States Link Databases to Find Tax Cheats 726
The IRS and state revenue agencies are increasingly linking every database they can get to their tax records to find clues about your finances.
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
States Link Databases to Find Tax Cheats
Related Links Top of the: day, week, month.
I have hardly ever known a mathematician who was capable of reasoning. -- Plato
Privacy Issues (Score:5, Interesting)
I really don't have a lot of sympathy for people who cheat on their taxes. I play fair, which means I have to pay more to make up the difference from the people screwing over their own government. If database cross-referencing means it will be easier to catch tax evasion, with the side benefit of making audits more efficient, you've got my vote. It even sounds like it will assist in keeping some innocents out of the audit process, which is good. I'm sure more than a few people still remember the high-profile black eyes the IRS got from false alarms.
A side note: I know the flames in reply will be numerous, because it's not a popular stance, and most won't bother to RTFA or my entire comment. But I wanted to go on record anyway.
Re:Privacy Issues (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Privacy Issues (Score:5, Funny)
maybe the honest people will be taxed a little less.
Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight... What colour is the sky on your planet?
Re:Privacy Issues (Score:5, Insightful)
1. A method of gaining the necessary revenue to run the country...
2. A method of extracting as much as possible from people without causing civil unrest...
Re:Privacy Issues (Score:5, Insightful)
I really don't think there's any evil intent in Washington on taxes, they just can't say no to shortsighted voters who demand more and more services from the government. (And why should they? Politicians are supposed to do what their constituents want, at least mostly. If they didn't, they wouldn't get reelected.)
I guess you could say that taxes are set by the voters, since we're all too dumb to consider the price tag when we demand stuff like universal healthcare and a Department of Homeland Security.
Re:Universal healthcare costs less (Score:5, Insightful)
The "efficiencies" generated by competitive private coverage are eaten up many times over by the costs of form filling for multiple providers and insurers, among other things.
That's a slight exaggeration, to say the least. I'm not going to say millions of dollars aren't wasted in this endevour, but it's a tiny, tiny fraction of the amount spent on healthcare.
The reason we pay so much in the U.S. is clearly because of insurance. I'd like to see your facts and figures shown AFTER healthcare professionals and institutions have paid their liability insurance, I think they'd show an entirely different picture.
In fact, there are doctors who are going without and are able to charge half the price they had been charging. The patients are informed there is no insurance in case they decide to sue. The cases I've heard of are in Florida, where people's assets are protected in case of bankruptcy and court ordered monetary rewards. In other words, the doctor is not going to lose his house if someone sues him (that's why O.J. moved to Florida, BTW).
Anyhow, I agree the healthcare system could be better, but I don't buy your argument about universal healthcare. There is NO one who, if injured or sick and dying, can't walk into a hospital and get treatment. The few annecdotal cases of people being turned away are rare and generally cause a backlash against the institution that did it. That's another reason it costs so much for the people who actually pay.
Then there's the people who can afford healthcare but choose not to. I know this is a minority of people without healthcare, but it is significant. I know about these people because, until I was married and had responsibilities, I was one of them - why should a young, healthy guy pay thousands of dollars a year for health insurance when, even if he gets sick, it will often have cost less to not have any insurance at all? I made this decision when I was in school, had insurance, and caught pneumonia. Total doctors bills were about $800 plus almost $100 for medicine. My out of pocket expenses were about $400, starting with a deductable and higher copays for emergency treatment. I paid $750 for insurance that year. My total cost: $1150. Total cost without insurance: $900.
Anyway, the bottom line is that I don't buy your argument for universal healthcare. On the one hand, I don't want people to go sick, but on the other hand I don't see a provision for universal healthcare in the constitution, either. And moreover, there is not a government program that has ended up costing LESS than a private one, unless the feds exempt themselves from lawsuits - which is the biggest single expense in the private industry. That would be a crock, when they can pass tort reform NOW.
Another way to look at what your asking is for the wealthy to pay for the healthcare of the poor. Now, if I had a lot of extra money, I'd be donating left and right (hey, even without ANY extra I do what I can), but government forced income redistribution is not appealing to me at all, socialism is not the form of government this country was founded on, and it's not the form of government we had to make us the strongest and most important nation in the world.
Well, not going to rant on about it anymore... just my opinion.
Medicare 3% overhead, HMOs 20% (Score:3, Informative)
HMOs, in particular, have about 20% of their revenue going to non-medical expenses.
A lot of that money goes to pay people to hassle you or your doctor everytime you want a prescription filled or to go see a specialist.
Medicare has 2 to 3% of costs going to non-medical expenses.
http://www.medicarewatch.org/2001Basic/Whats_Ri g ht -5.html
Privatizing Medicare will make it run out of money faster.
Re:Correction: (Score:3, Insightful)
Nope. The New Deal & SSI actually prolonged the Depression because of the new burdens it put on employers. What really pulled the US out the Depression was WW2, not any of FDR's social programs.
The GI Bill helped out a lot, but you also have to take in consideration that much of the post-war boom was also driven by the demand created because they couldn't buy many items due to the rationing during the war.
Re:Privacy Issues (Score:3, Insightful)
We had signs plastered everywhere saying that "Help fight shoplifting. It hurts sales, and without it our prices would be even lower."
What a bunch of bull. Even if you managed to completely elminate all shoplifting from all Drug Fairs throughout the country, the prices wouldn't even dip. They would keep on asking for the same price, and just rake in the ex
Re:Privacy Issues (Score:4, Insightful)
Heck, right now the government has claimed to "lower" our taxes, and it hasn't even closed all the loopholes and caught all the cheats. And the deficit's ballooning. If it took in more, even if it didn't lower our taxes as a direct result, this would reduce the deficit, and improve our situation down the road. Right?
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Privacy Issues (Score:3, Insightful)
While I do tend to agree with you, your figure is way off. $10B is only about $40/person in the US. Remember, the national debt (not deficit) works out to something like $24,000/person. [brillig.com]. I've heard it claimed that the US could immediately balance it's budget if all the tax cheating could be stopped. I don't know how they came to this conclusion, but I do tend to believe it.
