Slashdot Mirror

Today, the Secret Service is authorized by law to protect:

* the President, the Vice President, (or other individuals next in order of succession to the Office of the President), the President-elect and Vice President-elect;
* the immediate families of the above individuals;
* former Presidents, their spouses for their lifetimes, except when the spouse re-marries. In 1997, Congressional legislation became effective limiting Secret Service protection to former Presidents for a period of not more than 10 years from the date the former President leaves office.
* children of former presidents until age 16;
* visiting heads of foreign states or governments and their spouses traveling with them, other distinguished foreign visitors to the United States, and official representatives of the United States performing special missions abroad;
* major Presidential and Vice Presidential candidates, and their spouses within 120 days of a general Presidential election

This.

If you do a little research on the web, you can find this page, which explains that such work is the
responsibility of the U.S. Customs and Border Protection, a part of the Department of Homeland Security. They received a trademark infringement complaint, and they followed up on the complaint. That's their job. Why are you getting your knickers in a bunch because some federal agents are doing their job? Nowhere does the inflammatory and poorly written article suggest that they accused the store owner of being a terrorist. Get a grip.

Thank you for pointing this out. There is no conspiracy here, US Customs is primarily tasked with inspecting cargo coming across the border.

The US Customs webpage says clearly Dept. of Homeland Security, so it's not as if anybody is trying to keep this a secret.

Is it not part of the Department of the Treasury? ah, yes it is.

The Department of Engraving and Printing deals with paper currency and the US Mint deals with coinage.

Maybe better proof is found in this PDF explaining the organization of the US Treasury (US Mint is clearly at the bottom-middle)

Is it possible you were referring the the Federal Reserve?

Is it not part of the Department of the Treasury? ah, yes it is.

The Department of Engraving and Printing deals with paper currency and the US Mint deals with coinage.

Maybe better proof is found in this PDF explaining the organization of the US Treasury (US Mint is clearly at the bottom-middle)

Is it possible you were referring the the Federal Reserve?

Congratulations!

Frank Horrigan and Lilly Raines and their friends will be around to ask you a few questions shortly, please stand by....

Better save blair1q's post for posterity now before these guys force Slashdot to delete it like the 'assassin' post I can't find and link to at the moment....

I'll second that. Japan is the de facto banker of the United States continous debts run up since Ronald Reagan (diminished somewhat under Clinton, but expanded heavily under Bush I and II), and the rest of southeast asia is it's closest followers. Just look at these numbers: Foreign Holders of US Treasury Securities

Consider the consequences if a war broke out in the china, japan or korea regions.

A full global economy collapse.

I was under the impression that doing so at least in the US was illegal, until I actually (gasp!) googled it to make sure I was.

First link was to the US Treasury Department's FAQ on just that subject: Legal Tender Status.

I always thought it was illegal to refuse currency, but that nobody enforced it. Learn something every day. Honestly- it should be illegal for businesses to refuse currency; I don't care about the inconvenience of them having to change a $50 or $100 bill; if it's all I've got and I need gas, food, or lodging, well, they should have to accept it. It's very easy for it to be an issue of safety, and absurd to have money in your pocket in the industrialized world and not be able to use it. Nevermind that it should not be compulsory to use plastic.

I'm assuming you are implying the US? Facts suck, but here they are:


The top 1% pays 33.89% of all income taxes
The top 5% pays 53.25%
The top 10% pays 64.89%
The top 25% pays 82.9%
The top 50% pays 96.03%
The bottom 50% pays a mere 3.97% of income taxes.

Income Distribution
The top 1% earns 17.53 of all income.
The top 5% earns 31.99.
The top 10% earns 43.11%
The top 25% earns 65.23%,
Top 50% earns 86.19% of all income.

Source: IRS
1986 - 2001.

The bottom 10% of US population uses roughly 80% of the government services. So, in the US, the tax money goes to the poorest as well.

Basically, the government is forcing you to accept the US Dollar at gunpoint. If you do not, they can arrest you. (seriously, they can!)

