Slashdot Mirror


No EZ Fix For The IRS

meltoast writes "Apparently the IRS is storing all of the taxpaying histories of 227 million individuals and corporations in a system that still runs code written in 1962. CIO Magazine is running a story on the IRS's nearly failed $8 billion modernization attempt that includes missed deadlines, cost overruns of over $200 million and four CIO's in seven years."

574 comments

  1. A new strategy...... by BWJones · · Score: 4, Interesting

    CIO Magazine is running a story on the IRS's nearly failed $8 billion modernization attempt that includes missed deadlines, cost overruns of over $200 million and four CIO's in seven years."

    Ummmm......If this project was my responsibility, as CTO I believe I would have canned the whole project and started anew as from the sounds of it, there is too much baggage with which to continue. So, here we go: Don't deal with contractors and subcontractors or if you do, make sure that the IRS is actively involved with management and funding of the project so that nobody gets paid unless key points in the strategy are reached.

    A simple strategy might be to run and fund the project entirely within the IRS structure and take the following strategy:

    While the linked article is short on what exactly is going wrong with the transfer, I was talking with a guy working on the project in an airport last year. According to him, one of the big problems the IRS is facing is that everybody is talking about incompatible data formats and getting data to migrate from one database to another while maintaining taxpayer information. This may be a little glib, but perhaps we could take a more direct approach to updating the data file structures like deciding upon a data format a priori and simply, through brute force, repopulating the new database with the old data? We could create a few thousand temporary (2-3 year) jobs for those folks on welfare or currently out of work and using redundant strategies for error correction, manually enter the data into the new formats.

    Done.

    --
    Visit Jonesblog and say hello.
    1. Re:A new strategy...... by trippinonbsd · · Score: 0, Troll

      We could create a few thousand temporary (2-3 year) jobs for those folks on welfare or currently out of work and using redundant strategies for error correction, manually enter the data into the new formats.

      Yes lets take unemployed people and put them to work manually getting to know the interworkings of the IRS and its databases. They sure wouldn't be tempted to abuse their position would they?

    2. Re:A new strategy...... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

      ACK!! Yoour strategy is much too simple and error-proof. There is no *way* our government would approve something with such a high probablity of success ;)

    3. Re:A new strategy...... by BWJones · · Score: 4, Informative

      Yes lets take unemployed people and put them to work manually getting to know the interworkings of the IRS and its databases. They sure wouldn't be tempted to abuse their position would they?

      You might be shocked to find out how many low wage earners have access to medical (HMO's and insurance companies), credit (mortage and credit lending agencies) and yes, tax information (federal and private contractors) on you already. There are systems in place to protect privacy at many companies and organizations that deal with this sort of data, but there are always folks that will abuse the system. The solution is to make punishments for identity theft crimes very severe.

      --
      Visit Jonesblog and say hello.
    4. Re:A new strategy...... by IrRegEx · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It might be an old system, and it may take a year or two but if you try and cheat them they'll always find you. That system must be doing something right.

      --
      #|
    5. Re:A new strategy...... by _Sharp'r_ · · Score: 0, Troll


      The problem with canning the program is that it's been done already, several times.

      This is about the 15th time the IRS has tried to "modernize" their computer systems and failed in the attempt, wasting Billions each time.

      Every couple of years they change the old project's goals and pitch a new one to Congress asking for more money.

      The only easy solution is to abolish the income tax and with it the IRS. All the rest of the possible solution sets include trying to get unmotivated IRS bureaucrats to actually do their job without falling afoul of civil service union regulations, a task that may not be possible.

      --
      The party of stupid and the party of evil get together and do something both stupid and evil, then call it bipartisan.
    6. Re:A new strategy...... by 4of12 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      CTO I believe I would have canned the whole project and started anew as from the sounds of it

      That's the right thing to do, of course.

      Practically, though, doing this kind of thing is difficult in government.

      Your first presentation is with the people that give you funding. You tell them you want to start from scratch.

      They ask you "Are you telling me that the $8billion we've given you has been wasted? Do you have any idea how bad this will make us look in the press? If you ask for this kind of change in course, there's no guarantee we could get the funding at all!"

      Meanwhile, lots of nice underlings busting their butts for you will be seeking hints as to whether they'll even have jobs next month...

      Oh, and there'll be vendors promising magic bullets.

      Bearing up under this kind of pressure will be why you're making the money as a government CIO.

      --
      "Provided by the management for your protection."
    7. Re:A new strategy...... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Data Capture is really simple.
      The real problem is the new breed of MS coders don't understand raw binary data formats, or if they do, the data structures vary with each new service pack.

      In the 60's everything was in a minimalistic flat file format - no bells, no whistles.
      Asking people to re-key data because some moron can't actually cut code, is complete management failure - more than one month on a project plan.

      At 8 Billion, I would be calling in the Lawyers.

    8. Re:A new strategy...... by LordKronos · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Not that I agree with such a strategy, but I'm not so sure your concerns are too much of a stopping point. After all, I'm sure there are plenty of unemployed people that already have government clearance. These people are already being trusted to work on things like weapons and defense systems. Letting them work on financial data can't be all that much more dangerous. Plus it's not like these people would be working with any secret processes or anything. They would just mostly be entering data line by line from copies of tax returns, W2s, 1040s, etc...all of which are public knowledge. Only the actual numbers on them would be confidential (and I'm sure there could be measures taken to hide the personally identifying info from the data entry people).

      However, I'm not even sure I believe this is the issue. It seems to me that if we could enter the data by hand, we should know the formats and be able to write code to convert between them. I suspect the real problem is something bigger, like coming up with an all-encompassing scheme that is flexible enough to be able to integrate everything together seamlessly. (Of course, maybe I'd know the answer if I'd just go RTFA)

    9. Re:A new strategy...... by Uber+Banker · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Don't deal with contractors and subcontractors or if you do, make sure that the IRS is actively involved with management and funding of the project.

      While I agree the IRS should be involved with the active management (well, at a strategy and audit level) using in-house development is the kiss of death.

      This is the IRS, not some young .com startup. It will have a staid IT and development division - the hot bright sharp talent will not be there - they'll be challenging themselves and being rewarded for it in a specialist company. The IRS IT and devopment divisions will consist of career IT people who are not very good and have built themselves into ivory towers. The reason they use a multitude of data formats and code from the 60s is because that is what they knew when they entered - they got a cushy earner and don't see the point in continual learning or development. Then finally when they have to implement a new project they'll try to do it themselves instead of taking a compay who make a tried-and-tested off-the-shelf product and adapting it to the more unique requirements of the government. Then when all goes wrong the head of division resigns but the staff who have built up a culture of complacency and arogance stay on and the same happens over and over - start fresh or pick up the pieces, it is the same crap staff ding the work.