Re:Privacy Issues (Score:3, Insightful)
That would only be true if the government budget was balanced in the first place. If the deficit was due to budgeting 100 billion in collections and only recieving 90 billion due to cheating, than the cheating is causing the deficit.
As it is today, they planned on taking in 90 billion and spending 110 billion. The r
Re:Privacy Issues (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Privacy Issues (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Privacy Issues (Score:5, Insightful)
Give it a rest. It doesn't do anything to help your "cause" to accuse Bush of every stupid thing under the sun. What next? He stole your underwear?
What you really need to be thinking about is whether or not you really want Hillary Clinton to be your candidate in 2008.
Re:Privacy Issues (Score:5, Funny)
He might have! I did lose a pair of underwear recently.... but i'm an aussie not an american; it was probably howard not bush.
Re:Privacy Issues (Score:3, Funny)
Step 1) Steal Underpants
Step 2) Get Elected President
Step 3) Profit!!!
Steven V.
No one "makes up the difference" (Score:2, Insightful)
Overspending is the problem, not underpaying.
When someone pays less, they'll just have to figure out how to spend less.
Re:No one "makes up the difference" (Score:2, Funny)
Re:No one "makes up the difference" (Score:2)
Re:No one "makes up the difference" (Score:5, Insightful)
If fewer people were cheating on their taxes, would the tax rate automatically get cut? Or would they find something to spend the extra $$$$ on?
Re:No one "makes up the difference" (Score:5, Interesting)
Thats ridiculous. The reason we are running massive budget deficits and our taxes are so high is thanks to massive corruption and waste in our government.
Halliburton has something like 18 billion dollars in no bid contracts in Iraq. They are cost plus contracts so its impossible for them to not make money on them. On top of that they've been cooking their books to rake in even higher profits, for example wildly inflating the number of meals they are serving to the Army. Bechtel is presumably doing about as well. Its pretty simple really, they are so connected with the Bush administration there was no chance these contracts would be competitively bid, and they are raking in huge profits at tax payer expense.
Most of the contractors working in Iraq are making six figure, tax exempt, salaries. Iraq is one giant pork barrel for friends of the Bush administration. This is, no doubt, one reason they wanted to invade Iraq.
The annual ombudsmen bill is an annual ritual where Congressmen, from both parties, dole out pork to the friends and contributors. Its $820 billion total, $328 billions is discretionary spending (which means not essential) and about $11 billion is unabashed pork. John McKane does an annual speech exposing all the blatant payola and humiliating his fellow Congressman for doing it. The congressional delegation from Alaska is especially adept at it. Alaska gets more federal hand outs than any state in the Union, per capita.
http://timesargus.com/Story/77768.html
Last years so called Medicare reform bill was a gigantic subsidy to the pharmaceutical and insurance industries which will cost us at least $55 billion a year very little of which is benefiting seniors. It was passed using deceptively low cost estimates, bribery, deception and pushed through by corrupt insiders. Billy Tauzin who pushed it through congress, and the Medicare administrator who hid the true cost, instantaneously took multimillion dollar jobs with the drug industry they'd just blessed with tax payer subsidized wealth. Its a basicly a transfer of our tax dollars in to their pockets because they are friends and contributors of the Republicans. I'm pretty sure these two industries are probably the least in need of a bailout from the Federal government of any in this country.
The Bush/Cheney Energy bill is likewise going to be a huge transfer of wealth in to the pockets of big energy companies if it passes.
http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/11/30/mccain
The Pentagon is equally bad. There is a revolving door from the civilians and officers in the DOD to big defense contractors. They are throwing billions in contracts to these companies while they are in the government and then taking lucrative jobs with the contractors as the payoff when they leave the government. The latest most vivid case was a $20 billion dollar deal for 767 tankers that was thrown to Boeing by Darlene Druyun, a key civilian procurement official for the Air Force. As soon as the deal was signed she took a lucrative job at Boeing. The only reason this stinking mess unraveled was because John McCain once again refused to stand for it and exposed it.
Basically you need to understand how the U.S. system works. Big corporations and wealthy individuals donate relatively small amounts to a candidates war chest. If that candidate wins they get a 1,000 or 10,000 fold return on their investment at tax payer expense. The company wins, the politician wins (its not their money they are giving back to their donors), and the tax payer gets screwed.
There is also a revolving door where people are jumping between big corporations and government service. They don't make anything while they are on the Federal payroll but they get RICH as soon as they return to private industry and they get paid off for their gener
Re:No one "makes up the difference" (Score:5, Insightful)
If you could get one of those jobs, would you? (Score:3, Insightful)
Cause that's what I do to my friends - ship them off to Iraq. If someone showed up tomorrow and overred me $150,000 per year to be a contractor in Iraq...
I'd say no. Sometimes high salaries are justified, especially if half the country is shooting at you.
"Fair play" (Score:5, Insightful)
Do you think if everybody paid the taxes they owe that politicians would just lower the tax rate overall? The government will take all it can get.
Ronald Regan said it best (and please don't take this as some unqualified endorsement of the "good-old-days of Ronald Regan): "Government is like a baby. All appetite at one end, and no responsibility at the other."
Re:"Fair play" (Score:3, Insightful)
But let's even forget about this. They are going to spend the money on something, and it will be of use to someone, whether it is simply used to pay some guy's salary or for some government program, it is still put to way better use than if it stayed in the cheat
Re:Privacy Issues (Score:3, Interesting)
The trouble is that you are relying on individuals with a vested interest in getting as much money out of you as possible (for a wide variety of reasons) to put checks and balances that work into a system designed to get money from the populace.
Whether we like it or not, we have gone from a majority government (democracy) to a republic (which ONLY works IF the elected representatives are truly ACCOUNTABLE to the people they are su
Re:Privacy Issues (Score:3, Interesting)
The problem with Libertarians is that they assume that things will get done "just because." If a bridge ought to exist over a river, then someone will build the bridge and charge others to cross it; Libertarians reason that if the bridge can't pay for itself, then it shouldn't exist, and nobody will build it, and that's fine, QED.
