Is everyone choking back tears over the poor IRS?

On WJ today, Nina Olson, the IRS advocate lady was bemoaning the fact that the IRS is "seriously underfunded". She was especially upset about the "underground" economy..the "cash" economy..like ebay is going untaxed. Apparently there are people who are earning their income on ebay and NOT sending in that 15.3 % to the IRS (for SS) and not paying income taxes on what they earn. :cry:

Didn't our own vice president tout ebay selling as a new job for the new century?

A caller also told of a scam that cc companies are pulling. he negotiated a discount for some of his debt and the company wrote it off and claimed it on the IRS, and then the IRS sent him a bill for the amount of what they wrote off, and congress wrote the law so that the "forgiven" part was counted as INCOME and he owed taxes on it.

Tax consumption, not production

For THEIR VAT, they have health care, cheap (or free) college, old-age pensions, liberal vacation policies on the job, generous unemployment benefits, good public transportation, and housing subsidies.

If we HAD access to those goodies, a VAT would be the way to go, but just adding a sales tax to what we have or replacing the IRS with one, and NOT adding the benefits, would be a financial disaster for all

don't spent $250 million per day invading other countries.

If we gave our current military-dominated government a VAT, the neocons would just find more countries to invade.

I amazes me that, apparently you and the other consumption tax advocates, don't, can't, or refuse to see or acknowledge that this scheme is the most regressive, punishing, and unfair of all the tax alternatives. Is it because we have lost sight of the fact that the idea is that those that benefit the most from our system should pay to support that system?

Did the pod people replace the defense with Atlanta's?:hi:

for most of the game and expect them to stay fresh and focused. I'm most unhappy with Mr. Rex.

The truly rich - they spend more than you and I.

Don't get me wrong - I also think we need an income tax. But it's at 40% plus or minus a few points depending on your total income. That's already fairly high, and anything higher will foment anger. And, there will always be loopholes.

Taxing consumption leaves for NO loopholes.

If you have to spend everything you earn to stay alive and put a roof over your head, you are in a world of hurt. BUT if you are rich, you can spend and spend, and probably not even touch most of the loot you haul in.

and don;t forget, rich people have 'networks' and accountants. Even now, there is a lot of "trading" going on..

Service for service.. example:

An orthodontist "trades" his services for some rich kids, in exchange for the free use of a spiffy new car from the car-dealer daddy..

And in theory, services are supposed to be taxed as well...

I understand your arguments - and certain things should be not taxed. Homes that sell for under the median home price, food, etc...

There are not enough of them buying enough stuff to make any real difference, and the tax is insignificant to them, whereas it is a huge deal to the millions that are barely scraping by already. A 15% additional tax on them is a 15% cut in pay, a 15% reduction in their ability to survive, and the only VAT taxes I've seen proposed are much higher than that, Europe's are in the 20% - 25% range.

If you want to really make a fair tax, make it a real flat tax on all income, regardless of source, that kicks in after the first $20,000 (or something on that order, what it takes for life's necessities, food, clothing, shelter, transportation, utilities, etc.) per person. If we were to do that, the percentage would be very small, about 12% in the last analysis I read. This tax, like the VAT, leaves NO loopholes either, including foreign/off-shore companies, which are not subject to the VAT. It also serves to obviate the need for the IRS, and eliminates the 17,000 (or whatever ridiculous number it is now) pages of the U.S. tax code, as well as the billions spent to write, interpret, and enforce it.

Of course the ruling class squeals about this, as it represents far more than they pay now, but hey, fuck them, they got where they are because of this system and it is only right that they pay to support it.

get to keep more of their money, while poor people who have to spend lots of their income on the things they buy are taxed at a higher percentage of their income.

While I hate using taxes as instruments of social policy, we seem addicted to it.

reduce YOUR taxes.

And if there is something in this plan that I have missed, please point it out. Except the reich-wing myth that "corporations don't pay taxes", it is utter bullflop.

In fact studies show that one of the reasons it will not go over so well, is because it hits the older person more than the younger. The more affluent rather than ther poor.

It shouldn't be a straight sales tax,but one on luxuries - the new car, the vacation, the cruise, the liquor, etc.

The assertion would seem to be counter to common sense and I'd like to know how this could be.

I have heard a newscaster opine about this, they always say that the richer the person the more that they would be spending and thus taxed. And how senior groups like AARP would be opposed.

The poorer you are - the more of your income goes to rent and that is indirectly taxed now because your income is taxed before you pay the rent. Then in many states where there is sales tax, the groceries are not allowed to tax most food (prepared foods yes, but others aren't)

After taxes, rent and food, the poor really don't have much to spend. (i mean they have to choose between their meds and foods, for Pete's sake.) For some reason they just don't take that many trips to Europe (probably too lazy to pack the suitcases and load the cameras full of film) <- meant sarcstically

Yeah, when they buy the 10K used car - they will be taxed. But certainly not as much as the 83K BMW.