      Not all of the government is the same, but the vast majority is. Dried up programmers protecting their lack of skills and ambition, clinging to their nice earner.

      The source of my strong feeling? I worked in a government department implementing a new database system... nothing complex at all, just stored monthly data and compiled some percentages of this data. Budget was $1m, time to implementation 2 years. Final outcome? $3m in costs with a 3 year over-run. And hey, I was not on the IT team, I was a user! BTW: The old system was on a DEC and had worked fine for 20 years, the decision to upgrade was taken so we could go all TCP/IP and the DEC wasn't!!!!!!!!!

      When I moved division I found a need for a similar system (their record keeping amounted to MS Word documents with tables in and a calculator in hand for the percentages). I took me a month to do it from database engine to fully functional query and data analysis system. Hey, I used Access (for data storage) and Excel (querying via SQL) to do it, all via VBA of course (yeah, this is /. and I'll get slated, but I needed something fast, my point of being there was not to implement a database and they had no other software licenced).

      In house development is usually a bad thing because in-house IT staff tend to be old, dead wood.

    10. Re:A new strategy...... by Stephen+Maturin · · Score: 1

      ... As if people in higher-paying jobs are not tempted to abuse their positions?
      As someone who has been out of work for five months now, I find your attitude towards the unemployed offensive and repugnant.

      --
      Non tam praeclarum est scire Latine, quam turpe nescire
      -- Cicero
    11. Re:A new strategy...... by zasos · · Score: 0, Troll

      he-he... data entry will beoutsoursed to India.. he-he.. using federal $$$.. he-he.. I just can't wait for the scandal to develop... he-he...

      --

      Just because I don't care, it doesn't mean I don't understand. Homer J. Simpson
    12. Re:A new strategy...... by Alien54 · · Score: 1
      I have friends who have told interesting stories of perfectly functioning systems run by a handle of people using some command line thing (not always unix or dos)

      enter in the management types who have to modernise, and winup replacing the command line crew with dozens if not hundreds of developers expert in the latest gui-fried fiasco, and who cannot, for some reason, accomplish what the command line crowd did.

      Data formats are not always directly compatible

      Check out multidimensional databases sometime, along with their ability to do realtime queries. A guy I know who is knowledgable in the field is famous for his rants on how big name software has been nothing bu a step backward in this regard.

      --
      "It is a greater offense to steal men's labor, than their clothes"
    13. Re:A new strategy...... by eggstasy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      That's not a solution, that's an inefficient kludge.
      The only reason why people commit crimes is that they believe they won't be caught, so the severity of the punishment is mostly irrelevant.
      The evidence for this is very strong. Many countries have tried, at times, to apply the death penalty to an excessively wide range of crimes, but have always failed miserably at preventing their ocurrence.
      Even if you could magically disintegrate all the criminals in the world, there would be more to take their place tomorrow morning.

    14. Re:A new strategy...... by randyest · · Score: 1

      manually enter the data into the new formats

      I agreed with a lot of your points, especially using welfare recipients for government labor (they do that in Mass. now, I think -- if you're on welfare long enough you just might find yourself sweeping floors at the courthouse to earn it).

      As fun as it would be to see the error correction/redundancy you'd need, this is excessively labor-intensive. You can get a text dump of some kind from any database with known records. Perl the output into XML, merge, convert or import the result as needed, and use the labor to sweep the floors ;)

      --
      everything in moderation
    15. Re:A new strategy...... by jidar · · Score: 1

      so what you're saying is, replace $1million dollar projects with access and Excel.
      lol?

      --
      Sigs are awesome huh?
    16. Re:A new strategy...... by Uber+Banker · · Score: 1

      Plan a simple system properly and the tool matters little. I could have done it in Oracle and C++ and it may have worked a little faster if I did that, but that would take longer. The trade off in my time was not worth it. Access and Excel work pretty well for what they were designed for... for a very complex system it would pay off to use more advanced tools as the cost in development is low compared to the costs of running it (efficient and fast algorithms, for example).

      But planning from the minimum total cost perspective is essential, and essentially missing from in house work!

    17. Re:A new strategy...... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is funny. You immediately demonstrate why you shouldn't be employed as CTO.

    18. Re:A new strategy...... by twalk · · Score: 3, Funny

      What do you suggest? That they hire already employed people?

    19. Re:A new strategy...... by Lumpy · · Score: 1

      holy crap.. why that way???

      the old software HAS to have a way to access it's database. simply task a group of programmers (Hell, only one) to figure out how to extract the data into a middle format... even a flat text files with delimiters would be fine.

      after you get that done, importing into the new designed from scratch database application would be easy... hell importing into a enterprise level Oracle DB would be a piece of cake then simply hire a few temp employees to verify data manually.

      the hard part is to come up with a new application that is not destroyed by management and employees that bitch that it's "not like the old system".. I.E. a project manager with the balls to say "Yes, the old system is crap and anyone that likes it is stupid, we are NOT going to make it anything like the old system."

      this project could easily be done with the right project manager and the right developer team.

      Use STANDARD systems like Oracle for the DB and costs will be lower... anyone suggesting a custom system from the ground up is nuts.

      I know what I am talking about I created a new database system for the water plant I worked at that held data that was recorded every hour cince 1969... the "experts" said it was difficult, too complex... bla bla bla.....

      I used Mysql and Perl and came up with a solution in 3 months AND exported the data in the same way export to flat files then imported from flat files...

      Yes it is only 280,320 records each only a total of 2K in size... but if the DB can handle the data load the same solution will work...

      Hell, skip the flat text file and import directly with the help of a script....

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    20. Re:A new strategy...... by TheRealMindChild · · Score: 4, Funny

      That is complete garbage-speak. I will not kil another human being, not based on moral reasons, but because I don't want to die, or worse, be locked up for life. If it was only 10-20 years, guarenteed, there are a few people I would gladly put a few holes in, for that price.

      --

      "When life gives you lemons, don't make lemonade. Make life take the lemons back!" -- Cave Johnson
    21. Re:A new strategy...... by medelliadegray · · Score: 1

      of course, tracking every access to those records would may also help to curb the abusers of that system. for electronic medical records, i believe (not 100% certain) that is a requirement for HIPAA complaiance.

      --
      Troll, Troll, go away and flame again some other day
    22. Re:A new strategy...... by Short+Circuit · · Score: 1

      The solution you're implying is to increase the chance that they'll get caught.

