Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
United States Privacy Your Rights Online

Massachusetts' Big Brother Tech to Watch Taxpayers 578

Posted by michael from the be-good-for-goodness'-sake dept.
rocketjam writes "The Boston Globe reports that the Massachusetts state Revenue Department has launched a new technology offensive which strives to piece together all the stray bits of financial information about individual taxpayers that is contained in various public databases in order to catch tax cheats. The databases have been around for years, but technology has only recently enabled the state to assemble and review the information in a time-efficient manner. The so-called 'Discovery' initiative is already bringing in an additional $1 million a week. While denying the state is playing 'Big Brother', the Revenue Department Commissioner, Alan LeBovidge predicted the state may eventually be able to track so much financial information on individuals that the state could complete the citizens' returns for them."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Massachusetts' Big Brother Tech to Watch Taxpayers More

Massachusetts' Big Brother Tech to Watch Taxpayers

Comments Filter:

  • Good!!! (Score:4, Funny)

    by moehoward ( 668736 ) on Tuesday February 17, 2004 @02:03PM (#8307304)

    I, for one, welcome our new, um..... well, overlords.

    • Re:Good!!! (Score:3, Funny)

      by Tackhead ( 54550 )
      > I, for one, welcome our new, um..... well, overlords.

      AS WELL YOU SHOULD, CITIZEN!
      - Your Overlords. Because Without Us, Old People Would Starve And Your Children Would Suffer, Because We'd Have To Cut Schools, Hospitals, Police, and Fire Departments Again.

  • What about corporations? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by VooDoo999 ( 619582 ) on Tuesday February 17, 2004 @02:03PM (#8307309)
    I'd be happier if it included corporations - the ones still 'located' in Mass. anyway.

    • Re:What about corporations? (Score:4, Interesting)

      by NightSpots ( 682462 ) on Tuesday February 17, 2004 @02:15PM (#8307490) Homepage
      Right. They probably will, when they realize there's money to be made there.

      In the mean time, they're hitting the consumers, and the article makes it look like the online-shopping-is-tax-free 'feature' is coming to an end:

      Separately from the Discovery program, the state is also gathering information from other sources to track down tax leads. Most states now share with each other the results of their audits. North Carolina, for example, might audit a furniture manufacturer and get a list of customers to whom the company shipped a chair or a sofa without collecting sales tax.

      North Carolina could share that list of customers with other states so they could track down those residents who bought a piece of furniture but didn't pay use tax on it. The same sharing of data goes on with purchases of jewelry, furs, and virtually anything else that's taxable.

      Massachusetts is already demanding that shipping companies like United Parcel Service and Federal Express share the names of individuals who receive shipments of cigarettes from out-of-state companies. The state has collected $162,000 in cigarette excise taxes this way over the last year.

      The law already says that buyers should be paying sales tax, but it's so silly that most people never do. This software could start enforcing that, creating a huge burden on everyone. Quite unfortunate.

    • Re:What about corporations? (Score:5, Informative)

      by gsfprez ( 27403 ) on Tuesday February 17, 2004 @02:19PM (#8307542)
      are you saying that companies are leaving Mass? Why would they do that? I'm sure its got nothing to do with the orwellian taxes that "The Rich" are supposed to pay.

      how fscking hard is this to understand - rich people that run companies give jobs to average joes... its not a gawddamned hard concept, people. I work for rich people, and i'm cool with that. if they weren't rich, they couldn't pay me.

      btw: california staved off $56 BILLION in new taxes last year - only because of the Republican 2 state senators and 6 state house reps that comprise the delta between what's necessary to pass new taxes and to kill off new tax bills...

      let me repeat that...

      the Cali legislature tried to pass $56 BILLION in new taxes - in one year - and 8 people stopped them. Our state's budget last year was just under $100 BILLION. It would have been $156 BILLION if not for 8 people.

      holy shit, batman.

      with a proposition (56) to kill off the requirement for a 2/3 majority to raise new taxes, and the teachers' unions putting out ad after ad claiming 56 is "good for California" - we should be dead in the water by 2006, and the only guy making money will be the U-Haul guy that drives the empty trucks back from Nevada, Colorado and Texas.

      • Re:What about corporations? (Score:4, Interesting)

        by bahwi ( 43111 ) on Tuesday February 17, 2004 @02:40PM (#8307834)
        Actually, 50% of the workforce is employed by 'small businesses' which aren't rich people. But you do make a good point.

        Also, don't underestimate government budgets. That could be new roads, infrastructure, etc... They have to hire people to do that. So that $56 billion could partially eliminate that traffic jam you have to deal with, keep the calif. fires more under control, etc.. $56 billion is a lot of people working when they are only being paid $40k and less a year. Mind you, not all of that would go to that, but that's a HUGE boost to jobs. And companies need work, and many companies work for the gov't.

        But yeah, jobs have to come from either the private sector or the public sector. When people are squirreling it away(like the people benefitting from Bush's tax cuts), that money doesn't create new jobs.
        • "Also, don't underestimate government budgets. That could be new roads, infrastructure, etc... They have to hire people to do that."

          This is the kind of thing that precisely scares me about trying to use the govt. to 'create' jobs. Ditch digging jobs aren't the ones we need....

