounting software.</p>
<p>
Which means that at one point in time, computers did automate some accountants’ jobs. I never said that all accountants would disappear, as you would need at least a handful to act as “overseers” if anything, in the most automated scenario.</p>
<p>My main point was that you can’t really use engineering as an example as to why accounting won’t get automated.</p>
<p>Learn more about what accountants do and then I’ll c’mon back.</p>
<p>Please don’t think that I’m accusing you of anything. You seemed offended, which is far from what I was trying to do. As you can see, it really isn’t worth it getting fussed up over something that happens over the internet.</p>
<p>I’ve had an informative discussion in this thread and that’s all that matters to me.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>I ran a small business a long time ago and had an accountant. He offloaded the routine work to clerks. It’s true whether you have computers or people as resources: you delegate work to where it is cheapest while producing a good result.</p>
<p>Hmmm… then where does this stereotype of accountants being “boring” come from?</p>
<p>I just know that you’re not understanding my point. It’s one of those things where when I was a student, before I entered the profession, I just didn’t get it, because I didn’t understand what professionals do. Nothing I’ve seen since I’ve actually started doing project management and working with real-life engineers (accountants, lawyers, doctors) on a daily basis has shown me that these elite professions are truly different from one another, on a high level. There’s routine work, and there’s a long learning curve. There’s licensure. There’s a lot of training. And there’s also a level of respect that should be offered to all professionals. Even on the internet.</p>
<p>(Also, using the phrase “fussed up” to someone who’s sharing their thoughts and experience on an open forum might be viewed as a little patronizing. Try something less inflammatory, like, “Calm down there, little lady, you’re going to get your knickers in a twist–why don’t you go bake us some muffins.” 
)</p>
<p>Re: Boring-- Same place that engineers’ stereotype for being boring comes from.</p>
<p>Wow!</p>
<p>People on the internet putting aside their differences and resolving a conflict without degrading the other person’s sexual preference and intellect?</p>
<p>We need to talk about frozen desserts more again.</p>
<p>Well, I’ve talked to a lot of accountants and engineers, and then surmised a few opinions. Even the accountants that I’ve talked to say that engineering, as all innovation, is more challenging than accountancy itself.</p>
<p>Of course, I took this information from accountants directly (a couple of my dad’s friends, and my dad being an engineer) so honestly I can’t say I would consider their opinions to be less than yours.</p>