Results 1 to 17 of 17

Thread: Reason #9,264 to abolish the IRS

  1. #1
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    New York, NY
    Posts
    13,543
    Post Thanks / Like

    Reason #9,264 to abolish the IRS

    Yay big efficient government!

    [url]http://finance.yahoo.com/news/IRS-paid-513M-in-undeserved-apf-4212763607.html?x=0[/url]

    [B][SIZE="4"]IRS paid $513M in undeserved homebuyer tax credits[/SIZE]
    Investigator: IRS paid $513M in homebuyer tax credits to people who probably don't qualify [/B]

    Stephen Ohlemacher, The Associated Press, On Friday April 15, 2011, 11:10 am
    WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Internal Revenue Service has paid out more than a half-billion dollars in homebuyer tax credits to people who probably didn't qualify, a government investigator said Friday.

    Most of the money -- about $326 million -- went to more than 47,000 taxpayers who didn't qualify as first-time homebuyers, said the report by J. Russell George, the Treasury inspector general for tax administration. Other credits went to prison inmates, taxpayers younger than 18 and people who did not actually buy homes.

    "The IRS has taken positive steps to strengthen controls and help prevent the issuance of inappropriate homebuyer credits," George said. "However, many of the actions occurred after hundreds of thousands of homebuyer credits had already been issued, including fraudulent and erroneous credits totaling millions of dollars."

    The popular credit provided up to $8,000 to first-time homebuyers and up to $6,500 to qualified current owners who bought another home during parts of 2009 and 2010.

    The IRS said it worked hard to enforce a complicated tax credit that provided more than $27 billion to almost 3.9 million taxpayers. The agency said it corrected math errors on more than 370,000 returns and audited more than 400,000 taxpayers claiming the credit, denying hundreds of thousands of questionable claims. In all, the agency said its enforcement efforts saved more than $1.3 billion and identified more than 200 criminal schemes.

    The agency questioned some of the inspector general's findings, but said it would follow up on the report and continue working to recoup any credits that were incorrectly paid out.

    The tax credit for first-time homebuyers was part of President Barack Obama's economic recovery package enacted in 2009. In November 2009, Congress extended the credit and expanded it to longtime owners who bought new homes.

    Homebuyers qualifying for the credit had until April 30, 2010, to sign purchase agreements. They had until Sept. 30 to complete their purchases, after Congress extended the deadline. The extensions and expansion of the credit created a complicated system that made it hard for many taxpayers to determine which credit they qualified for, if any. There were also income requirements.

  2. #2
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    New York, NY
    Posts
    13,543
    Post Thanks / Like
    Doesn't even include the cost of the investigation.

    Want to cut the budget? Get rid of these clowns. The IRS is nothing but a sponge. Want to simplify tax code?

    FairTax. Now.

  3. #3
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    greenwich village, NYC
    Posts
    8,120
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=JetPotato;4001681]Doesn't even include the cost of the investigation.

    Want to cut the budget? Get rid of these clowns. The IRS is nothing but a sponge. Want to simplify tax code?

    FairTax. Now.[/QUOTE]

    Doesn't the Fair Tax actually increase taxes on the wealthy who live off equities at 15% capital gains rates now but would be increased to 23% under the Fair Tax? Isn't this immoral? ;)

  4. #4
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    New York, NY
    Posts
    13,543
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=long island leprechaun;4002275]Doesn't the Fair Tax actually increase taxes on the wealthy who live off equities at 15% capital gains rates now but would be increased to 23% under the Fair Tax? Isn't this immoral? ;)[/QUOTE]

    Absolutely not. Consumption taxes are 100% voluntary. No one is forcing the rich to buy their big houses and yachts. But this won't stop them. Especially since we know that the total cost of American goods with tax included will remain about the same due to lower production costs. This has been exhibited time and time again, almost as frequently as it is ignored.

  5. #5
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    New York, NY
    Posts
    13,543
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=long island leprechaun;4002275]Doesn't the Fair Tax actually increase taxes on the wealthy who live off equities at 15% capital gains rates now but would be increased to 23% under the Fair Tax? Isn't this immoral? ;)[/QUOTE]

    You're actually pointing out here why liberals should actually give this a closer look. It fits right in with their "make the rich pay their fair share" mantra. This tax is unavoidable for them. There's no dancing around it. People with more money spend more money. Meanwhile, the liberty-preserving types get what they want in that the money is paid by the consumer voluntarily. Voluntary = makes the right happy, inevitably = makes the left happy. Meanwhile, the left's buddies, the poor, continue to pay nothing up to the poverty level. In fact, their food, clothing, housing and health care costs have now gone down.