      Well, so long as you don't tread on my privacy, and respect my constitutional rights, (American perspective here, obviously) and don't increase the chance of me getting charged for something I didn't do, well---

      wait; I'm asking the impossible, aren't I?

    23. Re:A new strategy...... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And when the charges are filed, they'll conveniently return the abused identity back to the rightful owner...

    24. Re:A new strategy...... by Eskarel · · Score: 1
      Well first off as a user you can't really judge what happened accurately. I know I've seen a lot of projects I thought were going to be amazingly simple and had them turn out to be a mess for one reason or another. You may be fully technically competent but you weren't in the loop on what was going wrong and why.

      It may very well have been incompetency or sloth or any of a number of the things you claim, but if so there's no real way to determine whether this was the coders or the management or any other part of the vast government beauracracy.

      I'm currently a young programmer and so I'm all for opportunity, but at the same time I hope someday, if I"m foolish enough to remain in IT that long, to be an old programmer.

      Outsourcing in general from my experience tends to be a bit of a crap shoot. If you don't need stuff very often then it's all well and good, but the overhead of paying all the people who manage the outsourcing or contract the contractors and everything else that goes into it can quite quickly mount up to more than the cost of a full time employee with benefits.

      None of this really applies to the IRS of course, young programmer or old I wouldn't want to be the guy in charge of this project, dealing with 40 years of dependencies and data conversions and backups and everything else, especially for the government institution which invented that pile of dung we call the tax code, wouldn't be easy. The easiest way of course would be to toss the old stuff, but I'll bet you dollars to doughnuts that isn't an option the progammers could entertain.

    25. Re:A new strategy...... by thetaikung · · Score: 2, Funny

      Yeah right, go do your homework and stop fantasizing about putting holes in that guy who called you a fatass at lunch today.

      --
      P226 .40cal
    26. Re:A new strategy...... by bedmison · · Score: 5, Informative
      The IRS IT and devopment divisions will consist of career IT people who are not very good and have built themselves into ivory towers. The reason they use a multitude of data formats and code from the 60s is because that is what they knew when they entered - they got a cushy earner and don't see the point in continual learning or development.

      This is a crock of shit on so many levels that it barely deserves comment. The vast majority of the folks who work for the Fed. Govt, and that includes the IRS, are decent folks who are very skilled at what they do, and muddle through in a broken system that is primarily imposed upon them by Congress. Of course they try to do new things the improve the system, but unless you get a chance to do it all over at the same time, its impossible to ever really fix everything. Just ask the FAA. It only took them 3 trys and about $20 Billion to redo the air traffic control system in the US.

      The reason it costs 45 cents to collect a dollar of revenue is the byzantine tax code that has been generated over the 80+ years we have had a federal income tax. We could fix that with a flat tax on ALL income over $25k a year, but that is a different thread all together.

      My dad supervised most of the development work done at the IRS that supports the master file. The tax code is so complex that the only people who actually understand are the IT group at IRS, because they are the ones that actually have to implement it. Reading the article, and from first hand experience, the attempts had moderization have failed because Congress and the higher ups in Treasury and the IRS thought contractors could do it better than the in-house folks. Not a big surprise that the project fails when the folks who know the context of the system are not asked to participate in the development of the replacement.

      If some group of folks came in and tried to tell me that they knew my job better than I did, but they understand the work did, or why we did it the way we did, I'd be pissed off too.

      BTW, if you are wondering, every taxpayer in the US has about 3/4" of tape that contains their entire tax history. The master file lives in a huge vault at the IRS's data center in Martinsburg, WV, which has the biggest damn door I have ever seen. Not quite Cheyanne Mt big, but still pretty good sized.

    27. Re:A new strategy...... by Martin+Blank · · Score: 2, Interesting

      OK... So track the records into which a worker goes, and track the records entered into the new database by the worker. Use smartcards on a string that must be attached to the person or the person's clothes to make sure that the workstation is locked and can't be used when he/she steps away so that no one else can us the station to examine records on someone else's credentials.

      It's really not that hard.

      --
      You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
    28. Re:A new strategy...... by irontiki · · Score: 1

      And lots of powerful special interests. Even if this project was wildy successful you know there are some people that like things the way they are and have power to keep it that way. Unions and good ol boy networks are just the tip of the iceberg.

      The real solution is to flush the whole of the IRS along with the tax code. Streamline the fuck out of the whole thing. Everyone gets a postcard at year end that itemizes what was withheld from their pay and why. Not that I'm holding my breath.

    29. Re:A new strategy...... by Martin+Blank · · Score: 2, Interesting

      If that's what it takes, why not?

      Let's look at some numbers. Say his costs for salary, benefits, computer, electricity, and whatever else came to $100,000 a year. If he did it in a month, that's $8500 (rounded cleanly) in personnel costs, plus a few hundred dollars in software licenses. Throw in a $25,000 server (hardware and software, plus some to spare), and for $33,500 (3.35% of the original quote and 1.12% of the final cost) and one-twelfth of the time alotted (one-thirty-sixth of the actual time taken), there's a functional system. With some work, I'm sure it could have been fairly easily ported over to SQL Server.

      I see this in my own job at the county government level -- a whole lot of things taking much, much, much longer than they should. Someone makes a decision to go in one direction and someone else doesn't like it, so the 'wronged' person will do whatever it takes to sabotage things. Some of us bust our ass to get things done on time and under budget, and some people just have to make life difficult.

      --
      You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
    30. Re:A new strategy...... by foofoodog · · Score: 1

      >>the cost of collecting $1 of revenue--45 cents in 2002

      And they are still in business?

      Seriously, this sounds like another case of a consulting firm taking advantage of the disfunction of the client to profit. For the kind of money invloved CSC should have been able to spec out and create an new system from scratch. The reason the job for the army worked is because they used sap which others have used before and had gotten to work, mostly.

      The old dead wood probably knows what all of the fields on all of the files do and they may be able to scratch together some assembler or cobol to display what could pass for xml in a log file somewhere.

      --
      Can I bum a sig?
    31. Re:A new strategy...... by flink · · Score: 1

      BTW: The old system was on a DEC and had worked fine for 20 years, the decision to upgrade was taken so we could go all TCP/IP and the DEC wasn't!!!!!!!!!

      If this is all you wanted, you should have just bought UCX from Digital/Compaq/HP and been done with it.

    32. Re:A new strategy...... by ksheff · · Score: 2, Insightful

      By your own reasoning, what is the incentive for the in-house people to learn new stuff when upper management has the mindset that any new stuff needs to be outsourced because the in-house people only know 'the old stuff'?