I'm at least as anti-fiat money as yourself (being an anarcho-capitalist, I do not believe the government should engage in any decrees of value for any item; means of exchange can be developed by the free market), but you are actually wrong on this point. Nobody is required to accept the US Dollar. Unlike taxes, you will not be shot for refusing to particpate. :)

This is actually a common misunderstanding arising from the phrase legal tender. Check out that link and you'll find the following:

There is, however, no Federal statute mandating that a private business, a person or an organization must accept currency or coins as for payment for goods and/or services. Private businesses are free to develop their own policies on whether or not to accept cash unless there is a State law which says otherwise.

-1 Wrong

So fiat money is paper currency that has no intrinsic value because it is simply representative of something of value.

"Fiat money or fiat currency (usually paper money) is a type of currency whose only value is that a government made a fiat (i.e. decreed) that the money is a legal method of exchange." Fiat Money

The word fiat, IIRC, comes from the Italian word for "in faith."

"Medieval Latin, from Latin, let it be done"American Heritage® Dictionary

You're taking it on faith that the $20 bill you slap into a stripper's t-back, for example, is actually worth $20, even though you will never see the gold that backs up that $20 bill.

"Federal Reserve notes are not redeemable in gold, silver or any other commodity, and receive no backing by anything." US Treasury Currancy FAQ

Ok, IANAE (I am not an economist),
Imagine that. A person without economic background trying to tell policy makers what to do.

but from what I understand the "trickle down effect" just doesn't work the way people want it to.
There isn't any thing related to "trickle down" going. Behind the rhetoric is something called Supply-Side economics". It's a serious topic that academics and policy wonks debate.

Giving them even more isn't going to
It's not "giving" them more. It's adjusting everyone's rate equally. For example, if the top rate was 25%, another rate 16%, and the bottom rate 12%, a 50% tax cut would mean that rates were 12.5%, 8%, and 6%. A person making 20,000 year taxed at the bottom rate would go from paying 2400 to 1200, a savings of $1200. A person making 150,000 would go from paying $37,500 to $18,750. That means in political rhetoric terms "The rich were given 94% of the tax cut with the poor only getting 6%" is completely accurate.

big an impact as doing the same to a poorer person.
See, now, that is just silly. If you are trying to get capital back into the marketplace, would you rather send back $1200, or $18,750?

Secondly, the rich still only make up a small percentage of the world's
Yes, but what you don't realize is that the rich pay the VAST majority of income taxes. The top 50% of income earners pay 96% of all income taxes paid. (link).

And lastly, the money spent by a rich person doesn't really trickle down to the needy
Can you trace the history of a rich person from point a to the pocket of poor person b? Of course not. It's a complex system that takes *years* to fall into place. Again, it is way more complicated than I think you can grasp in this situation. Additionally though, it was claimed that the "rich" were going trickle down to the poor.

When they buy up-market products, the money will very quickly "leave" the local area since it's likely to be imported (no matter where they live).
Wrong. The total value of goods and services consumed in the US is 10.40 trillion for last year (link). The trade deficit totals about $200B (link) a year. That means we import more than export. Even if you figure the rich will tend to import more than your average person, it is not reasonable to assume that most of their spending will go overseas.

The money goes to some company, and executive pay is almost universally improportionate to the worker's pay.
This is a major issue: productivity and profitiability are way up, but so far wages are flat. This however has nothing to do with "trickle down". What does happen however is that employment increases. Which is what we have seen. So far this year it is estimated that 1.4 million jobs have been created (link). That is significant.

tax cut for the poor would have made a much better and longer lasting impact to many more people
Here is the little dirty secret that people who don't know what is going on don't realize. The poor in this country pay very, very, very little income tax. If you are literally poor, as in impoverished, you not only don't pay any income tax, you get a refund for taxes you never paid. Yes, that's right. It's an "Earned income tax credit". A tax refund for taxes you never paid (link).

