IRS Audited Over Inappropriate Spending, Claims It Can't Find Its Receipts
from the off-with-their-heads dept
Just a guess, but it probably sucks to be the IRS right now. Between reports about them snooping on people's emails and their targeting of conservative groups, it's quite easy to paint them as a big, evil bureaucracy. Actually, it was pretty easy to do so before all that. You can generally rely on the hatred of the people for a group that requires meticulous spending records and then collects taxes. Big, bad, evil. What could be worse?
Well, how about hypocritical? That sure seems like an apt word in light of reports on how flighty the IRS was with tax-payer money for their own comforts.
The conference spending included $4 million for an August 2010 gathering in Anaheim, Calif., for which the agency did not negotiate lower room rates, even though that is standard government practice, according to a statement by the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee.Infuriating, right? The bald-faced audacity of the organization that collects our taxes using some of that tax money to go to baseball games has the air of outright thievery. Fortunately, thanks to the investigation by the Treasury Department, we now have a full and accurate account of the awful IRS spending, right?
Instead, some of the 2,600 attendees received benefits, including baseball tickets and stays in presidential suites that normally cost $1,500 to $3,500 per night. In addition, 15 outside speakers were paid a total of $135,000 in fees, with one paid $17,000 to talk about "leadership through art," the House committee said.
No, we damn well don't, because the IRS -- and I stress this, the IRS -- is claiming it can't find its own receipts, so the spending may well have been even worse.
Hypocrisy, thy name is now an acronym, and that acronym is IRS. This is the type of thing that keeps pitchfork and torch manufacturers in business. In fact, were it not for the undeniably smooth face and impossibly perfect coiffure of Anderson Cooper getting me through this, I might just be leading the mob.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Turnabout is fair play
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Turnabout is fair play
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Turnabout is fair play
The ultimate slap in the face will be when no charges are filed, no one gets fired, and we as taxpayers continue to foot the bill.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Turnabout is fair play
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
IRS heads get paid vacations, aka "paid suspension" (Lois Lerner) or promoted. No one will be charged or held responsible.
The Fair Tax would put the IRS out of business. It's fair and the antidote to the malignancy that is DC.
It's also why congress will never vote for it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
What could possibly be worse than trying to streamline all non-profit organizations into a "one size fits all" category? That drive was one of the main causes for the large amount political hubris displayed by the recent scandal. They tried to streamline categories be key word search and started using words like "patriot" to pin to conservative groups. Orders on policy and procedure changes like that can only come from the top...Obama and his administration needs to be fired immediately.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
But we'll just chalk this one up to evil liberals instead.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Funny how none of them were on the stand to testify.
Maybe you could provide us with a list, boy, presuning they exist anywere besides your imagination.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Probably did, boy, we just don't know about it, yet.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Land of Hypocrisy
Corruption runs deep.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
NULLIFY + REPUDIATE
This is a classic Hegelian-style distraction/diversion.
THESIS: The IRS is wasteful and corrupt
ANTITHESIS: The IRS must be reformed
SYNTHESIS: A "flat tax" on wages will be proposed, and maybe even passed, in order to make the IRS "more fair". Those who question the legitimacy of the tax itself will be marginalized.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: NULLIFY + REPUDIATE
Don't know why fabulously rich people need to pay less than moderately well off people.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: NULLIFY + REPUDIATE
If I came to your house and took your property, would that be theft?
If I came with 10 people to your house and took your property, would that be theft?
If I came to your house with 51% of the population and took your propery, would that be theft?
Do you own your work / labor? If so, would not 100% of the wages from your labor also be owned by you?
If you are taxed at 100%, is that not slavery? Therefore a 40% tax on your labor is a form of slavery, is it not?
Tax income if you must, but be sure to understand the difference between income and wages, lest the people are enslaved.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: NULLIFY + REPUDIATE
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: NULLIFY + REPUDIATE
Tell me, what are taxes on wages primarily intended for? How does it differ from what they are actually used for?