In reality, I suspect that very little along these lines would get done at all. People are far too selfis
Re:Privacy Issues (Score:4, Insightful)
But there are some things I find ridiculous, being a resident of Taxachusetts, one of the fine states mentioned in this article. Like that great 5% "Use Tax" - they basically expect me to report something I bought off of eBay, or from Dell, and pay sales tax on it just like if I bought it from the store around the corner. I realize you say you "play fair", but do you go and add up every item you buy on the internet and report it to your state to make sure they are getting their "fair share" of that dollar they already taxed once when you earned it? I realize you may live in a more sane state than I do so this all sounds far fetched to you, but that's the reality of living here.
I won't even get into the raw insanity that is working for a New York LLC and being a Massachusetts resident who travels to New York for work frequently. If you work one day out of the year in New York, New York thinks you owe taxes on the COMPLETE total sum of the monies paid to you by the New York LLC or Corporation. Massachusetts, being slightly less insane, will actually let you count this amount against your taxes owed in Massachusetts, I believe. But I'm certainly not so honest that I plan on filing taxes in New York and figuring this out, just because I travel there and do some work there now and again. They aren't going to eat their 8.whatever percent of my income instead of just letting me pay the honest 5.whatever I owe Massachusetts.
So anyway, yes, I support paying my fair share to the state and federal government, but I don't support letting them unfairly rape me. And I honestly have never met anyone in Massachusetts who goes and adds up their out-of-state purchases for the "Use Tax".
Re:Privacy Issues (Score:3, Funny)
As long as this practice doesn't lead to someone saying "Hey, this Kano fellow never buys food. EVER! He mus
Re:Privacy Issues (Score:2, Insightful)
Well, that's certainly one option, however I'm leaning towards the possibility that they are not paying their taxes because they like money, not because they share your weird ideological views.
Re:Oh, the Irony (Score:5, Insightful)
Your using words like "the" or "they" to talk about the Government. Perhaps you've forgotten about the fact that you are the Government in the United States and "they" work for you. If you don't like what "they" are doing then perhaps you should write a letter to your Congressman or vote for somebody else. Cheating on your taxes is not the answer and it only hurts those of us who pay by the rules and use the soapbox and/or ballotbox to try and change things.
Think of it this way: if I take all the money out of your wallet one day, and then use it to buy you a lot of food (in a complete coincidence, I happen to buy it all from a grocery store that my brother owns and that gives me kickbacks for my purchase)
So the Government is taking all your money? What tax bracket are you in? Is there a 100% tax bracket that I'm not aware of? And it's not just food or roads either. It's Education, Defense (it's hard to earn your money that the Government can take away if you are murdered by an invading power), Scientific Research, etc etc etc. Next you'll say that the Government shouldn't fund Education.
Since people are so hung up on roads, I'll gladly make a deal with the government: I won't drive on the roads ever again. I'll walk or telecommute for everything I need. In return, I don't have to pay any taxes ever again
Will you also not buy food that was transported to you on roadways paid by tax dollars? Better buy all your food from a grocery store that receives it's shipments via private railroad then. And what will you walk on? Sidewalks? Sorry those are paid for with tax dollars -- better find another method.
Re:Oh, the Irony (Score:3, Insightful)
It's supposed to be our fault now that you don't vote? Or do you? If you do vote then it doesn't matter if you voted for your Congressman or not -- you are a constituent and they are supposed to take your opinion and ideas seriously. Apathy of your sort will be the death of democracy.
So back to
Tax $ Tug of War (Score:5, Insightful)
"We're asking people to pay their taxes that are legitimately due," he said. "And if we don't have people pay the taxes that are due, then we have to ask the people that are stepping forward to pay more. And that's not fair."
On the other hand, I think these data repositories and the data mining technology that fill these massive databases are obviously digging up unrelated but interesting data and *that* can lead to abuse and I think it will lead to abuse.
At some point the government and the populace has to determine the risk/reward values of filling the tax coffers against the potentially huge violation of peoples rights to privacy. For now, I think the gov't is moving ahead with initiatives with which I do not think the majority of the population would endorse.
Happy Trails!
Erick
Re:Tax $ Tug of War (Score:5, Insightful)
I agree with you, but I agree with this guy too [slashdot.org].
The one thing that I always come back to when I read these things is "yes, it's performing a useful, valid task NOW.... but what will it be doing in 10 years?"
The government (any government, actually) likes to introduce things like this in legitimate areas. They say "oh, we're just hunting down tax evaders, nothing you need to concern yourself with. It's GOOD for you."
Bear in mind, however... there was no permanent federal income tax until 1913. Country did just fine for almost 140 years with no income tax except in dire situations (read: when war broke out). Then, they said "oh, this is for your own good - you need to pay for the war in Europe to protect freedom and blah blah blah".
Well... here we sit, 91 years later, saying "well... it's for the best."
It's not a forgone conclusion that it will be abused. No, of course not. But it IS a possibility... and history is not on our side when it comes to the U.S. government abusing newfound powers...
Re:Tax $ Tug of War (Score:4, Insightful)
In view of the programs(well some of them) funds its still for the best. How would you feel with no national police orginization(not a reduced force, none, absolutly no cross border investigations), no social security, no FDIC, no Federal Reserve, no CDC, and absolutly no national regulation agianst corporations?
Re:Tax $ Tug of War (Score:5, Insightful)
The FDIC is of limited use as well. If you screw up your finances, you could still lose tons of money (FDIC only covers up to $100,000), but if the economy really tanked and all banks went belly-up, it has been estimated that FDIC would cover seven cents on the dollar (no source to cite that, I received it from a friend who was subscribed to an e-mail list).
Some of the other programs you mention are useful, but some government programs are a complete waste (or benefit too few people to be considered very useful).