People could pay off debts, get a better education, spend more time with the kids, start a small business, etc.

It's actually over 96%!

"Employers are required to pay social security taxes quarterly."

Wrong you are..

1st... Your link claims..quarterly reporting on 941 forms.. .
"Employers must report income and employment taxes withheld from their employees on an Employer's Quarterly Federal Tax Return (Form 941)"

2nd.. Employers must make deposits on either a monthly and a twice a week schedule. see pages17 thru 22..

Deposit penalties.. calender days and personal liability is attached to all payments.
2% .. 1 to 5 days late.
5%... 6 to 15 days late.
10%.. 16 or more days late.
15%.. 10 days after 1st IRS notice.
(and it goes up from there)..

3rd.. The SS receipts comparison was for the first six months(that is two quarters in laymens terms) for each Federal fiscal year.

"I'm not an expert on tax law, and tax documentation makes my eyes water, so I may be misunderstanding. "

Agreed, you are obviously not an expert, and you do not understand tax law/payment requirements.

Collected SS receipts.. (You know that little old flat tax on Salaries and wages, no deductibles or exemptions allowed) Has not been keeping up with inflation.. (And that's assuming zero job growth in the intervening year !!!)

Employers are required to pay social security taxes quarterly. Additionaly, if I'm understanding some of the other references on SS tax payments, employers are only required to make estimated payments quarterly, with any excess paid at the end of the tax year.

I'm not an expert on tax law, and tax documentation makes my eyes water, so I may be misunderstanding. But it appears that it would take at least 3 months for the SS payments for new hires to show up as SS receipts. If anyone has more accurate information on how companies actually pay SS and other payroll taxes, I'd be interested to hear how it actually works.

"In God we trust" was first put on coins in 1864.

Even if there are 50-55% taxes taken out, FOX is still paying that money. The voice actors are then paying it to the government. Also, I believe the tax rate works out to somewhere around 33%. It's a little wacky because you pay 10% on the first 10k or so, then ~15% up to 30k or so, etc. The top tax rate was 35% for 2004. That was for income above $319,000 a year. Note that under President Clinton, this tax rate was 38.5%, over $288k. For the purposes of this post, I used the Single brackets. When it comes to medicaid, SS, etc., over ~$88k or so of income, and your SS/MC taxes are capped. That cap is around $5,500 for SS. I couldn't quickly find a good source for the Medicare, but it slightly higher than social security.Source 1 Source 2 Source 3.

Abortion: It's been debated for 30+ years as to whether or not it's a "baby" or a "fetus". Really, that's all it comes down to, right? It's either "killing babies" (right) or "a woman's choice" (left). You can't possibly expect anyone that believes in a soul (and, implicitly, anyone that believes unborn babies have souls)... whether they be Christian, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, etc. to condone what they believe constitutes murder, can you? I suppose if unborn babies could talk, we wouldn't be having this discussion. But since it has been asserted that they can feel pain and have a heartbeat in the first trimester, perhaps it's too late.

In any event, quit knocking Dubya and the Christian Right (regardless of how I feel about the institution) for just that.

Gay marriage: Much more hazy. Interesting that we're having such a big uproar over 5% of the population. If you strip away the religious element, this comes down to, "Is it illegal to have traditions?" Can a country as a whole say whether or not they want marriage defined to be the union between a man and a woman? This isn't exclusion. It's obvious (to me) that with the recognition of gay and lesbian partners, civil unions will have as many legal rights as married couples. If that is so, all we're arguing about is a name. It just so happens to mean more to a large part of the population.

If that rant didn't make sense, consider; Am I infringing on your freedom if I show you "In God We Trust" on a coin? It's tradition; it's been there since 1864. But there seems to be this thing about erasing every sentiment of religion from public view as possible that's spreading that sometimes, it seems justified that people are getting concerned.

Cuba, Iran, Iraq, Libya, North Korea, Sudan and Syria

This is voting software, with which one would run an election in a democracy. Wouldn't we be happy if these countries downloaded and used it?