          • We need manufacturing jobs.
          • We need skilled labor jobs.
          • We need skilled technical jobs.

          I don't think higher taxes, to pay ditchdiggers at ditchdigger wages, is the answer to bringing good jobs back to US citizens, and pushing the

          • > I don't think higher taxes, to pay ditchdiggers at ditchdigger wages, is the answer to bringing good jobs back to US citizens, and pushing the economy forward...IMHO

            It is, however, a great way of making sure productive citizens never accumulate sufficient wealth to flee to places where their capital is respected.

            It's also a great way of making sure that there's a willing army of ditchdiggers who can always be counted upon to vote for more publicly-funded ditch-digging projects.

  • Complete the return FOR them? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by SniperPuppy ( 443143 ) on Tuesday February 17, 2004 @02:04PM (#8307315)
    Oh, that's just great... Especially since there's about fifty ways that even a simple tax return can be computed. You've heard of those experiments where they take relatively simple tax information for a fictional family, and send it to 30 different tax accountants, and the result is about 25 or more different returns, ranging from "you owe $1800" to "you're getting $2300 back"? Gee, I wonder which computation Massachusettes would take...
    • Maybe not totally completing them, but perhaps a statement of something to the effect of: this is your taxable income and this is your tax liability. I would bet that the most "errors" on tax returns are either the wrong amount of taxable income being declared or the wrong tax liability being calcluated. Then the taxpayer would include whatever deductions he or she qualifies for.

    • Re:Complete the return FOR them? (Score:4, Informative)

      by LostCluster ( 625375 ) * on Tuesday February 17, 2004 @02:25PM (#8307639)
      There's 25 different ways to fill out your federal return, but the MA state taxes are based almost completely on the Federal tax laws with different percentage rates assigned. If your answers on the IRS forms and the MA DOR forms don't match, you're already setting yourself up for audits... so all the state would do is just port over the numbers you gave to the IRS and do the math.

  • Interesting (Score:4, Informative)

    by bigjnsa500 ( 575392 ) <bigjnsa500@yaho o . com> on Tuesday February 17, 2004 @02:04PM (#8307317) Homepage Journal
    Anybody every notice that most big brother projects or legislation comes from New England first?

    • Re:Interesting (Score:4, Funny)

      by ooby ( 729259 ) on Tuesday February 17, 2004 @02:14PM (#8307459)
      Redmond is not in New England.

    • Re:Interesting (Score:3, Interesting)

      by ctr2sprt ( 574731 )
      If you look at the states with budget problems, you'll see a lot of states in the Northeast on the list. That's the reason for this particular offense. They won't (or can't) cut their programs, but voters are pretty overwhelmingly against tax increases, so they've got to find the money elsewhere.

      I guess you could argue that these sorts of programs show up in the Northeast first because of its strong philosophical belief in "Government should be working for me." Hence lots of government programs. I'm n

  • Riight. . . (Score:5, Insightful)

    by PhxBlue ( 562201 ) on Tuesday February 17, 2004 @02:05PM (#8307320) Homepage Journal

    I suppose they think they can include the $20 my wife's employer paid me in cash the other day for fixing one of their computers (it was a pretty minor problem). Granted, $20 doesn't mean a whole lot in the grand scheme of things - but it is still possible, using greenbacks, to make one's financial transactions very hard to track. Consider people who receive paychecks instead of direct deposit, cash their checks at the grocery store, and keep their cash on-hand. How well do you track that?

    • Re:Riight. . . (Score:4, Informative)

      by chazwurth ( 664949 ) <{cdstuart} {at} {umich.edu}> on Tuesday February 17, 2004 @02:09PM (#8307386)
      If you're able to track their large purchases? Very well, I think. You can identify who to look at more closely, as the article says. If you're making $500 a month car payments and $1,500 a month mortgage payments and are reporting $20,000 a year in income, something's probably up, and as stupid as state bureaucracies are, I don't think they'll have too much trouble figuring it out once enough information is in front of them.

      • Re:Riight. . . (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Deanasc ( 201050 ) on Tuesday February 17, 2004 @02:19PM (#8307544) Homepage Journal
        What about the retiree who does in fact only have a taxable income of 20G's but has saved in tax free bonds for the last 20 years. No income reported on the interest. In the case of my grandparents that interest is more then enough to cover the close to $15,000 in monthly expenses. Not everyone reporting a small income with a large lifestyle is ripping you off.

        • Re:Riight. . . (Score:5, Insightful)

          by DustMagnet ( 453493 ) on Tuesday February 17, 2004 @02:36PM (#8307781) Journal
          So what? Your grandma gets investigated. She has nothing to hide. So after months of jumping through hoops and being accused of all kinds of thing she finally provides enough documentation to call off the hounds. I don't seen any problem with this kind of system, neither does Johnnie Thomas.

          I'm so sick of hearing the "nothing to hide" argument. I don't think most people really understand what it will be like to live under constant government monitoring. We'll have to not only obay the law, but a secret set of rules to avoid being accused of breaking the law.