You belive it is our duty as people to work 2/5 of our life for the state? You are 2/5 property of the state then.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: NULLIFY + REPUDIATE
Taxes on wages is a way to try to avoid the basic money makes money conandrum. By taxing by wage, you should make it easier for the people making more money to contribute more to the common household budget.
The basic costs are on primary infrastructure like roads, schools, sewers and other necessities. There are secondary costs that you might consider to be necessary to some degree like police, courts, military expenditure, healthcare, federal reserve, social safety net and stipends for education, but they are not 100% necessary for society to work even though they are often what separates an attractive society from complete anarchy.
The rhetorics you use tells me you are unlikely to understand my points, but at least try instead of keeping the nerd-rage going.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: NULLIFY + REPUDIATE
"I am fairly certain that the 0 income tax countries in the world (rich middle eastern oil-dictatorships and tax havens) aren't the most ideal places to compare yourself up against."
I never compared the two. Now on to your next post.
"Taxes on wages is a way to try to avoid the basic money makes money conundrum."
I don't know what you mean by this, please explain.
"By taxing by wage, you should make it easier for the people making more money to contribute more to the common household budget."
I don't know what you mean by this, please explain. Is it really about making it easy to contribute?
�The basic costs are on primary infrastructure like roads, schools, sewers and other necessities.�
Taxing income, not wages, should be sufficient to cover these costs.
�There are secondary costs��
These could also be covered by taxing income, not wages.
�The rhetorics you use tells me you are unlikely to understand my points�
I have more trouble understanding your points because they are scattered and the way you write them is very confusing and hard to follow. Also, it seems that you have accepted the fallacy that you are a citizen slave and that it is your duty to serve the government as a tax slave. By the way, your share of the federal debt is around $180,000 and growing. We should have a lot more roads and bridges, excellent schools and no failing infrastructure. We don�t because wage taxation is a form of control rather than a way to make people�s lives better by providing basic necessities.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: NULLIFY + REPUDIATE
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: NULLIFY + REPUDIATE
Problem SOLVED!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: NULLIFY + REPUDIATE
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: NULLIFY + REPUDIATE
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: NULLIFY + REPUDIATE
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: NULLIFY + REPUDIATE
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: NULLIFY + REPUDIATE
On that note....During the 9/11 terrorist attacks, President George W. Bush was reading to a bunch of kindergarteners and asked to be able to wait several minutes to finish the story he was reading them. HE was criticized heavily for that wait which prevented panic coming from the children. He still catches gaff for that from all sorts of Liberal types..just for waiting 7 minutes to address the nation on what is going on.
Fast forward to Benghazi....That was an equally brazen terrorist attack. Just like 9/11, months of warning from the US Embassy of an impending terrorist attack goes ignored by the administration...and we only hear about it 10 months after the attack...not one peep..until a rumor leaked on the internet that turned out to be true after further investigation.
Yup....being a political mouthpiece for this current administration has got to suck because even the non-democrat liberals are screaming "We told you so" about Obama..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: NULLIFY + REPUDIATE
Or would you rather whine about 4 people in Libya?
Both governments this millenium are corrupt. Be consistent at least.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: NULLIFY + REPUDIATE
Oh, and don't trust politician with simplified forms: those are just to remove the last vestiges of compliance by automating deductions.
AND YET, I'm NOT for abolishing the IRS -- certainly not while leaving Gitmo in place as Jay Leno quipped: BOTH ARE EVIL -- BUT we can turn the IRS back to its former role of harassing The Rich and their corporations to keep them from going crazy, and just cause for that is all around today.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: NULLIFY + REPUDIATE
I call bullshit. Educate yourself a little before spouting obvious flatulence.
A flat Tax is a flat % rate, not an "amount". It seems very fair to me to have a set % of our income taxed and have EVERYONE pay the same %... if your talking fair.
I hate that word anyway. Name one thing in Life that's "fair".
Why should I pay for 43% of the population who pay no federal taxes? Do these people not use the same services as I? Do they have no income? If they do have no income, then how are they eating McDonald's and buying Branded clothing?