      The biggest reason to let in-house people do it: they are intimately aware of the business logic that needs to be implemented. They have either implemented it in the old system, wrote the documentation, or know the people that did. They know the pitfalls and the gotchas. If they can implement it in 1960s era software, they should be able to do it with current technology. All that they may be missing is training and from the looks of it, $200million has been wasted already and that would have been one hell of a training budget. But, with the 'bring in the superstars' mentality, resentment and the glee in provided by sandbagging the buzzword-compliant folks must certainly run rampant.

      I worked at a Federal science facility for a while and I can certainly say that most of the programmers there were always trying to learn new stuff and usually ended up having to fix or re-implement projects that outside contractors created that didn't really work when it was delivered. Or even better, the contractor's solution was late, so an interim system gets put together until the 'real system' is delivered and ends up being a more robust system than what's delivered. Even my experience in the private sector, in-house developers usually build better systems than those by outside contractors & consultants (esp the Blue ones).

      Also, the best incentive for building a good system right the first time: having to do future maintenance on it and being on-call nights and weekends when something goes wrong. After it's delivered and they've been paid, contractors don't care if it's a bitch to maintain or is unstable, unless they think the CIO is gullible enough to let them work on it again.

      --
      the good ground has been paved over by suicidal maniacs
    33. Re:A new strategy...... by smittyoneeach · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I submit that the technical issues, while non-trivial, are an order of magnitude or so less than some of the "YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH" issues.
      Knew we all the facts, we could expect to see incompetence and fraud within the IRS, byzantine complexity within the laws the IRS is trying to enforce, and embarrassing behavior starting roughly with the middle class and moving upwards.
      This is not a flame. The IRS, I daresay, is likely doing the optimal job in a non-optimal situation. Restated, who could do better? Seriously? I'm by no means so irritated with the system that I feel like applying for a job there with hopes of make a difference: are you?

      --
      Get thee glass eyes, and, like a scurvy politician, seem to see things thou dost not.--King Lear
    34. Re:A new strategy...... by timeOday · · Score: 2, Funny

      That's a very interesting premise for a novel... some disgruntled IRS peon releases the *entire* IRS SSN database to the Internet. Now anybody can masquerade as anybody else - so effectively nobody has an identity!

    35. Re:A new strategy...... by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      make sure that the IRS is actively involved with management and funding of the project so that nobody gets paid unless key points in the strategy are reached.

      But figuring out what those "key points" are is often the hard part. Programming is relatively easy if you have clear requirements, but requirements are often not clear or conflicting within the org. It is like nailing jello to a cloud.

    36. Re:A new strategy...... by bprime · · Score: 0

      Although using an IRS boondoggle to benefit welfare recepients is an excellent idea on paper, i think you migh have trouble finding employees. I volunteer at a community center teaching basic computer literacy to at-risk youth and older people who spent their young lives working odd jobs who now have nothing to sgow for it. The program coordinator mentioned to me that this sort of class is invaluable because lack of computer training / experience is often an insurmountable barrier for under-educated people looking for non-labour jobs. So, unless you gave provisions for complete training for your workforce, it would take much longer than 2-3 years :)

    37. Re:A new strategy...... by demachina · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The key problem here is the government pretty much always has to put this kind of thing our for competitive bids to the private sector. Its increasingly rare for civil servants do software or systems development whether it be NASA, the IRS or the DOD.

      Dick Cheney was the trailblazer for contracting out everything at the DOD when he was Secretary of Defense. He conveniently went to work at Halliburton right after that, whose Kellog Brown and Root subsidiary has been the army's contractor of choice since at least Vietnam so his new policy was conveniently a bonanza for Cheney in his after life. Its led to oddities like Blackwater, an organization of ex SEALS and special forces who are essentially mercenaries, filling all the huge gaps in the regular army, thanks to downsizing and contracting, but they draw six figure salaries standing next to grunts not making anything close to six figures. Interestingly American troops in Iraq are fed by Saudi and Kuwaiti subcontractors to Halliburton. When your fighting a war against Muslims having indigenous Muslims feed your army is an immensely dangerous and interesting avenue for a terrorist infiltrator.

      But to get back to the original point, since the government generally must contract out IT projects this has led to the creation of massive corporations who do nothing but bid for government IT contracts. Two of the biggest being CSC and EDS. IBM and other do to but they don't feed as quite as exclusively at the government trough.

      The problem with companies like CSC and EDS is they are well honed killing machines when it comes to writing proposals for government contracts and doing whatever it takes to win them. At the point they make the kill, they really stop having any incentive to actually do the job well. The government does an exceedingly poor job of penalizing bad performance by contractors. As a result CSC comes in to something like this, they hire a required quota of warm bodies and they start going though a standard process of requirements, specifications, reviews, coding, delivering and billing. In the midst of all there is really no one who has a really strong incentive to develop a really simple, stellar solution quickly or cheaply. The solution almost inevitably becomes an exercise in unmanageable complexity, it overruns which is usually OK with the CSC, since they usually keep getting paid as everyone ever more desperately seeks an ever more elusive goal of completion. So what if the project is eventually cancelled and defeat is admitted. CSC is unlikely to be penalized in any meaningful way. It wont stop them from getting the next government contract up for bids. There is a chance they will be persona non grata at the the IRS for a while so maybe EDS will do the next attempt and they will most probably do no better and there are only so many big prime contractors to choose from.

      A key point here is 8 billion dollars may sound like a lot and it really is to all the working people whose hard earn money is going in to taxes that are being squandered, but in multi trillion dollar Federal budgets its insignificant. Everyone is wasting this kind of money everywhere so who among the politicians, bureaucrats and contractor hogs feeding at the trough really cares. Its just a simple fact that the U.S. government has spiraled out of control, voting Democrat or Republican isn't going to fix it. At this point it appears impossible to fix it, because ordinary people have no way to unite, stand up in unison one day and say enough is enough. Of course lots of ordinary people are working at CSC and Halliburton and they REALLY have no reason to complain about the fraud, waste and abuse in the government contracting system.

      --
      @de_machina
    38. Re:A new strategy...... by nelsonal · · Score: 1

      The Wall St. Journal had an article about EDS' failure on the NMCI contract, it was a similar deal, the Navy hired EDS to modernize it's infastructure. The whole thing turned into a quagmire and as EDS was new to this business bid the contract at a very low assumed margin (CSC is an old boy to government contracts and knows how to accomodate for issues that arise) and has nearly bankrupted the company over their failure. The anecdotes include warehouses filled with computers that were bought but not installed by EDS and managers who would not go chat with the manager at the next base to fix a problem. It's a pretty insightful look at how government contracting works.