        • Re:Riight. . . (Score:3, Informative)

          by leviramsey ( 248057 ) *

          But considering that the only tax-free bonds a citizen of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts can have are bonds issued by the Commonwealth (and thus able to be tracked by the Commonwealth), that could be an input into the program.

      • Re:Riight. . . (Score:5, Interesting)

        by thisissilly ( 676875 ) on Tuesday February 17, 2004 @02:20PM (#8307557)
        If you're making $500 a month car payments and $1,500 a month mortgage payments and are reporting $20,000 a year in income, something's probably up,

        Sez who?

        The year I quit my job and went back to grad school I was paying about $600/month rent and $3000 for classes, and I made $6000 that year.

        It's call savings. I saved money from my three years of post-college work, allowing to me to live off savings that year. It's none of the government's business if I saved the money in a bank (on the books) or a mattress (off the books). I shouldn't have to prove anything to any investigator.

        • Re:Riight. . . (Score:4, Insightful)

          by Planesdragon ( 210349 ) <slashdot&castlesteelstone,us> on Tuesday February 17, 2004 @03:10PM (#8308266) Homepage Journal
          I shouldn't have to prove anything to any investigator.

          Why not?

          The law of the land is that we pay part of our income for our government. If you're being a jerk and hiding your money so it has no paper trail, why shouldn't you have to prove that you're not simply not paying your taxes?

          Even if you keep money under your matress, you should keep a record of how MUCH you have--if nothing else, then for sound fiscal responsiblity, notwithstanding the government and insurance.

    • Taxes taken out... (Score:3, Insightful)

      by DoorFrame ( 22108 )
      Well, unless those people cashing their checks are being paid under the table, they are probably having taxes taken out for them based on their income linked to their social security number. It doesn't matter how you cash the check, the company has filed what it paid the person with the social security number to the government on their tax return.

      And even if taxes aren't taken out, if the person is making over $600 he/she's being 1099'd and again the business is going to be reporting that amount to the go

    • Re:Riight. . . (Score:3, Funny)

      by Roofus ( 15591 )
      Consider people who receive paychecks instead of direct deposit, cash their checks at the grocery store, and keep their cash on-hand. How well do you track that?
      That's just dandy too, because your employer will keep track of that for you. No worries!

      Sincerely,
      The Massachusett's Department of Reveue

    • Re:Riight. . . (Score:3, Informative)

      by Trekologer ( 86619 )
      Very simple. When you get paid, your employer must keep records of what you received, regardless of the form they paid you in, be it a check, direct deposit, cash, or pounds of seaweed. Then, at the end of the year, your employer sends you a form W-2, which has a total of what you were paid, how much taxes they withheld from your pay to be sent to the government, and what you finally took home with you. This information is also sent to the government (both state and federal). They already have been rece

      • Re:Riight. . . (Score:4, Insightful)

        by DoorFrame ( 22108 ) on Tuesday February 17, 2004 @02:18PM (#8307525) Homepage
        Not really. I actually get paid in 1099s quite often, which don't act in the same way as W2s. Also, if you earn less than $600 on one 1099 the company doesn't need to report it... you could potential earn $599 from 1000 different corporations and walk away with $599,000 unreported and untaxed dollars that the government would only find out about if you were honest enough to report it.
    • there's a phrase for that - working under the table. most employers will not do this for any appreciable amount of money. it's not a very practical solution.

      a paycheck is almost always sent via a payroll dept that is very happy to file all the tax paperwork with the friendly neighborood tax bureau, so this gains yoo nothing.

      the whole effort by the "commonwealth" of mass is bullshit, because the whole point of maintaining separate bureaucracies for different purposes is to compartmentalize the info in the

    • As a friend of mine once noted... (Score:5, Funny)

      by Joseph Vigneau ( 514 ) on Tuesday February 17, 2004 @02:16PM (#8307511)
      "If cash were invented today, it would be illegal."
  • One would think this could be used the other way around to refund people who have overpaid. Who wants to take bets on whether they'll monitor for this as well? My money is on "not a chance."

    • Re:Does it find refunds for you? (Score:5, Informative)

      by mike_mgo ( 589966 ) on Tuesday February 17, 2004 @02:12PM (#8307440)
      I'll take that bet.

      The Revenue Department has spent about $3 million over the last two years on the program, which has generated a total of $43 million in new tax revenue and $6 million in refunds. (Yes, the system identifies overpayers, too.)

    • Agreed. I was wondering precisely the same thing. I can easily say that I would have _less_ of a problem with them tracking my transactions, but merely because I'm an honest person with my finances. Depends on whether or not they decide to throw me in jail for my occasional purchases of lab equipment, etc. Perhaps they could use that to call me a terrorist, or something. That's where it becomes uncomfortable.
    • According to the article, they've already sent back several million in overpayments.

  • MA tax forms aren't that hard to auto-generate... (Score:5, Informative)

    by LostCluster ( 625375 ) * on Tuesday February 17, 2004 @02:05PM (#8307328)
    One thing to note here is that it would be very easy for the state to fill out tax paperwork for the taxpayer in MA. I'm an MA taxpayer, and I did my taxes recently with TurboTax. After completing the federal portion, there were very few questions the state software needed to ask me.