How is the 10% of their income more important to them than the 10% I pay of my earnings to me?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: NULLIFY + REPUDIATE
Well, if somebody's literally living paycheck to paycheck, barely making rent/utility payments and having to carefully budget what they can afford to eat, I'd say that 10% of that money is pretty damn important to them. A lot more than to somebody with a $50k/year job who has $40k/year of expenses, for example. Sure it's always nice to have as much extra to save as you can get, but to some people it's a matter of survival, not convenience.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: NULLIFY + REPUDIATE
Just like those making $15k, They have house payments/rent, food, and other living expenses. Every dime they make is as important to them as it is to those making half of what they do.
What you are saying is that at some point, there a thing called too much money. I think that's bull. That's like saying there is too much air or water or love or whatever.
Humans, by their very nature, want more. Just ask that kid in the AT&T commercial about more. If you were making $500K/year and were offered a job making $1 million, would you turn it down because you already make enough?
If you aren't making enough, find a better paying job. Educate yourself and raise yourself up. Stop relying on other to do for you what you should be doing for yourself.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: NULLIFY + REPUDIATE
Seriously, someone on minimum wage losing 10% of their wage is way more hurt than someone on $100k a year, who also can afford good healthcare, a nice house somewhere safe, their own transport and a government bending over backwards to make sure that a 10% tax is more like 5% or less.
Again, this is why every other 'civilised' country has progressive tax rates. And that is why you get compared to Middle-East oil dictatorships.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: NULLIFY + REPUDIATE
Could you quote a reliable source on that?
Perhaps Bill Gates, or Warren Buffet?
I think they all care very much that they are making money, no matter how much they already have.
"The more money you have, the more options you have, and the easier it is to deal with the unexpected and very expensive"
Well Duh! Seems to me to be a very good reason to strive to make more money, rather than a reason to give someone a free ride. I am certainly no bible thumper but "Give a man a fish and he eats for a day. Teach a man to fish and he eats for a lifetime." comes to mind.
"especially in a country where you can be bankrupted for an illness."
You have health insurance and patents to thank for this and it isn't going to get better. Health Insurance insures the 'ability to pay' and Patents limit the competition for medical equipment and drug manufactures. Corporate America Wins, Private America loses, the deck has been stacked for 50 years. And most Americans still want to play (and further stack the deck).
"Seriously, someone on minimum wage losing 10% of their wage is way more hurt than someone on $100k a year."
Of course it hurts more. That is not a reason for them to not contribute to the society in which they live. That someone making minimum wage probably also uses more government resources. They certainly use the roads and sidewalks... and probably use Food Stamps, Medicaid...
What it should do is encourage them to better themselves and pull themselves up a level or two in society. If you are earning money you should contribute to society.
"every other 'civilised'[sic] country has progressive tax rates"
Ok, even if true, progressive taxes aren't working because there are too many loopholes. Right now our tax system favors the rich, gives to the poor (to create dependency) and screws the middle class. In my opinion, everyone can do something and no one should get a free ride. (There are some very limited exceptions to that).
A Flat Tax in conjunction with a national VAT or Sales tax IS a progressive tax, as those who make more spend more. The flat tax takes care of the no free ride, and the VAT tax ensures those spending more contribute more. (and yes buying stocks should be taxed as a "Sale", and selling stocks should result in "Flat Income Tax".)
Care to guess who the biggest opponents to a Flat tax are? The rich! Why? because they know it hurts them. Right behind the rich are the poor because rather than paying $0 in taxes and getting $8,000 back (Due to EIC and many other Credits) they might have to pay $1,000. (Yes I did taxes for someone with this scenario this year, and she flat out told me it would cost her too much to go to work, so she won't even try to get a job. In fact she turned down one I offered her making $15/Hr).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: NULLIFY + REPUDIATE
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: NULLIFY + REPUDIATE
If everyone pays, let's say 10% of their money to the government that they earn in a year, that seems fair, but...
If I make 10,000 dollars a year, I have to pay 1,000 dollars.
If you make 50,000 dollars a year, you have to pay 5,000.
Seems fair...