-- Joe
Re:Tax $ Tug of War (Score:3, Insightful)
If you have more then $100,000 in cash onhand then somehow I doubt you'll be in too much pain if your bank fails. The FDIC exists to protect the Mom & Pop type people that got screwed over by failing banks during the great depression. Anyone with over $100,000 on hand is going to diversify their investments and should (in theory) be fairly immune to the ups and downs
Re:Tax $ Tug of War (Score:4, Insightful)
Bear in mind, however... there was no permanent federal income tax until 1913. Country did just fine for almost 140 years with no income tax except in dire situations (read: when war broke out). Then, they said "oh, this is for your own good - you need to pay for the war in Europe to protect freedom and blah blah blah".
Man I am sick of this kind of horseshit about cheap ass whiners who hate paying their taxes.
Know what else the country didn't have in 1913? National highways to maintain, huge publicly funded transit systems, security agencies like the NSA and CIA to keep you safe, social security, medicare, the largest military in the universe....
Want to ditch income tax? Fine - lay off about half the people paid directly or indirectly by the military ( oh, 2 million give or take ), get rid of old age security and let your parents die of starvation as they grow old and can't afford food because of their perscriptions ( oh, because medicare is also gone ). Then watch as terrorists come in and take over your state because a) You had no agency to gather intelligence on such things b) You have no infrastructure in place to defend yourself anymore.
Grow up, this is the twenty first century. Every country in the first world has income tax - know why? Because shit costs money, and people like you are too greedy to fork it over for the general good by choice, so we have to legislate it out of you.
Personally, I think the government is way too easy on tax evasion. In my opinion, if you don't care enough about the country to pay a small portion of it, then you don't care enough to stay here either. They should all be stripped of their citizenship and deported. Fines / Jailtime is too easy.
Re:Tax $ Tug of War (Score:4, Funny)
The Vogons do not share your opinion.
Re:Tax $ Tug of War (Score:5, Interesting)
Of that list you put out, the only things that really require income tax to fund are the NSA, CIA, and the military. Transit and highways fall under transportation (which can be funded by gas and transit taxes, and by local and state bond issues which will be paid with local and state taxes), social security and medicare are welfare taxes that are levied separately from the federal income tax.
Apart from the issues with all of these items (ie, Social Security, where you pay money in for the people currently drawing out, in exchange for the thin possibility some wage earner in the future will do the same for you), the government needs money only to do the things that we, as a people, have deemed that it is necessary for the government to do.
For example, with regards to the common defense, most people don't want to devote part of their time to serving in the armed forces, so we pay people to serve full-time and part-time (also, a volunteer force is more effective, but the idea is we'd rather commit money than time.) Same thing with law enforcement, the court system, roads, etc. - it is a delegation of authority and responsibility, that requires funding in order to work.
Because shit costs money, and people like you are too greedy to fork it over for the general good by choice, so we have to legislate it out of you.
"We", meaning the majority of American citizens, or "we", as in the minority of special interests think they know what's best for the rest of us? Most of us are fine with being taxed for services we use - its the services we DON'T use, and the misuses of those funds that we object to. Consider that fact that the federal income tax is a "pay as you go" tax - if you run a business, you must remit quarterly tax receipts if you expect to make a profit that year. As an individual, you must pay taxes throughout the year, and come tax day, you either get to pay more money, or you get a refund (with no interest.)
Where does that money go? To print lots of paper for stupid laws proposed by special interests, to pay for staff and telephones, and fax machines for the politicians who then spend time debating these stupid laws, who then pass the stupid laws, which are then challenged in court, resulting in more money to print more paper, pay judges, court reporters, etc. to try the case in court, and finally, if upheld, to pay for enforcement of those laws.
In the case of tax laws, they're taxing you in order to pay for enforcers to make sure you're paying your taxes. What a racket!
Personally, I think the government is way too easy on tax evasion. In my opinion, if you don't care enough about the country to pay a small portion of it, then you don't care enough to stay here either. They should all be stripped of their citizenship and deported. Fines / Jailtime is too easy.
Funny thing you propose that. Too bad the IRS will not let anyone give up their US Citizenship if they think that they're doing it to evade taxes.
Personally, I think anyone who shirks from jury duty should be stripped of citizenship. If I'm going to have to give up a month's pay because two sets of assholes have nothing better to do than waste the time of a judge and jury on a civil case (they ended up settling while we were on the second day of deliberations), then by god, you should too!
I'd rather that went away, too. (Score:4, Insightful)
Which are supposed to be maintained out of the gas taxes. But the bureaucrats keep ripping it off to fund other stuff, such as:
huge publicly funded transit systems,
Which cost FAR more per ride than cars. And pollute more than a car with two passengers. And are one of the big forces promoting ghettoization and urban sprawl. (For mass transit to work AT ALL you need a mass of people at one place who need to commute to work at another.)
If mass transit systems can't be run at a profit it means one or both of two things: there's no real demand for them or the people running them are not competent (in which case they're useless even if they COULD have been useful).
security agencies like the NSA and CIA to keep you safe,
By tapping our phones and internet, "dirty tricking" opposition politicians, testing virus delivery systems on US urban populations (and nuclear istotpe exposure on "marginal" rural populations (such as indians and people living with them), assasinating foreign leaders, destabilizing social institutions in countries that aren't friendly to US industries (even if they are friendly to US interests otherwise) - then "retiring" to form organizations to destabilize social institutions here at home, overestimating the threat from the Soviet Union, missing the threat from certain middle-eastern terrorists, and I could go on for hours (since THEY went on for decades).
social security,
The worlds largest ponzi scheme. It won't be here when I'm retired. All that money I could have been investing (or using to buy a home and raise the children I'll now never have) has been spent on the previous generation and the only way they'll have anything to pay for us boomers is to totally enslave generations X and Y.
medicare,
Even more so. (And the people it serves are, on the average, better off than the people who are taxed to pay for it.)
the largest military in the universe
Which was supposed to be f***ing DISBANDED after WWII. The US is not SUPPOSED to have a standing army.