    - Did I want to pay the voluntary 5.85% tax rate instead of the standard 5.3% tax rate? (No!)
    - Did I have any use tax items to declare? (Nope, and if anybody asks further I plead the 5th.)
    - Would I like some of my tax money to go to the state's Clean Elections Fund? (Sure, why not?)

    Beyond those little things, TurboTax could complete my pages of state tax forms simply by porting over the values from the IRS forms that had already been completed. So, since the state can already look at my IRS forms anyway, why not have them compute my taxes for me, and automatically send me the already-completed paperwork attached to the bill or refund?

  • tough call (Score:4, Interesting)

    by detritus` ( 32392 ) * <awitzke@wesaGIRA ... minus herbivore> on Tuesday February 17, 2004 @02:05PM (#8307332) Homepage Journal
    As much as i hate the idea of any state having this much information on anybody, I also hate the idea of people getting away with scamming the gov't out of money (thats the politicians job) especially when the majority of the people getting away with this are the people who can afford to pay said taxes. After all how often do you hear of someone with a $20K/year job bragging about how much he hid away in various tax shelters? Of course the people that this would hurt most is those in the service industry, who claim only 10-20% of their income from tips.

    • Re:tough call (Score:5, Insightful)

      by DAldredge ( 2353 ) <SlashdotEmail@GMail.Com> on Tuesday February 17, 2004 @02:07PM (#8307368) Journal
      How about the state not spend so much fucking money? Is it really that hard?

      • Re:tough call (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Maclir ( 33773 )
        So what don't you want the state to spend money on? Education? Improving roads? Medicaid?

        • Re:tough call (Score:3, Insightful)

          by DAldredge ( 2353 )
          Spend money on educating kids, not on the admin that run the damn schools. You can't tell me that you honestly believe that state goverment is ran as efficently as possible.

        • Re:tough call (Score:3, Insightful)

          by the_mad_poster ( 640772 )

          First, since the PA legislature has proven itself to be a wholly ineffective system run by ignorant dolts, they could eliminate their automatic pay raises, pet funds, and "perks". Why the fuck they should be able to make the taxpayers pay for half of their goddamn BMW (or an entire Taurus or Impala) when they're making 60K+ per year and can't even pass a fucking budget?.

          Then, they could slash the shit out of the pay of the administration that's trying to turn the state schools here into diploma mills for m

      • Re:tough call (Score:3, Insightful)

        by mikerich ( 120257 )
        How about the state not spend so much fucking money? Is it really that hard?

        Fortunately democracy allows you to remedy such matters by voting the higher taxing party out of government.

        So either the people of Massechusetts are negligent and are forgetting to use their constitutional rights, or they are reasonably happy with their tax levels.

        Best wishes,
        Mike.

    • Re:tough call (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Dukael_Mikakis ( 686324 )
      I have to agree with the parent. Generally, those who will be affected most are those with some substantial money and knowledge to use sophisticated tax shelters [bizjournals.com]. Obviously, these will usually be businesses (big corporations) and high-powered investors. Typically, somebody making $20K won't have the means or the savvy to cheat taxes with anything more sophisticated than merely lying.

      Which is, of course, why some "little guys" will get hurt. I used to wait tables (during college) and many servers would

  • Has Anyone Actually Seen Massachusetts Tax Forms? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Beeman ( 31488 ) on Tuesday February 17, 2004 @02:06PM (#8307336) Homepage
    If you haven't had a chance to look at Massachusetts tax forms, I would highly reccomend them as reading for how not to write an informative document. It takes me half as much time to fill out the Federal 1040 Long Form, so I wuld be happy for the state to fill out my tax forms for me.
    • so instead of demanding a simpler form, you'd be willing to have them calculate something owed to them that's near impossible to double-check?

      even credit card companies are not that dubious with their policies.

      something tells me that the same people who are willing to accept a basically unaccountable bill from the government are the same people who don't bother to vote or pay attention to what bureaucrats are doing with our tax dollars.

  • They could complete the returns (Score:5, Insightful)

    by haystor ( 102186 ) on Tuesday February 17, 2004 @02:06PM (#8307346)
    but they won't.

    They'd never accept the liability for doing the returns.

    We're left with all the intrusions and none of the benefits.

    Am I the only one that wishes the IRS would sent me a summary of what has been reported to them? At least that way I could reconcile *before* signing my name to something.
    • Well, they could still complete them for us, and as part of the normal submission process make us certify that they are correct. Note that they already make us do this.
    • Anybody who reports on you directly to the IRS is required to send a duplicate of the form to you. That's what W-2 and 1099 forms are all about.

      If you file electronically, the IRS will likely reject your return if it doesn't include mentions of every W-2 and 1099 form they've been given about you.

      Besides, if somebody gives you more than $600 and you don't remember that event come tax time, just what's wrong with you?

    • I'm going to have to agree with you. I think it would make things much simpler if I received both my W-2s *and* a completed tax return from the IRS/State. Then I could have the option of either signing and returning it or disputing it and filling out my own. The IRS could simply process those returns that were unmodified and only use extra resources on those that were reworked. That might streamline the process and save some money, depending on how many tax returns are *right* the first time.