Except that I have 9,000 dollars for the year and you have 45,000 dollars for the year.
the problem with flat taxes is that they don't work simply for the fact that the government has to have money to run. If you like your clean water, air standards, minimum wage, and other programs to help out when times are tough, then you need a more progressive tax structure in place to pay for that stuff.
Granted, i do agree that the IRS needs to be reformed, but I would start with a simpler tax code to remove loop holes for businesses and find ways to make the businesses pay their share of the taxes.
I would leave in exceptions for college loan payments, child support payments and other things that everyone can use equally, but get rid of the stuff that only the rich could use.
Yeah, I know "this is all an attack on the rich, are you jealous?!" the arguments.
This isn't about me being jealous, it's about getting the rich and powerful to do their part to help this country out.
Imagine everyone in the united states, rich, poor, middle class, powerful, all walking down an aisle in a store. There's something that the poor and middle class could really use (more roads or better schools for example), but they don't have the money to reach that goal, so they ask the rich and powerful, who are able to help reach that goal, to give them a hand. As of right now, the rich can go "no thanks" to some stuff and screw over the poor and middle class.
It's not about jealousy, it's about human decency to help out if you can.
That's all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: NULLIFY + REPUDIATE
I make $5,00/year. You make $200k/year.
I can't afford the same things as you.
It's not fair you have more money than me. PAY ME!
Please explain to me why this is different than what you said above?
In fact there is no difference. How about you try to live within your means and if it's not enough, work harder.
Everyone wants what they don't have. The plain fact is that most of those who make over $100k also work 60-80+ hours a week, over holidays, weekends, nights. Those who say we need a progressive tax code really just want the fruits of MY labor instead of their own.
Ever hear the clich� "nothing worth having comes easy"??
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: NULLIFY + REPUDIATE
If the wages you are being paid aren't enough, Educate yourself and get a better job. It worked for me.
Hell, as a high school kid, I worked 30 hours a week and signed my check over to my mother to put food on the table. While in the military, I sent half my pay home to my family to help them survive. When I got out of the military, I was working as a cook in a fast food restaurant. I knew that wasn't going to cut it so I went to school, and paid my loans off (at a much higher % than the kids today are paying, btw), and found work in IT. All of the latter while working 60 hours a week at 2 jobs to get by.
Seems pretty simple to me. Work hard and enjoy the rewards.
Except I am somehow responsible for someone who happens to be less fortunate than me. Somehow it's MY responsibility that we all don't have the same abilities or intellect. Somehow it's MY fault they failed algebra and now can only work at Long John Silver's. Somehow it's MY responsibility that the drug-addicted asshole on the street that just broke into my house to steal for his next fix can't keep a job.
Like it or not it comes back to survival of the fittest. We live in a world that thrives on competition. There MUST be winners and losers. There MUST be failure. Failure is how we learn and grow. Nothing good comes from a lack of competition. Nothing is more effective than negative reinforcement.
For all of our achievements, the fact remains, we are a product of this natural word. We became the dominant species on the planet due to the very things our society is now trying to eliminate. It won't work.
LIFE SUCKS. It sure as hell isn't fair.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: NULLIFY + REPUDIATE
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: NULLIFY + REPUDIATE
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: NULLIFY + REPUDIATE
Except I can't, because I'm humane.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: NULLIFY + REPUDIATE
Your numbers are worthless since they do not account for "cost of living".
There may need to be reforms of the programs for the poor, but it is probably not a question of letting people die from hunger in the streets most people want even though it may sound appealing to a few libertarians.
"Get a job", works in good times, but not so much when there are no jobs to be had. The classic conservative meme is but a religion rather than an eternal solution.
As for the 100k plus, we are talking about wages here, right? When wages get to those numbers it is not as hard to invest money and in other ways, make a good amount of money on having money. These opportunities are hardly there for people who barely make the cost of living.
The wage follows work is a very narrow way of looking at the world. If everyone had the same base (hourly, daily, weekly, monthly) salary it would be exactly correct. However, since that is not even remotely the case you have to make it a bit more complex than that as in having network, having education, being smart, being clever, working more effectively etc. etc. Half of those demand a lot'a'money or being lucky. So hard work is one way to make a lot of money, but it is hardly the only way.