    But they won't look at it seriously. Because it'll put a huge chunk of the people that prop them up politically right out of work immediately. Overnight. And no one wants that. Except for the people.

  6. #6
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    greenwich village, NYC
    Posts
    8,120
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=JetPotato;4002396]You're actually pointing out here why liberals should actually give this a closer look. It fits right in with their "make the rich pay their fair share" mantra. This tax is unavoidable for them. There's no dancing around it. People with more money spend more money. Meanwhile, the liberty-preserving types get what they want in that the money is paid by the consumer voluntarily. Voluntary = makes the right happy, inevitably = makes the left happy. Meanwhile, the left's buddies, the poor, continue to pay nothing up to the poverty level. In fact, their food, clothing, housing and health care costs have now gone down.

    But they won't look at it seriously. Because it'll put a huge chunk of the people that prop them up politically right out of work immediately. Overnight. And no one wants that. Except for the people.[/QUOTE]

    One of the big problems expressed by even economists who favor the idea of a consumption tax is the pain of the transition phase, particularly for the elderly on fixed incomes. Transitioning would involve actually making the tax structure more complex for a period of time with consumption taxes piggy-backed on conventional income tax, with deductions and vouchers etc. I'm not sold on the consumption tax at this point, but it has some merits.

  7. #7
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    37,611
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=JetPotato;4002396]You're actually pointing out here why liberals should actually give this a closer look. It fits right in with their "make the rich pay their fair share" mantra. This tax is unavoidable for them. There's no dancing around it. People with more money spend more money. Meanwhile, the liberty-preserving types get what they want in that the money is paid by the consumer voluntarily. Voluntary = makes the right happy, inevitably = makes the left happy. Meanwhile, the left's buddies, the poor, continue to pay nothing up to the poverty level. In fact, their food, clothing, housing and health care costs have now gone down.

    But they won't look at it seriously. Because it'll put a huge chunk of the people that prop them up politically right out of work immediately. Overnight. And no one wants that. Except for the people.[/QUOTE]

    :yes: +1

  8. #8
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    New York, NY
    Posts
    13,543
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=long island leprechaun;4002499]One of the big problems expressed by even economists who favor the idea of a consumption tax is the pain of the transition phase, particularly for the elderly on fixed incomes. Transitioning would involve actually making the tax structure more complex for a period of time with consumption taxes piggy-backed on conventional income tax, with deductions and vouchers etc. I'm not sold on the consumption tax at this point, but it has some merits.[/QUOTE]

    What economists? The ones that don't bother to spend the time to study the tax's actual effects? Transition is minimal (almost non-existent). States already collect sales tax at the register, so the infrastructure is already in place. And if the FairTax is passed, along with it comes a repeal of the 16th Amendment. If those economists had bothered to read the bill, they would understand that.

    But they didn't. They react swiftly, before they take the time or the effort to understand it. Because it's radical, it's different, and it would change politics as we know it (better for us, worse for the established politico).

    Tax code couldn't be any more complicated than it is today. This would make it so that it couldn't be any easier.

    I encourage you all to read up on it and understand it. It's picking up steam.

  9. #9
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    4,215
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=JetPotato;4002521]What economists? The ones that don't bother to spend the time to study the tax's actual effects? Transition is minimal (almost non-existent). States already collect sales tax at the register, so the infrastructure is already in place. And if the FairTax is passed, along with it comes a repeal of the 16th Amendment. If those economists had bothered to read the bill, they would understand that.

    But they didn't. They react swiftly, before they take the time or the effort to understand it. Because it's radical, it's different, and it would change politics as we know it (better for us, worse for the established politico).

    Tax code couldn't be any more complicated than it is today. This would make it so that it couldn't be any easier.

    I encourage you all to read up on it and understand it. [B]It's picking up steam[/B].[/QUOTE]

    From your mouth to God's ears, but I just don't see how. As stated earlier, a fair tax would make rich people pay more (which they'd do) but "poor" people pay SOMETHING, and that's flat-out not an option . . .