  • Article has a typo... (Score:5, Funny)

    by bongoras ( 632709 ) * on Tuesday February 17, 2004 @02:09PM (#8307385) Homepage
    It says "The Boston Globe reports that the Massachusetts state Revenue Department has launched a new technology offensive"...

    It should say "The Boston Globe reports that the Massachusetts state Revenue Department has launched a new offensive technology"

  • So basically it works like this. (Score:3, Funny)

    by bad enema ( 745446 ) on Tuesday February 17, 2004 @02:09PM (#8307391)
    "Here's your form. Fill it out. We could just do it for you, but we're too lazy for that. We'd rather see if we can catch you cutting corners. It's a fun little game we like to play around here. They give points for every evildoing tax form we catch. Brian's leading this week but I'm gaining on him...."

  • Use tax: The most cheated on tax ever. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by LostCluster ( 625375 ) * on Tuesday February 17, 2004 @02:09PM (#8307394)
    If you live in a state that has a sales tax, you can't really avoid taxes by shopping online, by phone, or by mail. Yeah, you avoid the sales tax, but by causing to have imported into the state a taxable item you owe a use tax, which is usually equal to exactly the sales tax you would have had to pay on an in-state transaction.

    The problem is, for an individual, it's hard to collect a use tax on most things. Your state can't ask an out-of-state vendor for their sales records because they're out-of-state and therefore not under your state's jurisdiction. They can't really force you to give a true answer because you have the ability to plead the Fifth Amendment if you're ever accused of not paying a use tax you should have.

    It's a problem the states have wanted to solve ever since online shopping got big, but there hasn't exactly been a breakthrough. The states that don't have a sales tax have no reason to help the states that do. Tax classifications can vary from state to state, or even county to county or city by city, so computing what tax is really owed is a complex task that nobody wants to do either. So, it's still one of those problems in the unsolved bin at this moment.

    • Re:Use tax: The most cheated on tax ever. (Score:5, Funny)

      by mcwop ( 31034 ) on Tuesday February 17, 2004 @02:51PM (#8308009) Homepage
      Massachusetts Department Of Revenue
      PO Box 7007
      Boston, MA 02204

      Dear John Doe Taxpayer,

      Recently we discovered the purchase of equipment over the internet, for which no use tax was paid. Please remit $50 plus $25 in penalties for the following items:

      • TX25 Super Dildo $500
      • Best of Jenna Jameson DVD Collection $100
      • Hello Clitty Leatherette S&M Collection $400

      This letter is now a matter of public record. You have 30 days to pay penalties, and back tax.

      Sincerely,
      MA DOR

    • Here's my problem with the use tax... (Score:4, Interesting)

      by MadAnthony02 ( 626886 ) on Tuesday February 17, 2004 @03:25PM (#8308413)

      If I buy something in another state with a lower tax, in theory I have to pay taxes to my state to make up the difference. But it doesn't work the other way around. I don't get a refund for buying something in a higher tax state when I live in a lower tax state. If the government(s) don't seem to play fair, but rather to maximize profit, can you expect citizens to do any differently?

      Case in point. I moved from a state with 6% sales tax to one with 5%. I had to retitle my car, and if I had bought it in a state with a lower tax, I would have to pay the government of my state the sales tax difference between my state and theirs - but there is no refund for a higher to lower. And this isn't just for people who just bought their cars in another state - I bought the car 2 years earlier.

  • Newsflash (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Red Rocket ( 473003 ) on Tuesday February 17, 2004 @02:10PM (#8307406)

    Most citizens' financial information is already known by the government. Working people pay taxes through paycheck withholding. The only ones who can cheat on their taxes in any significant way are corporations who are basically on the honor system when it comes to paying taxes these days. That's who this kind of system is designed to detect. Don't believe the hype. Working people are being ripped off by corporate tax cheats. The tax burden is being shifted to the middle and upper-middle classes while the elites get off scott free.

    • Re:Newsflash (Score:3, Informative)

      by bahwi ( 43111 )
      Lord forbid anyone go to the bookstore and learn how to do it too. Or even the library.

      Work earns you money, and a penny saved is a penny earned.

      Get the Rich Dad Poor Dad books, best on the market IMO.

  • The only downside of Slashdot (Score:3, Insightful)

    by mental_telepathy ( 564156 ) on Tuesday February 17, 2004 @02:11PM (#8307409)

    Is that the reactions are too easy to predict. Personally, I like seeing tax cheats get caught, because it means I pay less. As long as there a legitmate system for addressing grievances, I don't see a problem. Big Brother is an overused cliche.

    • Re:The only downside of Slashdot (Score:5, Insightful)

      by iminplaya ( 723125 ) on Tuesday February 17, 2004 @02:29PM (#8307692) Journal
      Personally, I like seeing tax cheats get caught, because it means I pay less.

      No it doesn't. It just means the gov't gets more. It is dilussional to think that if they caught all the tax "cheats" that they wil reduce your taxes. Same goes for retailers vs. shoplifters, insurance companies vs. fraud.

      As long as there a legitmate system for addressing grievances,...

      When they put one in, let me know...ok?
      • insurance companies vs. fraud.