      --
      Degaussing scares the bad magnetism out of the monitor and fills it with good karma.
    39. Re:A new strategy...... by gid · · Score: 1

      A flat tax wouldn't simplify things as much as you'd think. The difficult part with the income tax is deciding exactly what is income and needs to be declared. There's a LOT of ways to get income, think about it for a bit.

      Doing a simple tiered percentage for different tax brackets is relatively easy.

    40. Re:A new strategy...... by MuulHead · · Score: 1
      Why is the parent modded as a troll?

      The federal income tax should be scrapped and replaced with a national sales tax. Lower cost of compliance and fairness are two good reasons that come to mind.

      Of course the IRS would still be needed, perhaps scaled down somewhat. I realize the chance for this happening is nearly zero, because the true extent of the tax bite would be evident.

    41. Re:A new strategy...... by Grech · · Score: 2, Informative

      OK, this article is way light on details, so let me fill you in on the Way Things Are:

      Currently, IRS data is stored in several large databases, which are seperate from each other, and are collectively referred to as 'the master file' This financial Voltron is made up of:

      1. The IMF (Individual Master File, your taxes go here, mostly.
      2. The BMF (Business Master File, your company's taxes go here, mostly)
      3. The EPMF (Employee Plan Master File. This is where ERISA lives, but your 401(k) is on the BMF)
      4. The IRAF (Individual Retirement Arrangement File. Your IRA and its freinds live here)
      5. The NMF (Non-Master File. Anything so weird it has to be on paper lives here. This is also a stopping point for assessments that need to be relabeled, and the source of all things Prompt.)

      The Master File is updated weekly, and is otherwise read only. Workspace is provided in a number of support files:

      1. The TIF (Taxpayer Information File. This is the working copy of data being worked on. Up until January of 2004, there were 10 of these, one at each campus. Now there are 2, one at MCC for IMF, and one at TCC for Everything Else.)
      2. The GUF (Generalized Unpostables File. If something screwey happens, this is where it goes to get fixed. Returns filed with scads of missing money, impossible adjustments, date mismatches, statute flubs, et cetera ad nauseum all end up here.

      For manipulatinga ll this data, there are several specialized systems.

      • IDRS (Integrated Data Retrieval System) is a UTS 20/60 session into a Unisys mainframe, and is the mainstay of Accounts Management.
      • ACS (Automated Collection System) is similar, but is intended for the Compliance audience.
      • AIMS (Audit Information Management System) is the window you never want your SSN to show up in.
      • ICP and ICS are 2 X applications (via Exceed) that provide incomplete graphical frontends to the text-based sytems above.

      The CADE Project is attempting to replace all of this. These systems interact with each other already, and so CADE must attempt to define its own internal interfaces while maintaining the ability to converse with the existing systems. This is why even the first migration (partial migration of the IMF, 1040EZ filers only) has been delayed over and over again. Even this isn't the end of the alphabet soup. There are still payments (ISRP, LBX, RRPS, RPS, MD, EFTPS, FTD) to consider, and metainformation (EONS and its many children) to be collected, among other things I have no doubt forgotten in a sea of COBOL fumes.

      --
      It may not be just, but it is fair, and that is more important.
    42. Re:A new strategy...... by xlogicalxendx · · Score: 0

      My goodness... If you were to splice together all that tape you could stretch it from Boston to LA and still have some left over.

    43. Re:A new strategy...... by Rande · · Score: 1
      The death penalty doesn't do a thing in preventing offences.


      It does however, prevent reoffending.


      Even if the person is later found innocent of the original crime, you can be certain that they won't offend in future!

    44. Re:A new strategy...... by Reivec · · Score: 1

      If your sense of morals is soley based on the punishment you may recieve for doing something then you have got something seriously wrong going on and I for one wouldn't feel comfortable being around such a person.

    45. Re:A new strategy...... by jbarciela · · Score: 1

      if THE LAW is OpenSource, shouldn't the software that enforces it be OpenSource too?
      i mean I find this (from the comments in the article):

      "The code is designed to collect taxes from the middle class and not from Holiwood and TV people who really have the money to give (the code that does this is actually classified so the US taxpayer cannot find this out)."

      highly anti-democratic (in case it's true)
      besides, OpenSource would be a better use of my tax dolars

    46. Re:A new strategy...... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Knew we all the facts

      WTF?

      English, motherfucker, do you speak it?

    47. Re:A new strategy...... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      > CTO I believe I would have canned the whole project and started anew as from the sounds of it

      I once worked on an 18 month project that had a $5 million dollar budget in the financial industry.

      It was to do in 18 months what a 4 year, $50 million dollar project had utterly failed to do. And I mean *not one single line of code in use* after the $50 million was gone.

      If this attempt wasn't done on time, the company would have it's trading rights revoked by US Federal regulators. No negotating, there was a hard deadline.

      The reason it succeeded is that ONE GUY was given TOTAL RESPONSIBILITY and CARTE BLANCHE to do whatever it took to get it done and make it work. He could force division heads to do things, he was given that much power. And he was smart and driven.

      Therefore at any point where "corporate politics" would otherwise get in the way, he could simply have people over-ruled or fired. At one point an entire group of 12 senior traders "refused to do their job" and were replaced by 2 guys brought in from Australia and some software.

      In this case, the CIO would have to be given the ability to over-ride all of the other executive's decisions. He probably doesn't have sufficient power to get the job done, and so ended up being beaten to death by "corporate politics".

      If you think corporations treat their customers like shit, if you think corporations are evil "from the outside", you should get a whiff of the vicious corporate pollitics that happens in multi-billion dollar companies where there are entire internal divisions whose heads are pitted against one another, even though they are part of the same business unit. It's just nuts. I'm amazed anything works at all.

    48. Re:A new strategy...... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      See, now, the irony of your response is that you used 'WTF', an acronym composed of characters of the Roman alphabet, yet clearly not English, to set up your ad-hominem attack.
      As for the bone you choose to pick, 'Knew we' is equivalent to 'If we knew', yet saves a word, and injects style.
      Yes, I speak English, and play it like a musical instrument, for the fun of it, not arrogantly.
      -1 Offtopic

    49. Re:A new strategy...... by IWantMoreSpamPlease · · Score: 1

      I've been advocating this for years, unfortuantely it'll never happen. Those who make the (tax) laws are the ones who stand to lose the most by having those laws re-written.

      I seem to recall that MS (for example) paid *zero* in taxes last year, because of write-offs, etc. While you and I paid a pretty penny.