And a tax on beer would be nothing like a tax on some 1974 bottle of Cabernet.

While it is true that the people with more money spend more, and therefore pay more tax on the things they buy, the taxes paid by the poor person represent a much larger portion of their income, so in effect they pay a higher tax rate, and are hurt more by it. In addition, you have to consider the numbers of people in each income level, there are many times more people with less money than the group with more. The sheer numbers of the poor groups guarantees that the poor will pay most of the gross income derived by that tax, while also receiving the least benefit from it.

Another factor you might want to consider is that with this scheme (enthusiastically advocated by corporations and those that own them), just as now, the people in the middle will get screwed from both ends.

ETA: Check out the idea in #30, and tell me if there is something wrong with it, other than the fact it will not happen anytime soon.

You put that more concisely than I possibly could have. I'd have gone on some rant, I bet. Good job.

a sales tax "punish". Almost every state has one, so is everyone being punished? Whats punishing is having to have a CPA or a tax firm do your taxes because they have gotten to the point of no return in terms of difficulty. Esp. if you own a small business.

A public corporation is property ... yet can be sold several times over without a sales tax.

Great idea.

Stories like this make me stick to my guns! (so to speak)

So the suckers with W2 and 1099 income, that is EASILY tracked, HAVE to pay their fair share while the wealthy/corporations form foundations, reverse leases, off shore accounts and other scams with minimal fear of getting caught.

Which says that they wrote off about $1,500 of our debt last year and we should claim that as income. WHAT??????

an insolvency exemption, but barring that, you owe income tax on what the CC wrote off. Bankruptcy is the only sure protection on written-off debts.

Seems fair to me.

Of course, it probably won't fly.......Nothing like kicking someone when they are down.

my client of 18 years, the Walt Disney Company, chose to outsource my work overseas. Once the government stops supporting the outsourcing of American jobs we can talk about taxing my eBay earnings. :grr:

But I do anyway, and I'd like them to be properly funded. I feel the same way about the IRS.

but it annoys me to no end that the super-rich have cut back their obligations, due to the "rent-a legislator" programs, and the little guy always has to make up the difference.

Agreed, I dont mind paying my fair share, but I am single, I dont have any offspring...(that I know of) I dont own a house, I only have that great big one exemption, I didnt win the lottery
this year............

So why am i paying MORE taxes this year, and making less?????

So when a Repube comes up to you and says that the Dems are raising taxes, I say BS
I was making more under Clinton and paying less.............


(My dad was the chief Audit here in Portland number 2from the top back in the early 80's with the
IRS)

All that needs to happen is to go back to the formula in place when we were prosperous. Back then the TOP group paid a LOT more taxes. The last 40 years have been all about releasing THEM from taxation so they could have more cash to rolla round in when they are bored :grr:

... let them make sure they are getting the taxes that are owed and lessen the need for new taxes.

reason that those at the top get away with murder, tax wise.

Think about it this way, you are a tax auditor for the IRS, you have to do 20000 returns a year, now who's are you going to do, 20000 single or two page returns, or 20000 returns from the upper income class that are each 1000 pages thick?

The IRS needs IT improvements.

The IRS needs more auditors.



The ultra rich love the way the system is now, that should tell you something.

My husband had a cc debt in collections that we settled on. Next thing we know, we had an extra $1,500 we had to claim as income on our taxes. Yeah, that was helpful :eyes: Of course no one at the cc company mentioned this would be as a result of the settlement.

was the $1500 the amount you paid them or the amount you were forgiven by them?

Thank You

Until they are in trouble with credit cards is that when you
read these news stories of how a secretary making 17K a year
has credit card balances of over 40K - the news stories carefully edit out the fact that sometimes as much as 50% of what a delinquent customer owes is
nothing mroe than penalty charges (which in this day and age are calcultaed by a computer and don't even involve an accountant scratching his or her head for a minute or two)

So then you are forgiven an amount say "X" and now that amount is considered
INCOME? It has bought you NO GOODS AND NO SERVIcES other than a credit card company's "kindness?"And this non-income income you must report to Uncle Sam?

This is especially hideous since insurance industry lobbyists are given total control over the non-existence of national health insurance - the lobbyists see to it that once you suffer a serious illness, you may very well start defaulting on your credit cards. It looks like there is more collusion going on between industries - or it could be that just when corruption hits the
all time high so much so that every transaction in this country is encased in rules of corruption, that it all becomes serendipitous good fortune for the corrupt.

The banking industry is the NEW MAFIA. No other way to look at it.

time. You may not agree with it, but the idea is that is a CC or bank forgives all or a portion of a debt, it is "income" to you, and as such is taxable.

