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This discussion has been archived.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.
Ya'll hear about the geometer who went to the beach to catch some rays and became a tangent ?
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
It's about time (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Privacy Issues (Score:2, Insightful)
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....
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.
"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: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: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.
just some thoughts...
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: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, there are a lot of people out there who bitch that the rich should be taxed at a higher percentage...but let's not forget that the wealthy spend their money too, which invariably helps out everyone.
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...
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.
Simple Solution (Score:1, Insightful)
-> 1/3rd of the people get a handout from the government and pay only sales, social security, and medicare taxes
-> 10% of the people pay 80% of the income taxes
Soloution is to switch to a national sales tax so that (a) everybody pays, even drug dealers and others that do not report income and (b) that recording and cheating on taxes is elliminated because of existing state sales tax collection methods
Re:No one "makes up the difference" (Score:2, Insightful)
It's actually a lot easier than that. All they need to do is start increasing the debt at a rate slower than inflation. Eventually, it'll become a relatively small number and they can pay it off will a relatively small sum of money.
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?
taxes, phooey (Score:2, Insightful)
I don't see what the bitching is about. Is it "that" wrong to brand the homeless [politechbot.com] like cattle, use orphans for lab rats [axisoflogic.com], during these times? During these times when al Qaeda... WHOA! THERE IS A TERRORIST ALERT. Sorry false post. Again, is there anything wrong with Big Brother coming for their fair share? Sheesh there is no conspiracy here, big brother only wants your share of the pie. Run along now, go play with Orkut [infiltrated.net]. Everything is fine, there is nothing to fear.
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!!
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 cheater's pocket.
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.
Simple Taxes (Score:3, Insightful)
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:Get a national sales tax already (Score:2, Insightful)
The state I live in has no sales tax on clothing items less than $100 or food items in order to alleviate the regressive nature of a sales tax.
Of course, if people really were concerned about sales tax being regressive, they wouldn't tax alcohol and cigarettes, both of which are disproportionately used by poor people.
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: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 other is social engineering. The government provides all kinds of tax benefits for behavior they want to encourage. (like marriage)"
All the more reason to abandon income taxes then. The people are supposed to be telling the government how to live their lives, not the other way around.
"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."
While the government wouldn't see any taxes from Al Capone's liquor sales under a sales tax scheme, they'd still collect quite a bit in taxes for every luxury car or mansion he buys for himself with the ill-gotten funds.
Tax Idea (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:No one "makes up the difference" (Score:2, Insightful)
If you cut taxes, you have to cut spending. (Assuming you're not dumb enough to keep running up the national credit card...which is apparently not a valid assmuption about the current administration. But we'll assume sanity, for the sake of argument.)
If we're still pretending to be a democracy with armed forced for defense, our military is horribly bloated, and should be a prime candidate for spending cuts
OTOH, if we're going to be an Empire now, let's quit pretending, and just start enslaving the lands we invade so that those of us in the Father^H^H^H^H^H^HHomeland can live in luxury on the backs of the conquered people. If we're going to imitate Romans, why be half-ass about it? We've already got our bread and circuses in the form of Budweiser and "reality TV". Bring on the slaves already.
Re:No one "makes up the difference" (Score:2, Insightful)
It's a shame the system works the way it does. So many taxes are just one group using taxes to make everyone else pay for something they want. The government skims some off for overhead. In the end, we are all poorer, and the government is too big.
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: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 have to snitch on their customers who live in MA but buy in their NH stores.
-S
Re:Privacy Issues (Score:1, Insightful)
The problem I see with tax cheats is that the system needs to be consistent. Random checks and profiling don't give fair results. If someone wants to work 60 hours a week and I only work 40, they deserve to make more than me. If someone decides to lie on their taxes and I don't, they don't deserve to save money.
People gamble with the system because it is just that, a gamble. You'll win most of the time, but lose big sometimes. Obeying the law shouldn't be a game. If the law were consistent and enforced, people wouldn't break it so often, and we could actually look at changing it. Right now, if you don't like the law, you just ignore it. Speed limit, jaywalking, drugs, taxes... no need to change the laws to be reasonable, because you can just get away with breaking them.
It's hard to respect a criminal's view of a law, even if they have a good point, because they don't respect the law. Right now, most people break the law every day, because they can, and it's convenient. Let he who is without sin cast the first stone. Until people can step up and say, "I am a law obiding citizen, and this law is wronging me", how can we tell what is just?
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:"Fair play" (Score:2, Insightful)
U.S. citizens are just about the lowest taxed in the developed world. (Especially for the very wealthiest Americans, who pay a much lower percentage of their incomes as taxes than the rest of us [perfectlyl...hebook.com].)