        Insurance fraud is interesting. It happens mainly in states with very uncompetitive insurance environments, and therefore have high prices.

        Car insurance is terribly important, but often people feel like they aren't getting anything out of it, which is the point, it's property insurance. So the more people pay in car insurance, the more they feel ripped off, the more likely it is they will consider insurance fraud.

        New Jersey spends all its time trying to figure out why it ha

  • Good thing I only get paid in ... (Score:5, Funny)

    by burgburgburg ( 574866 ) <splisken06&email,com> on Tuesday February 17, 2004 @02:11PM (#8307423)
    pancakes. Let'em try to track them. Let'em try to tax them. I dare them.

    Now where the hell is the syrup?!?

  • You know who's to blame (Score:5, Funny)

    by gsfprez ( 27403 ) on Tuesday February 17, 2004 @02:12PM (#8307427)
    all those damn conservative massachusetts Republicans.... running the whole state into the ground with their damn personal invasions and tax increases on the people.

    I swear, if that place was run by loving, caring democrats, this wouldn't be happening.

    /its a joke, laugh, damnit

  • Taxachusetts... (Score:2, Interesting)

    by rqqrtnb ( 753156 )
    Land of Liberals, Loons, and DOUBLE TAXATION

    Greetings from Taxachusetts, the Land of Ted the Lifeguard!

    The Commonwealth of Massachusetts has an entity called the Massachusetts Department of Revenue. The DOR puts the IRS to shame.

    File your taxes late with the IRS, they hit you with interest and penalties. So be it. They are the IRS, they are above the law.

    File your taxes late with the Mass DOR, they hit you with interest and penalties. And then they hit you AGAIN. Yes indeedy, folks: it's DOUBLE-DIPPING
  • *ducks*

    It's public information. Sure, it's really creepy and will be abused, but what are people going to do, put all the data back in the bottle? People here of all places should realise that public really does mean public.

  • You Fools (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Deanasc ( 201050 ) on Tuesday February 17, 2004 @02:14PM (#8307468) Homepage Journal
    You had the chance to avoid this by voting out the state income tax last year. Now the MassDOR will be F-ing you with an elephant sized dick.

    Good work.

    I know I'm trolling. No need to remind me.

  • 4th Amendment anyone? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by erick99 ( 743982 ) * <homerun@gmail.com> on Tuesday February 17, 2004 @02:15PM (#8307478)
    I can't blame the state for trying to track down folks who cheat on their taxes. However, I don't think I want the tax people showing up on my doorstep if I happen to get a car as a gift from a rich uncle but I clearly don't earn enough to otherwise own that car.

    I'm not a lawyer or a legal expert but something about pulling this data together and possibly going on "witch hunts" smacks of "unreasonable search..." Either way, it's scary.

    Happy Trails!

    Erick

  • the state may eventually be able to track down so much information about a resident's finances that the state, rather than the individual, could complete the individual's tax return.

    What the hell do they need that they don't already get? It's all reported! They get a copy of your W-2 forms too, and they get a copy of any other similar forms. I wish the gubmint's computers would just send me a tax refund check Jan 1st instead of making me send them something and then get it back. Better yet

  • Complete my taxes? Good! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by DoorFrame ( 22108 ) on Tuesday February 17, 2004 @02:16PM (#8307503) Homepage
    I work a number of different jobs throughout the year, and have to deal with the considerable annoyance of having each one attempt to deduce what my yearly earnings are going to be and tax me accordingly.

    The jobs that pay me $200/week (even if I'm only working two days there) will take out almost no taxes becuase they assume I'm making $10,000/year. When I'm paid $2000 for one week of work, I get taxed on the ludicrous assumption that I'm going to be making $100,000/year. Neither assumption is accurate and both leave the government taking out a grossly incorrect percent of my wages in tax anticipation.

    Why can't the government compile a system that will help companies to estimate what my tax payment should be not simply by what I'm being paid in the current week, but by looking back over the whole last year and seeing how much I've made this tax-year (through different employers) and what that average income is going to end up being near.

    Better yet, why can't we come up with a system that doesn't depend upon weird estimates as the year goes on, but allows you to announce at the beginning what your income is going to be near and then simply take out the percent that that tax bracket would warrant. Then, if you were accurate, you'd have no refund and no taxes do and you could just fold everything up and go home.

    Damned taxes.
    • A. Because if they hold your money, they know they'll get it. Plus, the spectre of a refund is incentive to do your taxes.

      B. Because then they wouldn't get to hold your money interest free. (Hey, interest free loans are great -- given inflation, the borrower technically makes money on them)

      I think Maryland must be doing something similar. Several months ago they hit me for something like $5000 for 2001. The problem with this was that I lived in California for the entirety of 2001, with the exception of th

  • They COULD.. (Score:3, Informative)

    by dk.r*nger ( 460754 ) on Tuesday February 17, 2004 @02:16PM (#8307505)
    ..but the shouldn't. Or rather we (you, as I'm not in the US) shouldn't let them.

    Not because it is Big Brother, but it would be all to easy to just add new taxes whenever the state needs money.

    In that the taxpayer has to relate to his own taxes, instead of just paying another bill every month, there is a substatial amount of government control by the people.