Perhaps. But US law prohibits (or with certain countries severely restricts) US persons and companies from having any business dealings whatsoever with any person or company in any of those countries. The sancations vary from country to country with an outright ban on dealings with Cuba and lesser restrictions on other countries. This is all administered by the Office for Foreign Asset Control (OFAC).

So the site just has standard terms and conditions to protect itself. I'm sure if a country on this list wanted to turn to democracy then an export licence would be granted on an exceptional basis.

Cuba, Iran, Iraq, Libya, North Korea, Sudan and Syria

This is voting software, with which one would run an election in a democracy. Wouldn't we be happy if these countries downloaded and used it?

Perhaps. But US law prohibits (or with certain countries severely restricts) US persons and companies from having any business dealings whatsoever with any person or company in any of those countries. The sancations vary from country to country with an outright ban on dealings with Cuba and lesser restrictions on other countries. This is all administered by the Office for Foreign Asset Control (OFAC).

So the site just has standard terms and conditions to protect itself. I'm sure if a country on this list wanted to turn to democracy then an export licence would be granted on an exceptional basis.

According to the US Treasury, it's not out of circulation

Nope, they're still in circulation. The latest printing was as recent as 1996.

In fact, there's an address in Washington D.C. to which you could send the remains of destroied bills and they'll do their best to piece things together and redeem the value of the pile... yep, it really exists.

They benefit most from the services that taxes pay for (law, order, financial security (the Fed, SEC), military defense, and more).

Care to explain your reasoning? The largest item in the federal budget is social security ($470 billion). Social security hardly benefits the rich at all. The second largest item in the federal budget is medicare and medicaid ($411 billion). The rich people do not benefit from either of those at all. The third biggest item is the Department of Defense ($388 billion). Bin Laden wants to kill poor americans just as much as he wants to kill rich ones. How about other services? Do the rich use our public highways more than poorer people? Do they need the police more than South Central LA? (Source for budget info).

Also, while they may pay a large chunk of taxes, individually they still pay less taxes in proportion to their earnings than poorer citizens.

This is completely untrue. We have a progressive tax system- the more money you make, the higher your tax rate is. Lets look at the actual numbers:

In 2000, the richest 1% accounted for just over 20% of all taxable income. That 20% of the income paid 37% of all income taxes. If you look at the richest 5%, they account for 35% of taxable income, but they pay 56% of all income taxes.

On the other hand, the poorest 50% of the country accounted for about 13% of the income, but they only paid about 4% of all income taxes. That means that the rich pay a much higher proportion of their earnings to tax than poorer people. Can they afford it more than poor people? Of course- thats why we have a progressive tax system. But exactly how much do we want to punish success in this country?

I don't know the laws but the Secret Service, from what I understand, is supposed to protect politicians (The President, Vice President, and a few others). That's what they are supposed to be doing.

You're right, you don't know the laws. Nor do you understand what the Secret Service is supposed to be doing. Maybe you should do a little reading first about what they are supposed to be doing before spouting paranoid crap.

As far as I know, the Secret Service's two main jobs are personal security, and counterfeiting. Check out their homepage, it's even hosted on the U.S. Treasury's site: Secret Service Home Page.

Since 1984, our investigative responsibilities have expanded to include crimes that involve financial institution fraud, computer and telecommunications fraud, false identification documents, access device fraud, advance fee fraud, electronic funds transfers, and money laundering as it relates to our core violations.
Secret Service Website

Please! It's not the FBI which handles counterfeiting, it's the US Department of Treasury, in conjunction with the US Secret Service.

Please! It's not the FBI which handles counterfeiting, it's the US Department of Treasury, in conjunction with the US Secret Service.

Ever heard of the "Zero Tolerance" laws aimed at drug trafficers back in the 1980's ?

Ever been to a Seized Property Auction ??

