Requiring people to print forms (at home presumably) shifts infrastructure costs as well. It's not just paper and ink. It's having a computer, printer, and Internet connection. The costs for those are around $3,000 at the low end ($2,000 for an Internet contract over 2 years, which is standard, and about $1,000 for a computer and printer).
While technology is supposed to lead to cost savings, those savings almost invariably are only reaped by organizations (governments, companies) while consumers end up paying the same or more.
CodeTRUCKER, you've got a legitimate complaint.
But I think the general principle is at work elsewhere also. i.e. Technology reduces costs that most often get pocketed by organizations instead of being passed along to consumers.
Take your telephone (land line) for example. Have the costs for it declined significantly? Likely not. Have the services or quality increased significantly? Well, not in proportion to rising costs. We still get the same crummy sound quality as we had about 50 or 100 years ago. Telecommunications is one area where technology has increased massively. But, on the consumer end, what benefits have we seen? Well, Internet yes, but not in actual telephony that's not tied to the Internet or mobile. And mobile telephony still offers the same poor sound quality as land lines.
Technology just provides new ways to increase profits. It's not a vehicle to increase quality of life. Or rather, it's not used to increase quality of life as compared to how it is used to increase profits.
When it comes to government, this is simply wrong. It's understandable that companies would increase profits as they are psychotically dedicated to increasing profits at the expense of everything else. But government? No. That's simply wrong.