my letter to the irs

farfromglorified · February 2007

Pacomc79 wrote:

It's tough to go over in a post, the summations and rebuttals are over on the website.

http://www.fairtax.org/fairtax/about.htm

It's essentially a revenue neutral (and then some) national retail sales tax with a prebate paid to everyone with a social security number each month to ensure the people at the bottom are not getting screwed and paying taxes on the essentials of life etc.

There's only one fair tax:

$ BUDGET / # OF TAXPAYERS = INDIVIDUAL TAX

angelica · February 2007

jeffbr wrote:

I have also known a number of government "professionals" who looked longingly at what we were doing in the private tech sector, but were unable/unwilling to make the move due to their personal risk profile.

If true, your comment highlights a VERY serious problem.

I wonder if you might explain that problem as you see it.

Collin · February 2007

farfromglorified wrote:

Amen...the tax "refund" is such a scam. I don't understand why people want it -- you're paying them to effectively bury your money and then dig it up a few months later.

I talked to a friend of mine last night and she was all excited that she was getting a $1,200 "refund". I asked her if I could borrow $100 and then just give it back to her six months from now. She didn't get it.........

If you borrowed the $100 from your friend and gave it back 6 months later, do you think she'd call it a scam?

farfromglorified · February 2007

Collin wrote:

If you borrowed the $100 from your friend and gave it back 6 months later, do you think she'd call it a scam?

If I spent $99 of it and only gave her $1 back, yes. Otherwise, if I gave her all $100 back I'd hope she'd call it pointless.

Collin · February 2007

farfromglorified wrote:

If I spent $99 of it and only gave her a $1 back, yes. Otherwise, if I gave her all $100 back I'd hope she'd call it pointless.

Is that what they do, the IRS? Excuse me for my ignorance about the US tax system.

jeffbr · February 2007

angelica wrote:

I wonder if you might explain that problem as you see it.

Sure.

#1 - their salaries are paid with tax dollars. This money should be used as efficiently as possible. Paying people equal to or great than the prevailing wage for a comparable private sector position is wasteful.

#2 - their jobs require less risk, and as soulsinging sees their roles, less innovation or self-motivation. They are given specific job functions, and they do the work. The jobs are relatively "safe" compared to private sector jobs. The risk : reward ratio is way out of whack.

soulsinging · February 2007

farfromglorified wrote:

There's only one fair tax:

$ BUDGET / # OF TAXPAYERS = INDIVIDUAL TAX

this "fair tax" conceept they posted seems to sound like what you're always bitching about... levying taxes based on one's use of services. the more you use, the more you contribute.

farfromglorified · February 2007

Collin wrote:

Is that what they do, the IRS? Excuse me for my ignorance about the US tax system.

Yes. The IRS requires me, as an employer, to withhold a % of my employees' income from their paychecks. In the spring, those employees then compute the actual amount of tax they owed for the previous year and then either a) pay an additional amount to cover a deficiency or b) receive a check back from the IRS for any overage.

Brisk. · February 2007

hahaha

jeffbr · February 2007

Collin wrote:

If you borrowed the $100 from your friend and gave it back 6 months later, do you think she'd call it a scam?

If she thought it was a good deal I might want to explain the concept of opportunity costs.

farfromglorified · February 2007

soulsinging wrote:

this "fair tax" conceept they posted seems to sound like what you're always bitching about... levying taxes based on one's use of services. the more you use, the more you contribute.

Huh? You're not buying those services from the government.

soulsinging · February 2007

jeffbr wrote:

Sure.

#1 - their salaries are paid with tax dollars. This money should be used as efficiently as possible. Paying people equal to or great than the prevailing wage for a comparable private sector position is wasteful.

#2 - their jobs require less risk, and as soulsinging sees their roles, less innovation or self-motivation. They are given specific job functions, and they do the work. The jobs are relatively "safe" compared to private sector jobs. The risk : reward ratio is way out of whack.

1) i would think we would want some of the top people possible handling our governmental processes, so a high salary is essential to attracting such people. look at what's become of our educational system.