Actually, based on these Treasury Department figures, I calculate the foreign held percentage of US Treasury securities at about 21%. Another 41% of the public debt is held by the federal government itself (in the Social Security, Medicare and Highway trust funds). The Treasury Department publishes lots of good data about the public debt on the web.

From the first link you can see that China controls about 8.6% of the foreign debt, trailing the UK (9.8%) and Japan (33%).

Now here's a question. If Federal trusts control 41% of the public debt, who is going to lend us than $2.8 Trillion (more by then) when the Republicans "privatize" Social Security and Medicare? I'll go out on a limb and speculate that US private citizens and pension funds will not fill that void.

So you would rather have us be screwed by tax-the-poor-give-back-to-the-rich Republicans

I know this is hard for you to comprehend, but the poor can't give anything back to the "rich republicans" because they don't pay any taxes in the first place. Here are the actual US Treasury figures. The bottom 50% of tax payers (those making less than $27,600 per year) pay less than 4% of the total tax base. So the converse means that the "rich" 50% (those making more than $27,600 per year) pay 96% of all taxes, and half the country is riding on their coattails.

As to money: http://www.ustreas.gov/education/fact-sheets/curre ncy/in-god-we-trust.html

What's interesting is the time of enaction - during the Civil War, which, like it or not, was a rather major test-case for the 2nd Amendment and related principles. (Figures the major tests come over 'unpopular' or 'unethical' rights, e.g. the whiskey rebellion, the part slavery played in the complex drama that set the civil war in motion, religious extremism - Waco, etc - and so forth.)

Wrong.

Source: United States Department of the Treasury

Question: I thought that United States currency was legal tender for all debts. Some businesses or governmental agencies say that they will only accept checks, money orders or credit cards as payment, and others will only accept currency notes in denominations of $20 or smaller. Isn't this illegal?

Answer: The pertinent portion of law that applies to your question is the Coinage Act of 1965, specifically Section 102. This is now found in section 392 of Title 31 of the United States Code. The law says that: "All coins and currencies of the United States, regardless of when coined or issued, shall be legal-tender for all debts, public and private, public charges, taxes, duties and dues."

This statute means that all United States money as identified above are a valid and legal offer of payment for debts when tendered to a creditor. There is, however, no Federal statute mandating that a private business, a person or an organization must accept currency or coins as for payment for goods and/or services. Private businesses are free to develop their own policies on whether or not to accept cash unless there is a State law which says otherwise. For example, a bus line may prohibit payment of fares in pennies or dollar bills. In addition, movie theaters, convenience stores and gas stations may refuse to accept large denomination currency (usually notes above $20) as a matter of policy.

That is incorrect. See the very first question in the Legal Tender FAQ on the US Treasury web site. Any currency is considered a valid form of payment for settling a debt with a creditor. There is no Federal statute on what a merchant must accept in exchange for goods and services.

The fact that you didn't know this and reported it as fact makes you misinformed. But make no mistake, the people who disseminate this supply-side nonsense are first class liars. They know it's false, but they tell it to the gullible (like you) because it suits their agenda.

First, look at what you wrote. Tax revenues doubled over 10 years (1980 -1990)? Reagan was only president for 8 years. This calculation include a nearly 17% increase in revenue from 1980 to 1981, when Jimmy Carter was president.

Reagan passed his first tax cut in 1982, so why are we talking about 1980? Income tax revenues fell .8% in 1983 and rose 8.5% in 1984. The second tax cut took effect in 1986 and that year income tax revenues rose 5.3 %, compared to 9.2% the year before and 13.3% the year after.

Historically, tax revenues have gone up an average of 11% in the years from 1969 to 1997, so we need to judge the Reagan years versus history The truth is, when Reagan cut taxes, revenues were less than they should have been. There is no refuting this basic and simple fact.

Judging the Reagan tax cut years (1982 - 1989) by history, we find that revenues increased about 7% a year, 4% less than the historical avaerage. So there was no tidal wave of money from these tax cuts. There was less money in the till than there should have been.