      With a flat-tax system, based on the *gross* profits (not the net) the system would be much more balanced, as those who make the most, bear the most burden, but by having it flat- all are taxed *fairly*. You could even set it up so those making less than X$ per year pay no taxes whatsoever.

      There are numerous ways to fix the IRS, easily, and quickly, but none will ever be implemented in this country.

      --
      So rise up, all ye lost ones, as one, we'll claw the clouds.
    50. Re:A new strategy...... by PhraudulentOne · · Score: 1

      Dude, farm it out to India. Duh.

      --
      You create your own reality - Leave mine to me.
    51. Re:A new strategy...... by kris_lang · · Score: 1

      A similar thing is happening with the CoreFLS system for ordering supplies and paying vendors at the VA Hospital system. A large software project was set up with one contractor in mind. Training wasn't put in place to let the end-users become familiarized with the actual software, instead they were "web-trained" over the internet on a dummy system that does not correspond to the actual software delivered. Early problems with starting up the new system were ignored, and the whole project was started up despite these problems, leading to a massive melt-down:

      surgical cases were delayed and stopped because supplies couldn't be ordered and located in a timely fashion,

      floor supplies were not available or ordered because people couldn't be sure of what was where and what needed to be reordered.

      a congressional inquiry was started [ibid]

      the Bay Pines V.A. Hospital manager stepped down...[ibid]

      they can't find any paperwork to show the process by which the contractor was selected for the job...

      And they still haven't got the system up and running...

      Oh for the days when MUMPS was the dominant in-house software approach, eh?
      Currently, they have until May of this year to fix it or come up with an exit strategy.
      So maybe sometimes, even if it is very difficult, when lives are at stake software projects can be scrapped and restarted from scratch.

    52. Re:A new strategy...... by royalblue_tom · · Score: 1

      Just remember that corporations don't pay taxes. The government may collect taxes from them, but where does the money come from? Business taxes invariably get included in product cost. So we pay them. So if you do tax Microsoft, all they'll do is add another dollar to the cost of windows.

      Its a lot more fair if those that spend the most, pay the most tax (it's no fun being rich if you don't get to spend it)!

    53. Re:A new strategy...... by cayenne8 · · Score: 1

      I can attest to this...the nmci 'paperweight' on my desk is useless for about anything but email. We're all fighting to keep out old machines, so we can actually still get WORK done...

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    54. Re:A new strategy...... by DuckDodgers · · Score: 1

      A national sales tax, a flat rate income tax, and generally any other simple and straightforward taxation plan is regressive.

      Everyone pays the same percentage, but for someone making $6.00 an hour that percentage takes away from the money he needs for food and medical care. For someone making $160.00 an hour that percentage just adds a few months extra until his early retirement.

      A graduated income tax scheme - hopefully simpler than the nonsense we have today - would only be somewhat more complicated while still allowing the working poor to get by without government welfare.

    55. Re:A new strategy...... by MuulHead · · Score: 1
      I'm going to disagree with you on this one. A system of taxation that exempts *any* group is a Bad Idea(tm). IMHO, a sales tax distributes the burden of taxation in the most rational manner. Those who have the resources to purchase more will pay more.

      Imagine never having to file an income tax return ever again. IIRC, the average taxpayer in the US spends something like 48 hours each year preparing returns and handling the required records. This is a complete waste of time.

      Why in the world should taxes be so complicated that an entire industry developed just to figure out how much you should pay.

      Virtually all businesses collect sales tax, the mechanism is already in place. It would cost far less to collect federal taxes in this manner.

      There are many subtle social implications involved here. One that comes to mind is the sense of empowerment that comes with fully participating in society.

      This does not strike me as regressive at all. Our current system *is* regressive in one sense. Unless you are nearly destitute, you have to file a tax return. This costs time or money or both. Employers are obligated to withhold tax, this costs them money. How much of this wasted money could be in your pocket and mine? Just because the poor do not have a direct tax liability does not mean they are not paying indirectly.

    56. Re:A new strategy...... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Liberal crap and outright lies. Ntl. sales would not apply to basic necessities and a flat tax would not cost a $6.00 hr. loser enough to make a difference, especially if there's a minimum earnings cutoff point.

      You want a so-called "progressive" tax because it gives your pointy-headed congressional friends the ability to conduct all sorts of social engineering experiments -- passing out tax breaks for favored activities, heavily taxing unfavored activities (such as being successful).

      Go back to the Soviet Union comrade.

    57. Re:A new strategy...... by DuckDodgers · · Score: 1

      The parent post did not state or imply that the sales tax would not apply to necessities. Neither did someone suggest there would be a minimum earnings cutoff point.

      If you exempt necessities from the sales tax or add a minimum earnings cutoff to a flat tax, I support it 100%.

      I'm not communist, pinhead.

    58. Re:A new strategy...... by DuckDodgers · · Score: 1

      I am not in any way defending the status quo. I think a proper progressive taxation system would have zero deductions. There should be a formula that anyone with a fifth grade math education can use to calculate their tax liability, and the whole thing would fit on an index card.

      I would also support a sales tax which had food or medical expenses exempted or a flat tax that had a minimum income threshold. Anything to make it simpler than it is now.

  2. If it ain't broke by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Don't fix it. Also if they store it on Linux I'm seceding from the Union. Jack.

  3. Should have outsourced it to India by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The tax preparers do it, why not the tax reviewers?

  4. The title's funny by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    because it's a play on a tax form. The 1040EZ, get it? HAHAHAHA!

    1. Re:The title's funny by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "It says 'I choo-choo-choose you', and there's a train on it!"

    2. Re:The title's funny by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "So..do you like...stuff?"

  5. Look on the bright side by AtariAmarok · · Score: 4, Funny

    Look on the bright side. There's no way Windows worms can touch this.

    --
    Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
  6. Sure there is... by Figaro · · Score: 4, Informative
    --
    :wq
    1. Re:Sure there is... by Neil+Blender · · Score: 3, Insightful

      FairTax.org

      That method, taxing goods and services only, is what the rich want. It is unfair to the poor and middle class because they spend the highest proportion of their income on goods and services. Frequently 100%. The rich spend a much smaller portion of their income this way and therefore would pay much less proportional to their income. This is akin to the highest tax rates being imposed on the poor and the lowest on the rich. Believe me, this movement is backed by the wealthy and would benefit them the most.

    2. Re:Sure there is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You miss the part about the refund for the tax on autonomous consumption needs? If you're living at the subsistence level, you pay ZERO NET TAX under that plan.

    3. Re:Sure there is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But I thought "the rich don't pay taxes"

      Isn't that what a most people who want to increase tax rates on Rich people always saying? By going to a fair tax, they would have to pay taxes, when they buy their lexus, house, ect.