The reasoning behind progressive taxation is the wealth curve and how steep it is. Progressive taxation reduces the climb, while static taxation is insufficient to counteract a further wealth-pooling in the top of the curve. The measure of interest in this case is called the gini-coefficient. I am not saying it is the way things should be, but the gini-curve is the progressive religion just like you have your "get a job", "work has to be felt" and other religions.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: NULLIFY + REPUDIATE
As an example I have a couple of friends who lost their jobs about 6 years ago. One of those friends sat back, collected un-employment and refused to take a lower paying job, or a job out of his profession. The other immediately went out and got one minimum wage job, and then another, and then went back to school.
Care to take a guess which of those 2 friends is back on top?
Hint: it isn't the one that refused to take charge of his own destiny. He is still un-employed and blaming everyone but himself. First he blamed Bush II, now he blames Obama. Any bets who he will blame after the next election?
By the way, having been in the workforce well over 30 years now, I have had a few falls along the way. I have NEVER applied for un-employment nor went more than 4 days without a job, even if it was doing odd jobs, mowing yards, and trimming trees... I have run my own business 3 times (each in very different areas).
A quick look through any paper will show you the jobs are out there. They may not be good jobs or jobs you want but they are there. You must be able to market yourself, and you must be willing to do things you might not want to do. You absolutely MUST keep working, once you fall out of the role of active workers it becomes 50 times harder to find work.
Actually it is the way the world works. Do you pay the same for a meal at McDonalds as you do for a meal at Red Robin? Maybe you pay your car mechanic the same as you pay the guy that mows your yard, but I doubt it. Wage has always been based on the value society gives to a given service. The more specialized the knowledge or technical the ability, the more value it has to others (who likely do not possess that ability). If you mow yards, then the rate you earn is limited by the value people give to the service. If you charge say $70 to mow one acre and I can mow it myself in an hour and value my time at $20/Hr you are going to have a hard time selling that service to me, unless I am too busy and have disposable income.
If everyone makes the exact same salary why would anyone 'work harder'? How would society advance? People are generally paid for two things. What they know, and what they do. If you know things others don't, people will pay you to apply that knowledge on their behalf. If you can do things other can't / don't want to do, they will pay you to do it on their behalf. The amount of money they are willing to pay is, for the most part, directly proportional to the rarity of the skill. For instance a CEO, must be able to put a positive spin on everything to make a company look good and be able to sell it to everyone, it is a fairly rare trait and highly valued (rightly or wrongly). The ability to push a broom across a floor is an extremely common trait and thus not highly valued. (That is not to belittle anyone, not everyone has the same abilities, or drive for that matter.)
As for progressive taxes, they are an illusion. The rich get far too many tax breaks and the effective rate is almost always lower than someone making far less. Flat taxes actually would raise the effective tax rate on the rich and in many cases lower it on the middle class. If you are really concerned for the poor, you could exempt the first $20K from tax. The key is NO EXEMPTIONS/CREDITS (not for kids, or investing, or installing new windows, or buying a home or car. All of those are used as tools to induce spending that would happen anyway), and the tax should be on your GROSS INCOME not AGI, after you get all the 'breaks' from Uncle Sam. In other words for most Americans the tax would come right our of your paycheck, with no need to file taxes forms each year, your W2 would provide all the information needed to show you had paid your share.
As I stated elsewhere a National sales tax, or VAT tax would ensure the rich pay more, because they spend more. You could even put a "Luxury Tax" on many of the 'excesses' that rich spend on (Million Dollar Homes for example).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: NULLIFY + REPUDIATE
I must beg to differ. It is the current system that is totally broken and warped into a disaster. It gives breaks to the rich, free rides to the poor and screws the shrinking middle class.
Flat Taxes on income CAN work and here is how.
You have a Federal Flat Tax at say 10%, just as you used. This makes everyone a contributor to society. After all we are all participants in society.