But with the income tax they were able to keep it going, and become cops of the world. And with private armament development crippled by the first of the federal gun bans they could argue that they needed it.
Hogwash.
Want to ditch income tax? Fine - lay off about half the people paid directly or indirectly by the military ( oh, 2 million give or take ),
Sounds good to me.
Let's put the military back into its proper form.
get rid of old age security and let your parents die of starvation as they grow old and can't afford food because of their perscriptions ( oh, because medicare is also gone ).
Your man's straw is showing. "Oh, horrors! Without these government programs people will starve and die." Well guess what: First, they aren't falling off the cliff you drew, and second the government (as usual) is ripping off the bulk of the money that's SUPPOSED to go to "help" them for other purposes, while bleeding the NEXT batch white.
shit costs money, and people like you are too greedy to fork it over for the general good by choice
NOW it's out in the open. "You're too greedy to give and too stupid to save. So we eitists who know better will just have to steal it from you to do the things that SHOULD be done with it, while calling you names the whole while."
Grow up yourself, commisar.
The people are MUCH smarter than you give them credit for. And are perfectly capable of taking care of themselves - and each other - voluntarily - when you and your minions aren't stealing their savings and spending $2.60 on yourselves for every $1.00 you spend giving them some "benefit" - usually not the one they need.
Socialism is theft.
Re:Tax $ Tug of War (Score:3, Insightful)
Why do libertarians think that capitalism without government would be any better than government without capitalism.
So let's ditch the income tax and see if our country really does come to an end. Somehow I doubt it
No you're right. It won't come to an end. Russia made Income Tax optional recently and look how well it's going.
Yet more privacy issues. (Score:4, Interesting)
It's about time (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:It's about time (Score:3, Insightful)
We don't want our Government sharing data between different levels of Government or different agencies anymore then is absolutely necessary. Separation of powers is a good thing -- even if it causes some short term headaches.
Re:It's about time (Score:3, Insightful)
Have you ever read the 10th amendment?
Get a national sales tax already (Score:5, Insightful)
Advantages:
- Never file a tax return again
- Even illegal money (i.e. drug money) is taxed as it is spent
- Americans are encouraged to actually save money, since if they don't spend it, they don't pay taxes on it
- Provide a sliding scale on needed items vs luxury items (food=cheap tax, yachts=expensive tax)
- Get rid of the outmoded IRS and save a whole pile of money right there
Ok, time for me to run and hide, since they probably have the slashdot user database linked to my real name....
Re:Get a national sales tax already (Score:3, Insightful)
In addition, putting money into play, via spending, is one of the keys to spending. Encouraging people to keep their money under their mattress, rather than buy needed products, would provide a stiff kick to the economy's figurative balls.
jus
Re:Get a national sales tax already (Score:2, Interesting)
Ideally they won't keep it under the mattress, they'll give it to a bank, who [in exchange for a small amount of interest] will use it to provide venture capital to new companies to keep the economy moving! Now whether this works in practice is another thing all together :)
Re:Get a national sales tax already (Score:4, Interesting)
Also, other than getting moldy, what does that money under the mattress do for the person who earned it? If you're not actually spending it and increasing your standard of living why should you be penalized reguardless?
And when did it become the consumers fault that businesses aren't making things worth buying? Sounds like RIAA-thought to me...
Re:Get a national sales tax already (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Get a national sales tax already (Score:2, Insightful)
And that is the reason this will never happen. Too many people have too much power since they can manipulate the tax code. This would be a lot harder to do with a national sales tax. Not to mention, politicians would have a much harder time creating special tax brackets and fighting about 'tax cuts for the rich'. That being said, I think a national sales tax is an excellent idea, provided the income tax is actually eliminated.
Re:Get a national sales tax already (Score:5, Funny)
Please note that we have scheduled a tax audit for you the morning of April 20th. Please bring all paperwork and please be sure not to eat anything after 4pm the night before.
Sincerely,
The IRS
Re:Get a national sales tax already (Score:2)
The only way this could work in the average taxpayer's favor .... is too complicated to ever actually happen.
Just lower the rates. Loopholes and cheating will have a smaller advantage and they'll be used less often.
Re:Get a national sales tax already (Score:3, Insightful)
Even if there was a flat 10% income tax, it would generate more revenue by eliminating the overhead with collects it...because the IRS is by no means efficient.
Eliminate the IRS...and make everyone pay a fair, equal share, I say.
Now, ther
Re:Get a national sales tax already (Score:4, Interesting)
I'd like to think this, but actually I have a hard time believing that much of the money the rich spend ever trickles down to the poor. One of the reasons for this is the inherent downward flow of money in a company. When you buy a product from company X, the people who run/own company X get a piece of the profits, and then pass as little as they can get away with down to their subordinates.
The second problem is that consumerism causes inflation. You don't spend money in a vacuum; when you buy something, it drives up the price of that product for others, thanks to the law of supply, price and demand.
This is why the lower classes aren't all that excited about Bush's "across-the-board" tax cuts: living costs are increasing at a rate that far outstrips the extra few hundred dollars that they're saving on taxes each year. And on top of that, the rich are getting huge amounts back from the tax cuts, which means they will spend more, further driving up costs of goods and services.
The problem is especially manifest in the housing and gasoline markets, because housing and gasoline are both commodities that everyone needs.
My solution to this would be to have our tax tables change each year depending on the cost of living. If the cost of living increased from the previous year, then the taxes will become more progressive (harsher on the upper class), and if the cost of living decreased, vice-versa.
Why a sales tax won't happen (Score:5, Insightful)
1) It is disproportionately hard on poor people. This makes it a political hot potato. No politician wants to be seen as being against poor people. (regardless of what their actual opinion is)
2) There are two reasons for having taxes the way we do. One is raising money and the other is social engineering. The government provides all kinds of tax benefits for behavior they want to encourage. (like marriage)
3) Ever wonder why we have that "Other Income" line right above the adjusted gross income? It's to catch drug dealers and other criminals. That's how they caught Al Capone. Not for a crime but for not declaring (illegally gotten) income on his taxes. Can't do that with a sales tax.