Here's the Tax Stats Page, all the stats are in Excel files, so I don't want to link to them directly, but if you want to take a little time, you can run all the numbers yourself.

Inter alia, note the use of the words "ONLY IF",

" President can exercise this authority under section 721 (also known as the "Exon-Florio provision") to block a foreign acquisition of a U.S. corporation only if he finds:
(1) there is credible evidence that the foreign entity exercising control might take action that threatens national security, and
(2) the provisions of law, other than the International Emergency Economic Powers Act do not provide adequate and appropriate authority to protect the national security. "

http://www.ustreas.gov/offices/international-affai rs/exon-florio/

"TREASON" has a very specific definition in the Constitution:

"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court."

Clearly, despite all his faults, and they are legion, the glorious leader has done nothing wrong in this case.

okay, let's look at three numbers (i'll borrow two of them from your post)...

- in 2000, the top 1% paid 37.42% of federal income taxes (source)
- in 2001, the top 1% received 42% of the tax cuts
- in 2003, the top 1% received 29.1% of the tax cuts

so, in 2001 the top 1% did recieve 4.58% more than their share of the tax cut, but the bottom 99% received 8.32% more than their share in 2003. i can't comment on the top 0.13% because i don't know how much they pay. my point is that the tax cuts are roughly proportionate according to your numbers.

the phrase "tax cuts for the rich" it tossed around to create envy and hatred between classes. it is inherently biased when you leave out how much the the rich are actually paying in federal taxes.

That's one of the dumbest things I've ever heard, unless you're using a different definition than the one in my dictionary:

Haven't you heard of the "tax cuts for the rich"? Well, if you make more than 50% of the rest of the population, you must be rich, because you're getting a tax cut.

As far as taxes go, you're thowing lots of numbers around, without context. I suspect that your numbers don't include payroll taxe or sales taxes, both of which are regressive.

Here is the link to the IRS's Excel spreadsheet which should answer all your questions. For a more detailed look, you might want to read this.

Perhaps it's being too picky, but the question remains: What other "Censored" research is screwed up? I mean, the gold standard thing is a small issue, and It's so easy to check on. Due to that however, I question the accuracy (and thus validity) of the rest of the data...

• What percentage of the Founding Fathers were Christian?
• What percentage of the population as a whole was Christian at the time of founding? in 1850? in 1900? today?
• Are there ANY references to God in Constitution of the United States or Bill of Rights? (I'll answer this one for you: no. [1])
• In what years were the words "In God We Trust" added to coins? to paper money? (I'll ansewr this one too: 1865 and 1964 respectively. [2])

/joeyo

1) http://www.archives.gov/exhibit_hall/charters_of_f reedom/constitution/constitution.html
2) http://www.ustreas.gov/education/fact-sheets/curre ncy/in-god-we-trust.html

Personnaly, i'd grab a few and run to buy a lift (if crated) or a real big truck!

The identified legal and administrative problems included:

• The IRS' legal interpretations prevented the pilot from being a true test of private contractors' ability to collect delinquent taxes. For example, private contractors are not able to actually collect taxes owed.
• Systems and operations problems made it difficult to identify, select, and transmit cases to collection agencies.
• The pilot measurement plan did not include a comparison of the best practices of private collectors with the IRS' own collection techniques.

In other words: the IRS crippled the the pilot program from the start.

The IRS' low return on investment was addressed in a December 1997 IRS Inspection Service (now Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration) report. We reported that the majority of cases delivered to the collection agencies were small dollar delinquencies that the IRS can collect at a minimal cost. For example:

• The contracts called for only 6 percent of the cases sent to the collection agencies to be small dollar delinquencies compared to the 53 percent that were actually provided.
• Over 5,000 cases provided to the collection agencies would result in the contractor being paid more than the taxes that would have been collected.

So the IRS was only supposed to provide private collectors a very small percentage of small dollar delinquencies (6%). Instead, they saddled them with 53% small dollar delinquencies. It would be interesting to see how things went if private collectors were given the cases they were supposed to get.