  10. #10
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    New York, NY
    Posts
    13,543
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=OCCH;4002559]From your mouth to God's ears, but I just don't see how. As stated earlier, a fair tax would make rich people pay more (which they'd do) but "poor" people pay SOMETHING, and that's flat-out not an option . . .[/QUOTE]

    Poor people pay nothing in the FlatTax. Nothing. Unless they decide to allocate whatever money they do have to buy a flat screen TV and an iPod, they pay NOTHING to the government. Ever. They get to buy the necessary food, clothing, and health care cheaper than what they would now, without paying any tax on any of it.

    And I'd be fine with that. So would they.

  11. #11
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    New Jersey
    Posts
    6,172
    Post Thanks / Like
    Only problems I see with the Fair Tax system on the surface is that they are talking about a 30% tax rate which is high and since the poor would get a rebate on everything under the poverty level this could hurt thier bottom line by 30% in the short term which could be devestating to people living check to check.

    Is the tax levied on all goods? Food, clothers, etc? If not then it could be ok for the poor.

    The fact that investments wouldn't be taxed would help entreprenuers and the stock market which is good but at least in the short term people would probably slow spending and increase investing and paying down debt which is good for the consumers but not the economy at large.

    It is an interesting concept and as a fiscal conservative I think it has a lot of merrit and probably has the best chance of being fair to everyone with few loopholes other than barter.

  12. #12
    All League
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    3,597
    Post Thanks / Like
    There's no consumption tax in the United States?

  13. #13
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    New York, NY
    Posts
    13,543
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Black Death;4002680]There's no consumption tax in the United States?[/QUOTE]

    No federal one until Obama installed the tanning tax last year

  14. #14
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    New York, NY
    Posts
    13,543
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Trades;4002664]Only problems I see with the Fair Tax system on the surface is that they are talking about a 30% tax rate which is high and since the poor would get a rebate on everything under the poverty level this could hurt thier bottom line by 30% in the short term which could be devestating to people living check to check.

    Is the tax levied on all goods? Food, clothers, etc? If not then it could be ok for the poor.

    The fact that investments wouldn't be taxed would help entreprenuers and the stock market which is good but at least in the short term people would probably slow spending and increase investing and paying down debt which is good for the consumers but not the economy at large.

    It is an interesting concept and as a fiscal conservative I think it has a lot of merrit and probably has the best chance of being fair to everyone with few loopholes other than barter.[/QUOTE]

    Rebates start immediately. Doesn't hurt anyone's bottom line if you're not paying the 30% at all. Short term, prices will remain the same as they are now, but long term, as lower production costs are realized, prices actually go down.

    Another benefit: it essentially solves our illegal immigration problem. If you come here illegally, you are paying into the system just like everyone else. You have no choice. In fact, you're paying more, because you aren't getting the rebates. If you want the rebates, you do what it takes to become a legal citizen.

  15. #15
    All League
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    3,597
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=JetPotato;4002687]No federal one until Obama installed the tanning tax last year[/QUOTE]

    I *think* that is a joke - no consumption tax is bizarre - for some reason I always thought you had one. We brought in one here around a decade and a half a go and its been one of the best policies in the last 50 years of federal government in this country.

  16. #16
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    New York, NY
    Posts
    13,543
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Black Death;4002691]I *think* that is a joke - no consumption tax is bizarre - for some reason I always thought you had one. We brought in one here around a decade and a half a go and its been one of the best policies in the last 50 years of federal government in this country.[/QUOTE]

    A full federal consumption tax won't make any sense until income and payroll taxes are repealed here.

    Where do you live?

  17. #17
    All League
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    3,597
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=JetPotato;4002709]A full federal consumption tax won't make any sense until income and payroll taxes are repealed here.

    Where do you live?[/QUOTE]

    Australia. It's called the goods and services tax (GST) out here. One of the benefits of its introduction was the wiping out/lowering of other taxes - initially it had a lot paperwork associated with its introduction, especially for businesses - but that issue has settled down now.

    The introduction of a new tax is never politically popular, but the GST was GREAT policy - has so many benefits I couldn't list them all. :yes:

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Follow Us