      I think what you are really scared of is average joe six pack figureing out just how much they spend on taxes every year. Once that happens they will start to demand their money spent better, and not on pork barrel projects. When that happens, polliticians lose their power.

    4. Re:Sure there is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your comment is not very informed. The fair tax places no tax on necessities, which I would imagine include food, clothing, etc. Things that would be taxed include boats, vacation houses, expensive luxury items, and other things wealthy people tend to spend money on. It could hardly be simpler or more fair. The more money you have, the more you're likely to buy non essential items, the more taxes you'll pay. It simplifies the tax code (doing away with many of the shady tax shelters and crooked accountants) and encourages saving over spending. How is this not fair?

    5. Re:Sure there is... by DustMagnet · · Score: 1
      +2 informative?

      This is offtopic. Just because it says IRS doesn't mean it's time for a debate on taxes. Not that the poster had the guts to write anything.

      Yes, this comment is offtopic too, I wish I could mod it down myself. Seriously.

      --
      'SBEMAIL!' is better than a goat!!
    6. Re:Sure there is... by jcr · · Score: 1

      That method, taxing goods and services only, is what the rich want.

      If anyone in the USA making a million a year is coughing up 39% of it, he has an incompetent accountant.

      Every tax reform proposal is shouted down with "but it will benefit the rich". Well, if keeping another couple of grand in my pocket means that the rich have a few less hoops to jump through to keep their money, I'm fine with that.

      The current system pretends to soak the rich, but wishing doesn't make it so.

      -jcr

      --
      The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    7. Re:Sure there is... by public_class_name_ex · · Score: 1

      But who defines this subsistence level? Unless you start bracketing above that, won't you effectively destroy the middle class?

      Of course, thanks to current US tax policy, we are coming closer to acheiving this with the existing system in place. So none of this may be needed at all.

    8. Re:Sure there is... by itsdave · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I back the fair tax 100% and i am certainly not rich.

      why should someone have to pay a higher percentage of their total income simply because they have more money than I? I can gaurantee you that a rich person will spend more dollars total than I on taxable goods and will therefore spend more total dollars than I on sales tax, and they are entitled to no more services than I.

      poor people will benefit from the fair tax because they will not be taxed until they spend, therefore 100% of what they dont spend can be saved, and interest can be gained on what is saved as well as it can be invested in a business opportunity potentially carrying that poor person into the middle class, and then that interest will not be taxed until it too is spent, therefore you will be able to better control how much is spent in taxes.

      furthermore, everyone knows rich people are pretty keen on tax loopholes that are big enough to drive a hummer through. if we have a fair tax, it will be virtually impossible for people to skip out on taxes.

    9. Re:Sure there is... by Gunfighter · · Score: 1

      This will actually save the middle class, not destroy it. You can read my comments here:

      http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=103268&cid=8 79 9903

      Be sure to check out the brochure link. It explains everything and shows how this will benefit everyone, not just the rich.

      --
      -- Stu

      /. ID under 2,000. I feel old now.
    10. Re:Sure there is... by NeoSkandranon · · Score: 1

      Poor people usually don't, and often *can't* do anything but spend nearly 100% of their income. If they had the chance to save much, they wouldnt be poor would they?

      --
      If you can't see the value in jet powered ants you should turn in your nerd card. - Dunbal (464142)
    11. Re:Sure there is... by nyseal · · Score: 1

      Here go my mod points, but that is utter crap. Everyone bitches about the poor and the rich when it's actually the backbone of the economy to turn to the middle class. What will you say when the 'lower' class becomes the 'middle' class? The tax brackets are designed to rape the middle class because that's where they know the TRUE federal income is. They won't get it from the poor (they don't have it) and they won't get it from the rich (they won't give it up). The majority of most middle-Americans are happy to get a $550 tax break per YEAR by Congress. Do you really think that $550 matters (for tax reasons) to someone who's poor; OR rich? Why do you think there's a 'marriage penalty tax relief" clause recently? The only ones it really matters to is the middle. Whoopity doo. When I can hope to increase my income through as many avenues (legally) as the rich seem to increase theirs I'll start to believe we're at least on an even playing level; which will never happen.

      --
      [SIG] Remember Mattel handheld games?
    12. Re:Sure there is... by YrWrstNtmr · · Score: 1

      The lower the income, the higher percentage of that income you pay in taxes.
      The person who makes $20,000/yr, and spends $20,000 on food/rent/medical/transport (no savings at the end of the year) is taxed on 100% of his income.

      The person who makes $100,000/yr, and spends twice as much on those same items is only taxed on 40% of his income.
      Yes, he pays more total tax, but a far lower percentage of his actual income.

      As far as 'loopholes'...there will always be loopholes. Do you tax barter? Do I, the owner of a paving company, pay 'fair tax' on the new fleet of trucks I traded for paving the dealership parking lot? Or does the owner of a stereo shop pay tax on lifetime eats at the local Hooters if I install their new sound system gratis? Does the Hooters manager/owner pay tax on the sound system?

    13. Re:Sure there is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If just maintaining your existence takes up >= 100% of your income, you are either a total retard (in which case I suppose we should help you out), or you are and have been making some very poor decisions in your life (in which case you should change that behavior or live with the consequences of your decisions).

      Give me an example (make it one that might apply in general) where this isn't true.

    14. Re:Sure there is... by public_class_name_ex · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Trust me I want tax reform more than anyone.

      And I mean no disrespect to you or this cause, but I still do not see how this will help. If you define a "poverty" level in which no one will be taxed for paying for services or aquiring goods, what will become of those who live just above that level?

      I would call those people the lower middle class, and the middle class, and even the upper middle class (depending on the breaks, to make a Kubrick ref)

      If you intend to do this, you still must make either "brackets" (bad answer) or use an equasion which reflects wealth distribution based on contribution. (And contribution does not count "capital"...)

      Otherwise... (drumroll please) you destroy the middle class.

    15. Re:Sure there is... by public_class_name_ex · · Score: 1

      Terribly sorry to reply to my own post, but this must be said:

      Define the poverty level to be anyone who makes less than 200k a year. Anyone who makes less than that will not be taxed at all, and anyone who makes more than that will pay for the government. That's fine with me. Where do I sign up?

  7. Sure, they can blow our money, but... by Jason+Straight · · Score: 0, Troll

    Stiff them on $2 and get fined up the ass.

    1. Re:Sure, they can blow our money, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Sir, I am sure we can arrive at an agreement on this matter. Would you agree to a repayment plan for your $2.00 deficit? We can set up a very low interest loan with payments of less than 11 cents per month. You will be able to get your finances squared away and look to the future with confidence.