    How many you guys check your phonebills if it is $10 or even $20 above average one month? Sure, alot of people do, but even more just pays. You don't want this atitude towards taxes too!

  • And now people will begin getting it (Score:5, Interesting)

    by TyrranzzX ( 617713 ) on Tuesday February 17, 2004 @02:16PM (#8307507) Journal
    They call them "tax cheats", we call them "people who can't pay taxes because if they did, they'd starve to death or couldn't cloth themselves". Interesting how in today's world the goverment's mouth comes before your kids' mouths, huh? But that's an old arguement. Just because unenployment is skyrocketing, our country is going into great debt, and the US prison industry is the fastest growing of them all is no reason to fear this one.

    So, lets say the goverment decides they want to pass a totalitarian-like tax, say something rediculous like internet tax or media tax; they now have the enforcability. So if you decide to feed your kids instead of pay your taxes, guess what happens? Right into the knocker. And if orphanages become overfilled with kids, those kids go into any home that wants them, for any thing.

    There are other people who don't pay taxes because they simply can't afford to. They have to pay rent to their slum lord to stay in their nice shithole apartment, or pay for food, clothing, college, car, car repairs, gas, etc. These people also have home buisnesses; a lot of computer technicians have started their own repair shops or networking contracts out of their home, and they live contract to contract and make barely enough to get by. What if they had to make 40% more?
    • I'm not even going to touch your assertion that enforcement of tax evaders is going to cause a return to a Debtors' Prison system and overcrowding of orphanages, eventually culminating in a child slave trade -- that's aburd on its face.

      What I would like to see is some evidence supporting your other assertion, that people who fail to pay taxes do so largely because it would be a financial hardship for them to do so. Do you have any studies which support this conclusion? With the tax laws as they are now,

  • Well, What Did You Expect, Anyway? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by susano_otter ( 123650 ) on Tuesday February 17, 2004 @02:17PM (#8307519) Homepage
    "Information wants to be free", right?

    Hasn't this been the whole point of the last century of effort in the field of computing? The constant push for faster processors? The drive for larger, faster storage, in smaller form factors? The constant advances in memory efficiency and effectiveness? For generations now, everybody has been working for smaller, cheaper, faster, computing--working very successfully at it.

    Everybody wants it. Everybody wants their information to be more portable, more accessible. That's what the Internet is for. That's why relational databases were invented. That's why SQL and cross-platform development tools are so important. That's why everybody is lusting after Wi-Fi.

    It's all so that more information can move with greater speed over greater distances, and be organized and studied with greater ease. That's what you've been working for. That's what you want. It's what everybody wants. The academics who used the original ARPAnet want it. The government wants it. The Open Source community wants it. Microsoft wants it. Your boss wants it. You want it. I want it.

    Privacy was an illusion, perpetuated for millenia by a lack of technology. But the information is out there. It always has been. And you want it to be free. Now, you're finally getting what you want, and it's only going to get cheaper and easier from here.

    Everything is going according to plan. Your plan.

    • Re:Well, What Did You Expect, Anyway? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by websensei ( 84861 ) on Tuesday February 17, 2004 @02:46PM (#8307932) Journal
      "Privacy was an illusion, perpetuated for millenia by a lack of technology."


      I'd just chuckle, shake my head and ignore this, except it got moderated Socre: 5, Insightful.

      It's preposterous.
      By this logic, "Clean air and water was an illusion, perpetuated by a lack of pollution."

      From the tone of the original post, it seems tongue-in-cheek, and it's kind of funny. But for the moderators and subsequent readers who take it seriously? Think hard before you shrug and decide that the concept of personal privacy is merely an illusion -- or else before long it will be.

      • "Privacy was an illusion, perpetuated for millenia by a lack of technology."

        I admit to indulging in hyperbole, with that statement. But your rebuttal-by-analogy is kinda weak. You said

        By this logic, "Clean air and water was an illusion, perpetuated by a lack of pollution."

        Clean air and water are concrete things, easily measurable. They can be evaluated according to biological standards. Pollution can be counted as a physical quantity, and judged according to ccertain absolute criteria for hea

    • Information may or may not want to be free. That's not the point, and I'm not going to get into it here.

      The point is: until such time as all information is completely, 100%, easily-available-to-all free, as long as there is a gradient, information is power. And history has proven that you want to be very careful to whom you hand power.

      I wouldn't care if the details of my life were collated and indexed if:
      -There were controls in place to catch and prosecute those who abused the data (eg. identity theft).

  • Tax corporations, not people (Score:3, Interesting)

    by wytcld ( 179112 ) on Tuesday February 17, 2004 @02:18PM (#8307529) Homepage
    There are those who argue that having both individual and corporate income taxes results in double taxation, since whatever corporations take in goes to individuals, whether employees or stockholders, who are taxed on that amount. So let's end double taxation by abolishing the income tax for individuals and taxing only corporations. This is the only way to avoid an immanent future where governments intrude far-too-far onto individual privacy rights.

    Would people just avoid doing business in corporate form in order to avoid taxation if we did this? No, most people would rather have the protection from individual legal liability which "corporate cover" provides. Tax would be seen as a form of insurance well worth it for any enterprise facing significant liability potential - which is any business large enough to have enough customers that a statistical likelihood of injury due to its products or services exists.