You then add a VAT (Value Added Tax) on everything except food , medication and subsidized housing. In this way the guy making $10,000/Yr still contributes (no free rides), but those who make more money, obviously spend more money too. They buy things and those things are taxed, possibly progressively. You set the VAT at an appropriate rate to keep the government running.
In this way the rich MUST pay taxes, no loopholes. corporate America MUST pay taxes, no loopholes. Even drug dealers, gangs, illegal aliens, everyone, all spend money and when they do, they pay taxes too. So everyone contributes (no free rides), but those with the means help more (want to or not).
All of that said in all honesty the Federal Government is in need of MAJOR reform. There are too many people on the governments payroll. There are far to many people, and corporations dependent on the government for subsidies. The Federal Government should be about 1/3, maybe less it's present size and the State and local governments should be more responsible for taking care of the people. The Federal Governments Constitutional mandates were far exceeded long ago.
The systems put in place by our government have largely guaranteed that we will become a two class society, the haves and the have nots if you will. The current system also guarantees that there will be far more have nots than haves and the federal government is doing its level best to make sure you 'need' them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: NULLIFY + REPUDIATE
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: NULLIFY + REPUDIATE
So while your at it, why don't we remove all costs to corporations? You know, maybe we could get rid of minimum wage, or a requirement to purchase the various insurances like Workmans Comp, health insurance...
Sorry I see a trap in your statement. ;^)
By its name a Flat Tax means just that. No loopholes, not for the number of kids you have, not for your health, not because you lost your job, or because I think you are a great guy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: NULLIFY + REPUDIATE
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: NULLIFY + REPUDIATE
The issue would be things like trading goods or bartering, but lets face it that won't be a problem, especially for the rich who won't be happy unless they have the latest model car, and they won't really care about the tax (they will cry about it, but they will pay it and go on down the road.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: NULLIFY + REPUDIATE
There is also a whole list of other problems that would make this discussion go far further but if you are looking at it just from taxes that is my opinion.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: NULLIFY + REPUDIATE
You need to go back and re-read what he said and what he wrote.
The idea here is that no one is better or shown favoritism based on any factor. We all pay the same percentage of our income with no loopholes to escape our tax burden. If i mak 50 million per year i pay 10% if i make 5k per year i pay 10%.
Ultimately, our tax burdens should be the same percent, equally applied to all because we are all the same an no one, regardless of any factor, is better than any other.
In fact, I would think that the federal government could be sued for progressive tax rates because of the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: NULLIFY + REPUDIATE
Don't want it there? Pressure the government to amend the Constitution. Otherwise, taxation by the federal government is legitimate.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: NULLIFY + REPUDIATE
Okay, so "Privatize all the things!" and "Get rid of all government!"
Good luck with living in a tax-free world where the "trusted individual" can decide how to spend all of his or her money. Generous and community minded or not, the result will be a free-for-all where the weakest go to the wall. That's not the worst part. Getting rid of government means getting rid of governance and relying on the courts to protect you from corporate and other predators.
You do know that courts are appointed and maintained by the government, right? And justice and law enforcement in general?
Okay, who is going to run these things in the absence of government? Even if you "only" limit government to these things and defence, trying to get these people (minarchists) to agree on anything beyond the Articles of Confederation (which only applied to thirteen states and was ditched by the Founding Fathers because it didn't work) in order to replace the functions previously carried out by government is a lot of fun to watch. In practice, we'd end up with a mess because you can't run a country on selfish paranoia.
One of the funniest things I've heard them say is that the essential functions they ARE willing to pay for can be funded via charitable donations.