As to Ebay, I'm sure there are lots of people selling on Ebay and not reporting the income. I've been selling on Ebay for a little over 5 years, and I ALWAYS keep records and report the imcome. With the exchange of information these days, it's just not worth the risk! If I keep the records,I can prove my profit or loss, if the IRS discovers that I've been operating a business for years and NOT reporting it, THEY decide how much $$ they THINK Imade, and tax me on THAT AMOUNT! They did that to my Dad over 60 years ago when someone reported that he was operating a little appliance repair shop. He made about $10.00 a week, but the IRs said THEY thought he probably made $100.00 a week, and he had to pay taxes on $$ he never got!

She started working part-time as a waitress after she moved out and unofficially separated from her husband and lived with her female friend. In that particular year, she didn't make enough money to even have to file a return, so she didn't (big mistake, as that eliminates the statute of limitations and the IRS can pursue you forever). Someone at the IRS must have started doing a little checking under her social security number and decided that she was making enormous amounts of undeclared tips (which she really wasn't during that particular year). The IRS "estimated" (i.e. completely guessed - a shot in the dark) that she made $25,000 in tips during the particular tax year and they sent her notices asking her to agree, deny, or explain. They sent the notices to her husband's address (she didn't bother giving her temporary addresses with friends to the IRS). Unfortunately, her husband was angry at her and threw the notices away. Then about 5 years later, she gets a bill for over $30,000 from the IRS, which was what the so-called estimated unreported tax came to, along with enormous amounts of interest and penalties. Apparently, it became exceedingly difficult to even argue against the estimated income theory, because of the succession of notices, which diminish the ability to appeal them as they progress. The case in fact had gone to final, unappealable status, a fact she didn't even know about until about five years later.

My friend asked me to help her, even though I know very little about tax law. I spent over a year arguing with the IRS and finally received the extraordinary remedy of an audit of her tax year. I was able to successfully demonstrate that this woman was virtually homeless for one year and made almost no income and the IRS dropped their ridiculous pursuit and harrassment and put that in writing. But it shocked me that the IRS could actually just pick an arbitrary figure like $25,000 and attribute it to income of a person, without basing it on even one shred of hard evidence. It also shocked me to see just how much in interest and penalities can be tacked on to an amount over a period of time.

claim that such workers ALWAYS get a tip of 15%, etc. Obviously no one at the IRS has ever worked a lunch counter at a greasy spoon

any more than i care about a mafia henchman, a police officer, or a soldier. They're all the same thing, someone elses property, they do as they are told and are effectively non-entities. What gets me is paying more than my share of taxes to a government that spends it not on civil functions, support for all citizens and such, but for making rich sociopaths richer.

They need more resources to isolate tax evaders and make them pay. The rich and dishonest are being subsidized, and that's not fair to everyone else.

their claim that certain forms have not yet been approved for 2006 by the IRS. Went on the IRS website, and there are the forms, plain as can be, ready to be downloaded and printed.

Meanwhile, TurboTax claims the exact forms aren't ready until 2/27! WTF?

Meanwhile, my son won't be able to file his taxes because he needs a form that I have to generate for him from his grandmother's trust--and TurboTax claims
that form hasn't been approved by the IRS, when indeed, that form
is on the IRS website!

What it means, is, that the Feds get to hang onto any return that's he's entitled to for another month!

I have to go get my turbo tax, but i am pissed at them for "tiering" their software this year.. becaue of ONE item, we have to buy the business version and pay the highest price..:grr:

They used to only have two...regular and deluxe.:grr:

I've sent TurboTax an e-mail asking them what gives.

They have been responsible for destroying the lives of so many people, one has to wonder if they should be de-clawed.

its about fairly and efficiently collecting tax money legitmately owed to the US government.

The IRS is deliberately underfunded, and it's not for the benefit of middle-class taxpayers like me.

It's not a good thing that we don't have an adequately funded IRS.

:thumbsup:

A small number of people have even brought this to court, and won.

There are a few people out there now, working tax-free, because they were able to show a judge that there is no law on the books about paying income tax.

:shrug:

OK, in fairness I have to say that of all the cases I personally have heard of and investigated (there are many) no one has gotten away with this argument. In fact, most of the more infamous cases resulted in heavy penalties for the people who tried it.

Most of these challenges involve claiming the 16th Amendment is un-ratified, and thus unenforceable. All other arguments aside, the law is what judges RULE it is, and in every single case I've ever seen judges ALWAYS rule that the 16th is valid.

Refusing to pay income taxes is a good route to a world of hurt if you ask me.

Maybe if they focused their efforts on the big cheats and recovering some of that money, instead of coming down on small business owners and the middle class, they might get some more money in their coffers. But there I go again trying to apply logic to a situation again.