And then he went on to prove it by rolling up the national debt like never before, cutting taxes for the rich and spending recklessly. Thus proving that his kind of government is irresponsibile, yes.
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 extra percentage of profit every month. Sure it's really bad in some places, but they're not going to lower prices for a stupid reason like that.
It's just like the situation with the taxes. If, by some miracle, they got 99.9999% of the country to pay their taxes (and to not cheat), our returns wouldn't be affected at all (well, maybe an extra $50 USD or some small amount). They'd just keep the extra and buy more toilet seats for the Capital building or some nonsense thing like that. I doubt that any of it would go to our National Debt or even the National Budget.
It's capitalism at work. Bitch about prices and taxes being high because of criminals, but keep the rest if the situation improves itself.
Personally, I'm strict about paying my taxes on time and paying the appropriate amount. Not just because I'm afraid of the IRS, but because I feel it's the right thing to do (my civic duty, as it were). But to imagine that all of the schmucks out there are the reason we have such high taxes, that's just a fantasy.
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.
The real tax cheats: (Score:4, Insightful)
U.S. Firms Keep Billions Overseas:
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=1
Re:Use tax: The most cheated on tax ever. (Score:1, Insightful)
A tyranny is a government that can lock up whoever it wants whenever it wants. Put enough bogus laws on the books and you change a free society into a tyranny.
One US President kept an enemies list. Imagine some equally evil future President. Imagine a whistleblower who says something damaging to the evil President. Goon squads could use Patriot Act Section 215, list the whistleblower's out of state purchases, hand the evidence to state authorities, and probably could bring some kind of Federal money laundering charges.
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?
Re:It's about time (Score:3, Insightful)
Have you ever read the 10th amendment?
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:"Fair play" (Score:2, Insightful)
Under FDR, the top tax rate was 90%!!! Compare that to now.
Unfortunately, there is a political slimy game going on. Certain groups are trying to convince Americans that they are paying horribly high taxes, and that "politicians will always raise taxes if they can". And, just the opposite is actually happening. The strategy is to get lower and lower taxes (especially for the rich), which means there is less money for services -- like schools. And we already see the effects of this: public schools all over the country are having massive cuts, and university tuition is sky-rocketing. This is fine for the wealthy, but pity the poor child who makes the mistake of choosing a poor or middle-class parent.
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.
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."
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 of the economy. If they put all their Eggs in one basket then that's their fault.
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).
Well then it must be reliable. But seriously half the reason the FDIC exists is as a confidence measure. If people are willing to put their money in the bank (because they know that as a last resort the FDIC or FCUA will protect them) then the bank can invest that money and the economy grows. If people pull all their money out and keep it under the mattress (as they did during the depression) things will only get worse for everybody.
Are you seriously suggesting that the FDIC is one of those "complete wastes" of a Government program?
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:No one "makes up the difference" (Score:5, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Get a national sales tax already (Score:2, Insightful)
Or maybe you only meant wealthy people. How many wealthy people do you know that live in a studio apartment and hoard all their money? All the wealthy people I know spend money just like you or me, except even more so. However, most of their purchaes are luxury items (as opposed to necesseties). They have the extra money, so they buy gold-plated faucets for their home instead of stainless steel. Or they buy a new BMW/Lexus every 2 years instead of a cadillac every 5 years.
PS - housing shortages and ridiculous house prices are almost always caused by state/local gov't limiting new housing development.
PPS - lower classes aren't excited about tax cuts because they don't pay any income tax to begin with.
Re:Privacy Issues (Score:2, Insightful)
Protecting the innocents? I bet you also believe the cops behind you at a stop light are "protecting you" and only have your best interest at heart when they run your plates.
And we all know how non-circumstantial computer evidence is.
(From the article)The state has also tried comparing motor vehicle registration data with tax returns, looking for people who might be driving Rolls Royces or Jaguars but declaring only a small income, Revenue Commissioner Alan LeBovidge said
So my retired, school-teacher mother will now be red-flagged for driving her deceased husbands 15 year old Jag? Sounds like guilty until proven innocent to me.
Re:Tax $ Tug of War (Score:2, Insightful)
You don't fare much better than the one you accuse. By diving to invective you will make him resistant to anything you say.
Maybe it's the whole "paying for shit" part, that bothers cheap-ass whiners like me who are so full of horseshit?
You could have put it so much better than you did. How about this: I am opposed to paying for vote-buying programs cooked up by politicians who merely take money from people whose votes they don't need and give it to those whose votes they do need.
Do us all a favor and go hop off a tall bridge. People like you are dragging down the world's average IQ...
Do us (meaning, those of us who think we pay too much in Federal taxes) a favor and don't make any kind of threat agaist our opponents. It makes our position look "extreme".
Your flying off the handle does not "even the score"! Try using facts and reason next time.