At the recommendation of the Congress when the pilot was canceled, the IRS and GAO met in February 1998. The IRS' Chief Operations Officer informed the GAO that because of the IRS' reorganization, contracting out tax debt collection activities was not an appropriate use of IRS resources since the reorganization was planned to take several years, and then the impact of the reorganization would have to be assessed. The IRS concluded that the contracting out to collection agencies would not happen in the short term and perhaps not in the long term.

Now that the IRS has reorganized into four business units that are focused on different segments of the taxpayer population, we believe the IRS should reconsider the use of collection agencies to help it reduce the growing tax debt receivables.

It seems their argument is that the IRS is more organized than it was seven years ago, and consequently can conduct a more realistic test of using private collectors.

Key Laws and Provisions Dictating Actions Collection Agencies Must Adhere to When Acting as Instruments of the Internal Revenue Service:

• Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. 1601 note, & 1692-1692o (1994 & Supp. IV 1998): Sets standards that collection agencies must follow. These standards include the manner in which the collection agency communicates with the taxpayer (e.g., calls must be made within certain hours) and that collection agencies may not engage in any conduct which is to harass, oppress, or abuse any person in the collection of a tax debt.
• Taxpayer Bill of Rights 2 (TBOR2), Pub. L. No. 104-168, 110 Stat. 1452 (1996) (codified as amended in scattered sections of 26 U.S.C.): Requires the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) to ensure that taxpayers are informed of their rights during the collection process. These laws detail specific information to be included in tax delinquency notices and establish new guidance regarding installment agreements.
• Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. 552a (1994 & Supp. IV 1998): Contains safeguards preventing the disclosure of information in government files if such disclosure would violate the privacy of individual citizens.
• Internal Revenue Code, 26 U.S.C. 6103(n) (1994 & Supp. IV 1998):

Straw man. You're talking about two totally different things.

Nope. Law enforcement is law enforcement and law enforcement should be done by the government. Unless, of course, you think there are degrees of importance in the law and some laws are so minor in importance that they should be handed over to private entities for enforcement. Is that what you're saying?

Can you provide any official statistics to back this claim up?

Yep and yep.

Yes, I realize the first cite is a biased bit of testimony by a Union wonk. However, obtain and read the cited references contained therein before you pass judgement.

The second link is even more interesting. Authored by a function that can only justify its existence by finding things wrong with the IRS, it goes to great lengths to say, in effect, "Well, contracting for private agencies to do tax collections was a giant cluster-fuck when it was tried before, but things have changed and you ought to try it again." For those of us on the inside, reports like this one are an endless source of amusement. But the central facts remain: private contractors have been tried, they performed poorly, and a comparison to the standards of performance upheld by IRS employees shows that Revenue Officers are multiple times more efficient at collecting taxes than private entities. And even if some pols want to try it again, I doubt anything will change those facts.

As an aside, if you actually read the report, you can work out the efficiency/effectiveness ratios for yourself. The 30x figure comes from an admittedly liberal interpretation of the internal report cited on page 5. I can't locate it on the web, but even accepting the TIGTA-biased summary of that report contained in my cite, the IRS is at least 5 times as efficient as the private sector. I suggest you ask your local IRS office for a copy of the full internal report, IRS Private Sector Debt Collection Pilot Program dated October 1997, if you want the full numbers.

If it's so obvious that IRS Revenue Officers are much more efficient, why is the government looking to private collectors? There's something missing in your argument.

Well, first there's the basic (totally flawed) bias held by a number of folks that hiring government employees is never the answer to anything. Government should be smaller, not larger, no matter the circumstances. That's just wrong-headed, but it's also an essentially religious belief (i.e. a belief based on faith, not facts) and I won't attempt to rectify your thinking there.

However, a bit of tedious explanation of how government budgeting works is, apparently, in order. I now realize that you are not familiar enough with the process to understand what's going on. My apologies; I should have realized sooner. This stuff can be a bit arcane.