2) that's a misrepresentation. the power to tax is a congressional power. the irs is only the means of collecting such taxes. now if you're talking about innovation in the sense of making that process streamlined and efficient, sure ou want that. but employees of the irs cannot and should not be making sweeping national policy changes (like disbanding the tax system becos they think it's robbery) when that power is specifically left to congress. would you be ok with the epa being able to unilaterally seize your business becos some phone answering tech got an email about how the epa isn't doing a good job protecting the environment and decided it was his job to fix that in whatever way he saw fit?

baraka · February 2007

jeffbr wrote:

I have also known a number of government "professionals" who looked longingly at what we were doing in the private tech sector, but were unable/unwilling to make the move due to their personal risk profile.

If true, your comment highlights a VERY serious problem.

Oh, don't get me wrong, the gov't can make something quite difficult due to their paperwork and 'red tape'. Something such as creating a new position in the private sector is a hell of a lot easier than in a federal institution. But, we don't all sit around daydreaming about the private sector. It has been my experience that it is much more difficult to get a coveted position with the feds in my field than with the private sector. I have my pick of positions in the private sector. I have worked for both and have enjoyed the benefits of both. I just wanted to point out that you statement was NOT a fair assessment of all federal positions.

BTW, How does my statement highlight a problem?

soulsinging · February 2007

farfromglorified wrote:

Huh? You're not buying those services from the government.

but you are availing yourself of the availablility and consistency in products and services that is protected by the federal government's regulation of interstate commerce.

jeffbr · February 2007

farfromglorified wrote:

Yes. The IRS requires me, as an employer, to withhold a % of my employees' income from their paychecks. In the spring, those employees then compute the actual amount of tax they owed for the previous year and then either a) pay an additional amount to cover a deficiency or b) receive a check back from the IRS for any overage.

The catch is the IRS gets you either way you decide. If you make a lot of money, and don't declare enough witholding, they'll require you to file quarterly estimated taxes. So you get to pay them 4 times a year based on what you think your income should be at the end of the year. If you declare too much withholding, the IRS keeps more of your paycheck. People who don't understand compounding interest and opportunity costs (or have no self-control in terms of saving) rejoice when they see how big their refund check will be. People who understand what has been done realize that the IRS just got free use of their money for the better part of the year.

baraka · February 2007

jeffbr wrote:

Sure.

#1 - their salaries are paid with tax dollars. This money should be used as efficiently as possible. Paying people equal to or great than the prevailing wage for a comparable private sector position is wasteful.

#2 - their jobs require less risk, and as soulsinging sees their roles, less innovation or self-motivation. They are given specific job functions, and they do the work. The jobs are relatively "safe" compared to private sector jobs. The risk : reward ratio is way out of whack.

Why should a physician working for the federal gov't make less than those in the private sector. That physician is taking care of our veterans. How is that wasteful?

How do their jobs require less risk? You need to shadow me in one of our level 3 laboratories.

farfromglorified · February 2007

soulsinging wrote:

but you are availing yourself of the availablility and consistency in products and services that is protected by the federal government's regulation of interstate commerce.

Hehe...the government's regulation of such things often increases prices, harms competition, and generally disserves consumers. But that's really beside the issue.

The proposed national sales tax system offers little improvement over the current crimes of taxation. It is still forced. It still happens regardless of the actual governmental contribution to commerce, good or bad. It still allows people to benefit more than they provide, or vise versa.

The only plusses I see there is that it's slightly more visible it would reduce my tax burden to zero since I'd simply buy nearly everything overseas.

angelica · February 2007

jeffbr wrote:

Sure.

#1 - their salaries are paid with tax dollars. This money should be used as efficiently as possible. Paying people equal to or great than the prevailing wage for a comparable private sector position is wasteful.

#2 - their jobs require less risk, and as soulsinging sees their roles, less innovation or self-motivation. They are given specific job functions, and they do the work. The jobs are relatively "safe" compared to private sector jobs. The risk : reward ratio is way out of whack.

I guess I'm a little surprised that isn't a 'given' there, like it is where I am. Government employees here notoriously have better security, great benefits and a better than average wage.

As for how soulsinging sees their roles, are you referring to the fact that he thinks that it is correct that such employees don't dictate policy to the government?

baraka · February 2007

btw, ffg, I wanted to thank you for your contribution. I believe I might of received your money in the form of a big fat bonus! he he

angelica · February 2007

baraka wrote:

btw, ffg, I wanted to thank you for your contribution. I believe I might of received your money in the form of a big fat bonus! he he

hehe

my letter to the irs

Comments

Categories