What does anyone have to fear? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Privacy Issues (Score:3, Insightful)
If they really could catch ALL the tax cheating and fudging, the figure would probably be more like $250 billion dollars than $10 billion dollars. $250 billion dollars sounds like a lot, but it's only about $1000/person. (Yes, you may not cheat to the tune of $1000/year, but there's certainly lots of people who cheat by a lot more than that. Be it not reporting tips, fudging the books of their business, taking bogus exemptions, not paying sales tax (we never limited this to federal taxes) when they should, whatever.)
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:2, 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....
We have no "National Highways". All highways are built and maintained by the individual states. The federal government collects taxes and then hands them out to the states to build and maintain roads. The federal government uses this power to tax and spend to control and manipulate state issues regarding roads and other matters.
The NSA, CIA, and military are supposed to keep me safe. What a joke. We invade several countries and interfere with several more. People get pissed and terrorists have an easy time recruiting them to come and blow us up. Great!
Social security and medicare are crap. If you took that money stolen from each paycheck and put it in a pathetic bank savings account you would get more money. They are just lousy pyramid schemes.
Our country has thrived despite the gigantic federal government not because of it.
So let's ditch the income tax and see if our country really does come to an end. Somehow I doubt it.
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.
Many 'little brothers' do a Big Brother make (Score:2, Insightful)
Tax officials say many of the databases they use have been available to them for years -- but it has never been so easy to integrate and analyze them.
A single tin hat has never really been able to suffice...
I keep a closet full - paid for with cash - made under the table.
Re:Privacy Issues (Score:2, Insightful)
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 of the sales tax, everybody would receive a fixed dollar amount refund.If you do introduce such a tax though don't give a fixed refund. Prices and incomes will change in ways you can't predict. Make a few adjustments to welfare payments to account for price changes to those sectors and let the market work out hoew much incomes will change for the employed (with legal protection against exploitation).
Don't expect such a system to eliminate tax evasion. It hasn't in any country that has instituted any widespread VAT or GST. If there is tax to be avoided, people will try to avoid it. To make such a system work 100% the IRS would need access to every transaction record.
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!
Re:Want to solve the root problem? (Score:2, 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.
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: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: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 remaining 20 is borrowed.
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:Going On For A While Now (Score:1, Insightful)
Both states sent me letters, presumed guilt of tax avoidance, failed to produce evidence, didn't respond to certified letters, wanted me to prove my innocence.
Finally, I got fed up, drafted new letters, and sent them certified, signed return receipt to the Governors, Attorney's General, Comptroller, DAV legal, and the Sec of the Navy.
Governor Schwarzenegger didn't autograph my return receipt, damn it.
But, I now have two letters (one from each state) stating they consider the matter closed. They're framed on my wall.
Bastards.
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.
Re:Privacy Issues (Score:5, Insightful)
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:Universal healthcare costs less (Score:2, Insightful)
Very signifigant. The statistic I saw in Atlantic was something like 1/3 of uninsured people make more that $50,000 a year. So it is a minority, but it's uncomfortably close to a majority.
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 your wallet. Let's say that everyone in the neighborhood gets together, and 57% of us decide that we are going to take all the money out of your wallet and use it to buy you a lot of food. Will the fact that 57% of us voted in favor of it make it something other than theft, if you were opposed to the plan?
You keep using this "use it to buy you a lot of food" mantra. Do you really think that's all your tax dollars go to? How about education of your follow citizens (who will support you once you retire), law enforcement (who will protect you from the real muggers of the world), the roads or sidewalks you use, the military that defends you from foreign aggression, the labor department that protects you from unscrupulous employers, etc etc etc. As a citizen of this country you have an obligation to contribute back to your community. If you don't like that then perhaps you should move somewhere that doesn't collect taxes. Or give live in a hut somewhere where you won't have a pesky community to worry about giving back to.
And if it's not different, then how in the world is "cheating on your taxes" morally different, in any salient respect, from lying to a mugger and claiming that you don't have any cash? How is it depriving anyone of something that they have a right to have?
Are you serious? Because that "mugger" is your follow citizens and if you lie to him it is the rest of us that will pay. I'm sorry but if you can sign your name to a document that states "Under penalties of perjury, I declare that I have examined this return, and to the best of my knowledge and belief, it is true, correct, and accurately lists all amounts and sources of income I received during the tax year" and then lie on said document you have no morals and can't be trusted. Why should I trust your word if you knowingly lie to others?
If you want to make a statement then write your Congresscritter, President, Mayor or just refuse to pay your taxes. I'd have more respect for somebody that outright refused to pay them on princepal (and went to jail for doing so) then I would for somebody who lied. You think I like paying taxes anymore then the next guy? But I don't lie or cheat on them.