Re:Why a sales tax won't happen (Score:3, Insightful)
How? Are different people charged different sales tax rates?
Or is it because then rich people would have more money in their bank or under their mattress or whatever? But if they're only spending as much as a poor person, they're also living as a poor person as well. Why should the richer person be penalized solely because of the size of the lump they have to sleep on?
"There are two reasons for having taxes the way we do. One is raising money and the ot
Re:Why a sales tax won't happen (Score:5, Informative)
To state the obvious -- no, it's harder on the poor because they're NOT charged different sales tax rates. A 15% tax on someone trying to live on $15K/year will cut into the basics -- food, minimal shelter, health care. A 15% tax on someone living on $150K/year will cut into the luxeries -- they can pay the tax and still afford enormously better food, housing and medical care than the person with $15K. And someone taking home $15M/year won't even notice the 15% tax -- the lifestyle differences between $15M/year and $12.75M/year are insignificant.
Re:Why a sales tax won't happen (Score:5, Insightful)
Who said you had to tax all products equally. In France there is, as of 2001, three tax rates:
- a 'normal' rate of 19.8%
- a 'reduced' rate of 5.5% (water, electricty, most foodstuffs, drugs, books, museum admission, lawyer fees...)
- a 'super-reduced' rate of 2.1% (newspapers & magazines, drugs,
...)
You can thus leave a low tax rate on basic necessities and slap a large tax on luxury products.Re:Get a national sales tax already (Score:4, Informative)
Considering the items are illegal, I wonder how the government plans to actually tax them.
They won't. But they will tax the spending of the proceeds of an illegal activity.
If I sell half a kilo of cocaine on the street, the government gets nothing. When I go to spend my ill gotten gains on a 72" Plasma TV set and an enormous diamond for my girl, then they get all the tax on those.
Besides, aren't illegal activities already theoretically taxable anyway? Wasn't that Al Capone's problem?
Another way to accomplish this... (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Another way to accomplish this... (Score:3, Informative)
I believe that already happens - it's how the Social Security Admin gets your salary history for benefit calculations.
Most tax cheating comes from lying about cash income - businesses like bars etc. that do most of their business in cash, or claims for deductions that aren't real.
Oh no! (Score:3, Funny)
What do I do? OMG, they'll claim I didn't pay my taxes, and then prove that I funded some sort of newfie terrorist network, no, wait, some FRENCH terrorist network with that money, then I'll get a free trip to cuba... hmm... doesn't sound all that bad...
AHH!! (Score:3, Funny)
Will they be tracking email through CARNIVORE too? (Score:3, Funny)
What about bad data? (Score:4, Interesting)
They had this info for years... (Score:3, Interesting)
Office of Revenue Opportunities (Score:5, Informative)
Case in point: I bought a plane one time, a 1979 Cessna 172, around $40,000. There's exceptions to the use tax law that says if the plane is used for flight instruction, it's exempt from use tax. Well, a few years after my purchase, I received a bill from the state of Texas, somewhere in the vicinity of $5000 (including penalties), along with a threat to put a lien on the aircraft if I didn't pay up. It took several months, copies of my logbooks, certifications from instructors, etc. to finally get the state off my back. (I say that, but I've never been sure if that's the case -- the state simply stopped pursuing me without actually telling me I was in the right.)
The point here is that "data aggregation" will inevitably lead to erroneous assumptions, especially when disparate records are linked together. Unfortunately, the burden of proof will lie with the target to prove they *don't* owe a tax. I can see it now: Driving a lonely stretch of interstate late at night in the middle of nowhere, stopped by a hick sheriff who tells you you'll be spending the night in jail because DMV records indicate you didn't pay sales taxes on all that on-line stuff you've bought over the years.
This is dangerous stuff, and one of the very few areas I believe Congress needs to intervene in to prevent abuse of data that was never meant to be aggregated, linked, and abused.
Haha (Score:3, Funny)
COINCIDENCE????
Mass wants to catch NH shoppers (Score:5, Interesting)
On the MA income tax forms there's a space for "use tax" that you can fill out to tell the state what you bought out of state and how much owe them. How nice. My tax preparer said that she didn't have a single client all year that volunteered that information to the state.
How long before they can audit out-of-state store records to see if their citizenry have been shopping in NH and not volunteering to pay the tax?
They don't call this state "Taxachusetts" for nothing. It's no wonder people and jobs are leaving...
-S
Re:Mass wants to catch NH shoppers (Score:3, Insightful)
Except that there's hardly any mom-and-pop single-state stores left. Most of the shopping options are huge public companies (Best Buy, Circuit City, Sears, and the like). Those places do business in MA and it would be just a matter of twisting the laws in the right ways such that if they wanted to continue to do business in MA, they'd ha
Use tax: The most cheated on tax ever. (Score:5, Interesting)
The problem with collecting use tax from an individual is that Massachusetts tax authorites can't make a New Hampshire store turn over names of people who shop there because they're outside of their jurisdiction, nor can they make the buyers confess to shopping in New Hampshire thanks to protection from self-incrimination. It's a tax that's on the books, but in most cases uncollectable.
"Tax free" shopping is a myth... if you avoid the sales tax you owe the use tax. Again, however, the state's going to have a hard time chasing you.
However, if you pay a customs duty while bringing an item into the USA and you live in MA... it's a pretty good case of "gotcha" that you owe the use tax on that item and haven't paid it. So, this is simply taking federal government records and using them to collect a state tax too. So, the unlucky few getting these notices just got caught ducking a tax nearly everyone doesn't pay...
My tax dollars being spent against me... (Score:3, Insightful)
I'd rather have my tax dollars spent to make the system somewhat competant.
Say for instance, the ability for the IRS to do the math correct in the first place instead of having to take out money from my check every pay period in the hopes that it will be somewhere near the amount I will actually owe at the end of the year!