And that's what this guy sounds like.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: NULLIFY + REPUDIATE
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Targeting
Is it just me?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Targeting
Anyway, why should non-profits get a tax break anyway? If your cause is only supportable as a tax break for the donator then it is not much of a cause in the first place.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Targeting
You can't possibly pay taxes on money you don't make for a profit of your own. Non-profit usually means that 100% of the cost is spent on running costs in an organization that relies on donations of monetary or intrinsic value.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Targeting
Yes, they have to spend 100% on operations. Salary is part of operations. I have done business with many big name national non-profits. They are generally not lean operations. They are top heavy with VPs and Directors making nice salaries for doing little to actually help the less fortunate, sick, whatever.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Targeting
The IRS was basing these audits on key word searches of specific words in titles of organizations typically associated with non-profit establishments. The Salvation Army is one of the non-political groups who had to wait just over a year to get tax exempt status. All who filed politically under Tea Party as their political affiliation were targeted.
And then the IRS was making demands of people that would deny them their first amendment rights by promising not to do certain things that would normally be completely legal.
Susan Martinek, president of the Coalition for Life of Iowa, testified that an IRS agent told her in June 2009 that she needed to send a letter with her entire board�s signatures �stating under penalty of perjury we would not picket, protest or organize groups to picket, protest outside of Planned Parenthood.�
I mean seriously...since when does the IRS have the power to base an audit, especially a political organization is not allowed to protest and picket voting stations (and none of them ever do) and demand it from them anyway because of their own beliefsa ....it's not as if the IRS were the electoral committee here, and they do not have the jurisdiction to make such demands in contract to law abiding citizens. That is an example of who they are targeting.
The other reason why non-profit status is tax exempt is because they rely on optional donations. Christians typically tithe money to the church they go to so they can keep going to that church and because the like the friendships they develop with other fellow Christians as a result....in my Nazarene territory we call that fellowship. The donation is totally optional and not one bit mandatory.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Targeting
Tax exemption was originally given to organizations(Churches, hospitals, etc) who showed they "supported" people (prior to Govt welfare/FDR). Once the Govt starts a program, it is very, very, very, very, VERY hard to eliminate it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Targeting
Also, opposition to taxes, or increased taxes, or wasted taxes, was not even the primary driver for most of these groups.
So yeah, it's just you. And probably a lot of other simple-minded people who like to think things through halfway.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This is what happens when you cut oversight spending at the IRS
In order to save some money to deal with that new reality the IRS was forced to cut out a lot of the safeguards to prevent this kind of political targeting and enforce money savings.
So it shouldn't really be much of a surprise when *gasp* we removed the safe guards, and now things we were safe guarding against before are happening and happening more frequently!
That's like car manufacturers saying "deaths in car accidents have gone down so much that we can remove all the seat belts and air bags from our new models to save a few bucks. The death rate from accidents will remain the same. *time passes* OMG the death rate has quadrupled in our newer models! Who could have EVER foreseen this!"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
all just mumbo jumbo
The IRS has been raising their budget every year. Any talk about budget cuts is that liberal double-speak meaning "we are taking a cut in the increase" [but it's still an increase.
Private companies have learned to do more with less...it's about time the government learns the same!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: all just mumbo jumbo
Yes, the government could do with less, but then things get really bad.
Imagine, if you will, you're living on Food Stamps, it helps you live.
It also, shockingly enough, helps to keep the economy from becoming a death spiral where everyone loses their jobs.
See, if people who have food stamps goes out to buy food, then people who work at the store still get paid and have money, and those people can spend money into the economy, thus keeping the economy, which may be struggling, from going completely under long enough that when things turn around, people can be hired again.
Which means, of course, that the government can, once that happens, lower spending because they don't have to support as many people, and collect more taxes, thus paying off their deficits.
What works for people and businesses doesn't work for the government. The government can get away with things that you or I couldn't, simply because of the way the government works.
In FACT!
Your argument was actually debunked, about the government making do with less, just this morning on cracked.
http://www.cracked.com/article_20454_5-scary-myths-you-probably-believe-about-economy.ht ml
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: all just mumbo jumbo
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: all just mumbo jumbo
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: all just mumbo jumbo
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: all just mumbo jumbo
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: This is what happens when you cut oversight spending at the IRS
Makes perfect sense.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: This is what happens when you cut oversight spending at the IRS
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Receipts
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Receipts
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Text book definition
Now THAT is irony right there.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I suggest...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Uh..... watch your back...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Just an idea...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]