So what am I talking about? Here tis: Hiring more Revenue Officers (and Revenue Agents and Tax Compliance Specialists, etc.) requires the government to spend money. Someone has to put a dollar entry on a budget and get Congress to approve it. That's hard.

Letting a contract for a private entity to collect taxes is, by contrast, nearly without cost. A few people have to be paid to read through the bids, make a decision, and oversee the process, but the cost is nominal. Nothing ever comes out of pocket because the contractors are only paid a percentage of what they collect.

Are you getting the idea? Even though contractors are FAR less efficient than Revenue Officers, they don't cost any out-of-pocket money. It's WAY easier for politicians to support programs that don't cost any money than it is to support programs that cost money, even if the programs that cost money might be far, far more profitable 5 years down the road. Hell, that's a couple of elections away! Who cares about that?! Basically, we're dealing with the same sort of short-term thinking and "next-quarter" mentality that so thoroughly sucks in the private sector.

The problem with the government doing online currency, at least in the US, is that by law any currency that comes from the Treasury Department MUST be accepted as legal tender in ALL transactions.

Sorry, wrong. Here's the US Treasury FAQ page for this question.

Here's the main point:

There is, however, no Federal statute mandating that a private business, a person or an organization must accept currency or coins as for payment for goods and/or services. Private businesses are free to develop their own policies on whether or not to accept cash...

- Millions of 'ordinary' famalies (including my own) lost homes and small businesses such thanks to 'trickle down' economics

Wrong. Here is the real Reagan economic record. During the Reagan years, 88.5% of the households in the poorest quantile were in a higher income quantile when Reagan left office. Blacks and Minorities saw the biggest gain in real income (11%) during the Reagan years. In fact, all income groups saw an income increase during the Reagan years of Trickle down/supply side economics. So much for the liberal "zero sum" theory.

- Star Wars (a massive waste)

Star Wars drove the soviets into the ground and was a major contribution to the end of the cold war.

- Iran hostage crisis

How can you blame Reagan for something that happened before he even took office?

- The (lost and wasteful) war on drugs

We are spending 40 times as much money on the War on Drugs today that we were when Reagan was in office, thanks to Bill Clinton.

- The biggest deficit in U.S. history

Actually, the national debt as a percentage to GDP was much higher under Clinton than it was under Reagan.

Why else would one of the biggest tax breaks ever go to the top 1% and not the middle class and poor

Maybe because the middle class and poor don't pay any taxes in the first place. 96.1% of the federal tax base is paid by the richest 50% of the country. [Source]. Guess what that means? The poorest half of this country do not pay any taxes. In fact, the richest 1% pay 37% of the taxes even though they only make 20.8% of the money. The richest 5% pay 57% of all taxes even though their income only accounts for 35% in the country. Over half of all our taxes are paid by only 5% of the country. If you give a tax cut, why wouldn't you give it to the segment of the population that is burdened the most by the tax structure?

Nah. Grover Norquist is pushing for Reagan to replace Alexander Hamilton. I suppose it's appropriate, given that prudent fiscal management is passé.

http://www.ustreas.gov/education/faq/currency/lega l-tender.html#q1

Yes- those numbers are based on adjusted gross income. But take a look at the second spreadsheet that I linked to- even after all of these evil tax shelters and income hiding that people accuse them of, the rich are still paying a majority of income taxes. Here are how those numbers break down:

- The richest 1% account for 20% of all taxable income, and they pay 37% of all income tax
- The richest 5% account for 35% of all taxable income, and they pay 56% of all income tax
- The richest 10% account for 46% of all taxable income, and they pay 67% of all income tax
- The richest 25% account for 67% of all taxable income, and they pay 84% of all income tax
- The richest 50% account for 87% of all taxable income, and they pay 96% of all income tax

That means he poorest 50% account for 13% of all taxable income, but they only pay 4% of income tax.