Seriously, why can't the majority of middle class simple workers fill out the forms at the beginning of the year that we fill out at the end stating our status and then have them take out the proper amount? No guesswork no fuss. If the status changes during the year then we can fill out an adendum simply stating what happened, like a marrage, newborn, etc. Submit it online and the amount taken out each pay period changes at the time of the change itself.
Most years people don't change their status and wouldn't have to fill out any forms at all.
For the automatic changes such as age or pay increase the forms should be automaticly submitted or added to by the company.
For sophisticated tax people you could submit reciepts on a monthly or yearly basis and get the return like normal but you would skip the basic forms because you're you and on file already.
I'd rather this be implemented than the privacy thwarting database linkup like they propose here.
USE MY TAX DOLLARS FOR ME!! NOT AGAINST ME!!
Simple Taxes (Score:3, Insightful)
I would be satisfied... (Score:5, Interesting)
My father found out the hard way what happens between IRS 'zones' (we moved around a lot - military). There was a discrepancy (totally honest) that didn't show for almost 20 years and then they tried to slam us for back payments with interest. This is something that they KNEW about at the time, but never informed us through any other zone.
It took the work of a local representative to clear things up. At that time you couldn't even bring a lawyer or tape recorder in with you when you went to see them.
This is the kind of headline that scares me (and should scare YOU) green!
pentagon (Score:3, Interesting)
Add it up, the government is the biggest thief in the US. Pack of hypocritical liars. Research the sordid history of the creation of the "federal" reserve and the IRS. Nerd, educate thyself!
That gang of crooks, entrenched year after year, both major "parties" running the government as their private cash cow, millions of workers, almost no accountability--it's beyond disgust.. The sheer scale of government financial malfesance is awesome, and their "crying foul" and data mining to find alleged "cheats" is the pitiful squeaking of insatiable bloated ticks.
Think about it, government's position is all of your labor is their's by default, then they come up with some magic formula over how much you are allowed to keep-this year. And said magic formula is so arcane and convulted that no two "agents" of the infernal revenue service can look at a complicated tax "return" and arrive at the same figures. Every year someplace you will see a similar test, an ex agent perhaps, a CPA, someone from one of the popular tax preparation companies, all given the same hypothetical taxpayer info, and they never come up with the same figures.
It's nuts. Scrap the system, cut government back down to manageable size by attrition, with a freeze on new hires being a good starting point. Scrap entire un needed and unwanted agencies. Get rid of the large standing army. Retire the whole government pension system, make it ten years maximum government "service" then you are out, no pension, top to bottom, especially politicians. Make campaign contributions from any cartel, org, corporation, etc be illegal, because they are bribes, call it what it really is. Reduce personal contributions to a maximum of one hundred dollars.. Use excise taxes as a replacement for "income" taxes, like it was before the 16th. DUMP the fed and send greenspawn and his fellow reserve governor-demons packing (to prison for fraud and racketeering), end the welfare state for billionaires. Take away legal personhood for corporations. End the revolving door of electing lawyers to congress so they can pass more laws that only benefit their leeching guild.
There are several good solutions to "the tax problem" out there, just the people who actually COULD implement them have zero incentive TO implement them, because it would put them out of their parasitical jobs.
Tax Idea (Score:4, Insightful)
The way I see it. (Score:4, Funny)
Only way we'll deal with this our own data mining (Score:4, Interesting)
1. Because we all know that we do embarassing things.
2. People who cannot check the actions of their elected officials, are subject to as horrible a system as there ever was, We can do our own datamining and do our tests/queries to check them, If we are not allowed to, the government should not have the right to do such things.
3 There are some downsides to having no privacy, so we should only trade our privacy as there are other ways to protect our interestes...
in the case of voting, we could be blackmailed or coersed to vote a certain way. If we had a big enough group who are willing to fight to the death about an issue, the other group will probably see the opportunity cost as being too high, and will not force people to vote a certain way.
4. We can also deal with limited term privacy, we can have our elected officials encyrpt data in a fassion that it can be decrypted in a certain amount of time... this has problems as one groups attack method could reveal the information almost immediately... so that wouldn't work.. but the goverment could encrypt the data in two fassions, and release the hash of the data in one format, and the date that the data will key will be decryptable, then when the private key is released, we could decrypt the info, and perform the multiple has functions to verify that the data was what was acted upon.
We have no privacy.. that isn't neccissarily a bad thing
The real tax cheats: (Score:4, Insightful)
U.S. Firms Keep Billions Overseas:
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=1
Please accept this Receipt : (Score:4, Funny)
Sooner or later this is where, we'll be. Like it or not.
Guess I'll need a new tinfoil hat.
Going On For A While Now (Score:4, Interesting)
When did this happen? 1994.
It's a fallacy, folks... (Score:5, Insightful)
Nonsense, I say. Budgets are predicated on spending priorities and incoming receipts. Governments will spend what they want, regardless of how much revenue is taken in.
How many times has a government instituted a new tax (Connecticut's fairly recent income tax, for example) to "close a budget gap" only to have that same gap magically reappear.
I just don't believe that those uncollected taxes are specially earmarked for "deficit reduction."
Every database they can (Score:3, Funny)
NEVADA and FLORIDA don't share (Score:4, Interesting)
Other states don't have state income taxes, and so don't keep track of as much
Also, I believe Nevada and Wyoming are the only states that allow bearer shares - which means you can hold ownership of a company without your name being on public record, a competent lawyer can have their name on the public record instead - which is supposed to protect against tax hounds and personal liabilities.
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
What does anyone have to fear? (Score:3, Insightful)
Want to solve the root problem? (Score:5, Interesting)
National Sales Tax.
Instead of taxing people for achievement (income), tax them for consumption (spending). A national sales tax of 20% on all retail transactions would generate the same revenue collected now, but with a tiny fraction of the overhead.
To counteract the regressive nature of the sales tax, everybody would receive a fixed dollar amount refund. That refund would be equal to the tax rate times the federal definition of poverty level income. The basis for this is that a person whose income is at poverty level must spend all their income to survive. If that person and everybody else receives the same size refund, it would amount to a 100% refund for the poor and a smaller percentage refund for higher income people. People would automatically pay an infinitely graduated tax because people with higher incomes buy more.