    Of course criminal corporations (like the Mob) might start ducking taxes. Oh, wait....

  • Tax Form Internal Consistency Check (Score:5, Informative)

    by 4of12 ( 97621 ) on Tuesday February 17, 2004 @02:20PM (#8307545) Homepage Journal

    Here's a timely story for those of you filling out your federal tax return for Uncle Sam this spring.

    According to my tax preparer, one of the ways they decide whether to audit a particular return is to correlate the adjusted gross income against ZIP code. Generally, areas segregate into rich and poor neighborhoods.

    Persons in poor ZIP codes who have unusually high incomes would be singled out (Mr Coke Dealer that wants to avoid Al Capone's downfall - income tax evasion) on the one hand.

    Then, people in wealthy ZIP codes with no visible means of support (again, illicit gains and unreported income).

    It all goes to show that intelligent data mining can make much better use of the information already available. No need for John Ashcroft to review my frequent shopper card purchases.

  • Darn Right Wingers (Score:3, Funny)

    by provolt ( 54870 ) on Tuesday February 17, 2004 @02:20PM (#8307548)
    Those darn right wing republicans! Taking every chance they get to take away our freedom. If we can get President Bush out of the Whitehouse, then maybe we start getting rid of the vast amounts of Republicans in the Mass. State Gov't.

  • Tax Voodoo (Score:5, Funny)

    by victor_the_cleaner ( 723411 ) on Tuesday February 17, 2004 @02:26PM (#8307646)
    Dealing with states on taxes, specifically non-income tax related items is somewhat of a joke.

    A friend who has a large retail operation on Florida once received a visit from the state. State said, you owe $91K in uncollected sales taxes according to our records. The state was really a single rep who most likely would receive incentives based upon the amount he collected.

    Needless to say my friend hired an outside accountant to review everything and look at the claims. With some interesting results.

    State agent returns to collect the money. My friend presents him with documentation and says, "we reviewed everything, and looks like we don't owe you $91K, in fact we overpaid $15K, so we need a refund."

    Agent looked everything over, and said, he'd drop the claim and they'd call it even.

  • How is this your rights online? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Sleepy ( 4551 ) on Tuesday February 17, 2004 @02:30PM (#8307698) Homepage
    Someone please tell me how this is a violation of my rights? Seriously. I am normally protective of my liberties but I do not see the connection.

    Should the poster feel violated that he may get caught cheating on tobacco taxes?

    By the very act of taxing tobacco, hasn't the government been already GRANTED (by the people) this power? I'm assuming that data existed before for people who did NOT cheat, and made some kind of non-cash transaction that required paperwork.

    Tax cheating is not a "questionable accounting practice" -- it's shirking your societal obligations and shafting your neighbor with your bill. It's a crime and obviously the penalties are a joke. Forget fining them... send them to Texas for 12 months, so they can make blue jeans and sneakers in the state jails.

    Or does the poster feel 'violated' because the government "knows" he purchased tobacco? Woopie. It's a taxable item.

    It's not as bad as say, the government illegally tapping your telephone because you buy cous-cous and goat cheeze, violating due-process, Geneva convention un-enforcement, or even FCC censorship crackdowns for the public display of a female nipple.

    Please find a real issue to complain about.

  • $2.5 Billion Tax Cheat (Score:3, Interesting)

    by sirbone ( 691768 ) on Tuesday February 17, 2004 @02:49PM (#8307985)
    Some may praise the tax collectors for getting all the money from tax fraudsters. But there is anoter side of this that should be considered. I don't know the stats for MA, so I will use the IRS as an example. The IRS web sites says that it has $2.5 billion that it owes people for the year 2000. It says that if the money is not claimed then the IRS keeps it for good. There are a few issues with this.

    * If they know that they owe $2.5 billion then they must know who they owe it to. So why do they not return it? Compare that to what happens if you do not give them money they think belongs to them.

    * If they do not want to return it to its owners then why not disperse it through universal income tax credits rather than keeping it? In other words, they engage in what for a private citizen would be "tax fraud".

    * So some people cheat on their taxes. This is offset some by the IRS keeping money that is not theirs. Thus in the interest of fairness, until a tax collection agency cracks down on themselves kepeing money that is not "theirs" (though saying a tax collection agency "owns" any of the money it collects is a bit absurd...), we should oppose such agencies cracking down on us.

  • Coming Soon... (Score:4, Funny)

    by Loki_1929 ( 550940 ) on Tuesday February 17, 2004 @03:05PM (#8308203) Journal
    "While denying the state is playing 'Big Brother', the Revenue Department Commissioner, Alan LeBovidge predicted the state may eventually be able to track so much financial information on individuals that the state could complete the citizens' returns for them."

    Automated government wallet-raping, coming soon to a tax office near YOU!.

    [Avg Citizen] "Please just tell me how money I have to pay to not be thrown in jail."

Slashdot Top Deals

"The vast majority of successful major crimes against property are perpetrated by individuals abusing positions of trust." -- Lawrence Dalzell

Close