All the privacy issues generated by federal income tax would go away.
The overhead involved would be practically zero. The IRS would need only a fraction of its current 100,000+ employees, to deal with state revenue agencies to collect the fed's share. If they still insisted on doing audits, rather than letting the existing state agencies handle it, they would be looking at 12 million businesses collecting sales tax instead of 170 million people currently paying income tax.
All business taxes and corporate income taxes would go away. The national sales tax would be on end user purchases only. All the hidden taxes paid by companies and built into the prices of everything would be gone.
All the costs of calculating personal and business taxes and trying to avoid them would go away, along with all of the associated record keeping. An army of clerks, accountants, lawyers and consultants whose jobs are based entirely on taxation would have to find something productive to do.
Congress would lose its ability to use tax breaks to repay campaign contributions.
About 7 years ago there was a proposal to do the above. It died in committee.
Re:Want to solve the root problem? (Score:3, Insightful)
As business is economically not an enduser of anything (everything a business does is associated with providing a good or service to ultimately an individual consumer) under this system they would pay no tax at all.
No politician will ever propose a system where corporations do not pay any tax at any stage. No matter how sound it might be economically.
To counteract the regressive nature
Re:Want to solve the root problem? (Score:4, Insightful)
Absolutely right. But businesses already don't pay taxes, and they never have. They collect taxes and pass the money on to the government. All taxes levied on businesses are built into the prices of products and paid by customers. Essentially we pay federal sales tax already, we just don't call it that and we don't know how much it is.
Re:Want to solve the root problem? (Score:3, Interesting)
For example, IIRC, there's a section on the tax forms that legally blind people don't have to pay any taxes. Would you mandate, then, that legally blind people carry ID cards making them exempt from the sales tax? Would this get abused by their friends having them buy the expensive items to save the tax money?
Also, there's different tax rates for varying children. A family w/ no kids pays more tax than a family w/ 2 kid
Why this is tyranny... (Score:3, Insightful)
Most Slashdotters are probably not familiar with this -- they probably work directly or indirectly for large institutions, where everything is above board. But in industries like construction, home maintenance, food service, agriculture, or entertainment/film, a substantial chunk of the business is off the books. At the corporate level, this is all hidden by a neverending network of subcontractors, but when you get to the bottom of the barrel it stinks.
For example, a roofing contractor might have 8 guys working off the books for every 2 that are on, and he just pays them out of his own pocket. Who would know a particular job didn't just take 2 really efficient guys? Restaurants always have illegal dishwashers, etc., paid the same way. Not to mention waitstaff, who work mainly for tips anyway, and may or may not be on the books at all. Again, who would know, unless they walked in the door and asked for everyone's papers? Anyone starting out in Hollywood knows how "dirty" the film business is -- no one but the best paid union employees are working above board. If they're not working under the table on the film set, it's at their side jobs waiting tables, catering/bartending at fancy parties, or working as someone's driver, personal assistant, etc. Those under the table side jobs are what enable them to pursue their real careers. And I'm not talking about actors either, but cameramen, makeup artists, etc.
Then there are housepainters, gardeners, handymen, etc. Ever go into a bank just before closing, and see the line of blue collar guys waiting to cash the day's paycheck(s)? Ever wonder why these guys have accounts at all the major banks? (So they can cash their checks for free.) Ever wonder why "check cashing" places are so plentiful in blue collar neighborhoods? It isn't because so many people are behind on their bills!
Most of these people would like to be running a "legitimate" business, but the market often doesn't allow it. They either work under the table, or they don't work at all. Or they get a job at Target or Wal-Mart and starve. That's reality. Sometimes even the very best tradesmen in town are living this way. Don't ask, don't tell! As long as the work gets done, which is a hassle with contractors anyway. No one dares rock the boat.
The thing is -- when everyone's technically a criminal, whom do you decide to prosecute? Leona Helmsley, or your pool man? Tyco executives, or a single mom waitress? A Hollywood exec's overpaid personal assistant, or your hardworking gardener? Whom do you dislike the most? Who's the easiest pickins? It's like an extreme version of the 55mph speed limit -- when everyone's speeding, who do you pull over?
Therein lies the tyranny!
I've got nothing to hide but.... (Score:3, Informative)
....this is still the IRS of Richard Nixon (audits to punish people on different sides of political issues); FBI of J. Edgar Hoover (illegal wiretaps, illegal search and seizures, illegal survellience, and blackmail or important figures); FBI of Ruby Ridge, et al; and FISA courts of G. W. Bush (use of "national security" courts in violation of the laws surrounding their creation against US citizens in order to avoid producing evidence or allowing the defendent to confront the acuccuser). Oh, yes, and the Justice Department of the Bush Administration that likes suspending portions of the Bill of Rights because due process interferes with with the outcome (Patriot Act, etc.).
And in case you couldn't tell, this was intended to be flamebait just like Rush Limbaugh, Jay Severin, Sean Hannity, and that ex-one term Republican congressman from Florida "Sleepy" on MSNBC who looks like he needs some strong coffee and is asleep. Now, if I could only get some liberal flamebaiter like Al Franken on the radio, the noice would be a little more even.
Re:There is no reasonable expectation of privacy (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:It's times like these... (Score:3, Funny)
... I'm glad I'm an accountant.
And that I live in another country!
Re:Catching tax cheats... (Score:3, Informative)
The problem is, the typical tax rates have always been upscaled to compensate for inflation, however the AMT's formula never has. Therefore, the AMT system that was designed to catch the "rich" is starting to bite into the "middle class".
There were also a lot of cases during the dot-com bubble where people got stock that was worth a lot of money as of the moment it was handed to them, however by the end of the year the company had gone to z
Re:Not liable for income tax, you may be persecute (Score:3, Funny)
If you put as much energy into something productive as you do into working out why tax isn't legal we'd all be better off I think.