    2. Re:Sure, they can blow our money, but... by whiteranger99x · · Score: 1

      Nah, they'll just put it towards the persidential campaign fund :P

      --
      Join the TWIT army now!
  8. Let me be the first to say that... by eyeball · · Score: 4, Interesting

    $200 million is kind of small compared to $8b. That would be like me buying a car for $8,000, and finding out there was $200 in "transportation costs" or something.

    --

    _______
    2B1ASK1
    1. Re:Let me be the first to say that... by Kenja · · Score: 0, Offtopic
      "$200 million is kind of small compared to $8b"

      $200 million could buy a lot of tacos.

      --

      "Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
    2. Re:Let me be the first to say that... by NixterAg · · Score: 4, Insightful

      That's exactly how Joe Congressman defends pork.

    3. Re:Let me be the first to say that... by Neil+Blender · · Score: 1

      200000000 tacos. This should provide adequate sustenance for the Dr. Who marathon.

    4. Re:Let me be the first to say that... by Mr.+No+Skills · · Score: 3, Interesting
      This is a very good point. 200M is a lot of money. But the mact works out to a 2.5% cost overrun for a very large IT project. Some people would kill for a cost overrun of only 2.5%. Especially with the high percentage of IT projects that never get completed.

      Of course, this one isn't completed yet, either...

      --
      Sleep is for the Weak
    5. Re:Let me be the first to say that... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      CmdrTacos?

    6. Re:Let me be the first to say that... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      oh shut the fuck up!

    7. Re:Let me be the first to say that... by Mr.+Piddle · · Score: 2, Funny


      Yes, but $200,000,000 could easily go towards infrastructure, for example, making life more livable for hundreds of thousands of people.

      Even better, I would bet the sinking ships of social security and medicare could make good use of all that diffused and useless pork money (I bet it's in the tens of billions of dollars).

      $200,000,000 is enough for 50 or more people (including me, of course:) to retire right now and never have to work another day ever in their lives. This isn't chump change, and the people "in power" who abuse it should be seriously ashamed.

      --
      Vote in November. You won't regret it.
    8. Re:Let me be the first to say that... by NixterAg · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Even better, I would bet the sinking ships of social security and medicare could make good use of all that diffused and useless pork money (I bet it's in the tens of billions of dollars).

      You're kidding...right? That's why the problems exists in the first place...the do-gooders who put those pyramid schemes together said that we'll just pay enough so that they don't have to deal with it. As a result, the taxpayer is gouged incrementally until he feels a sense of entitlement to what is essentially elderly welfare, and politicians throw more money at the problem so as to not lose the votes of their dependents, thus passing the problem on to the next generation of taxpayers.

      How about, for once, Washington actually save money in order that it stays in the hands of its rightful owners, the taxpayer. In Washington, a project never fails because it was a poorly hatched, retarded ponzi scheme but instead because it is "underfunded".

    9. Re:Let me be the first to say that... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You mean you don't pay that? Do you drive your cars off the factory lot?

    10. Re:Let me be the first to say that... by Mr.+Piddle · · Score: 1


      As a result, the taxpayer is gouged incrementally until he feels a sense of entitlement to what is essentially elderly welfare, and politicians throw more money at the problem so as to not lose the votes of their dependents, thus passing the problem on to the next generation of taxpayers.

      I can't deny any of these problems, but I have trouble placing the elderly as part of a healthy free market of health care. The elderly consume a very large proportion of health care costs (dying is extremely expensive), and it seems that an insurance-style business model cannot pay for their care. Whereas young and middle-aged people are perfectly served by insurance to cover their health risks, insurance premiums rise pretty much exponentially once people get into their 70s.

      I am 99% libertarian in my viewpoints, but there are edge cases that need special attention (e.g, the old, the extremely poor/homeless, and the severely disabled). The true number of edge cases is much much smaller than Democrats would lead people to believe, but there are such cases, nonetheless.

      --
      Vote in November. You won't regret it.
    11. Re:Let me be the first to say that... by NixterAg · · Score: 1

      I am more than happy to give money to benefit those in need, a large number of which are elderly. However, I have very little faith in my government to do an even moderately efficient job of it. That's why I give to charities, church, etc. Still, though, the government confiscates my income to pay for these bloated monstrosities even though they are sinking slowly but surely. Eventually, we are going to have to jump ship or go down with it. There will be some hard choices to make and some unpopular choices that I doubt any politician is going to have the balls to make.

      There is also a cultural issue that must be dealt with, and that's putting some responsibility in the hands of those who are taking from the system. For example, it's very important that people have and raise DECENT AND RESPONSIBLE CHILDREN. I intend to care for my parents and my wife's parents the best I can. If that means shutting off the cable TV or the cell phone then so be it.

      The fact is, life is full of choices and one can invest in him or herself or one can waste their life. Far too many do the latter and expect the government to pick up the tab. Some have smoked all their lives (and continue to do so). Others eat themselves until their body can no longer support their weight. Some have consumed so much alcohol that their liver and kidneys are completely blasted.

      I am thrilled that the society in which I live is affluent enough to be able to take care of its elderly and its sick. It's truly wonderful and is a testament to our prosperity. However, medicare and social security, as we know it, benefit politicians more than they benefit society.

  9. Hmmm by Peyna · · Score: 3, Insightful

    What percentage of our income taxes paid in the US goes towards collecting those same taxes?

    How much could be saved by moving to a flat tax and getting rid of all the exemptions and deductions and tax-breaks?

    Income: xxxxxx
    x 0.20
    Tax owed: xxx

    You could fire 99% of the IRS employees and get the operating budget to that of a Taco Bell.

    --
    What?
    1. Re:Hmmm by -kertrats- · · Score: 1

      You could fire 99% of the IRS employees

      And what government are you living under, in the current economy with the current job situation, that would cut thousands of jobs, further raising unemployment and, in effect, guaranteeing itself no chance at re-election?

      --
      The Braying and Neighing of Barnyard Animals Follows.
    2. Re:Hmmm by rokzy · · Score: 1

      are you insane?

      then you just push the mess back one level - what counts as "income"?

      e.g. $1,000 student loan. is the tax -200, 0 or 200?

    3. Re:Hmmm by skifreak87 · · Score: 1

      Because then they lose the effective social engineering of the tax code (which encourages donations to charities by offering tax breaks and makes having children more affordable by offering deductions for dependants) and we also lose our beloved progressive tax structure (which tries to make things easier on those who make less income).

    4. Re:Hmmm by Daimaou · · Score: 1

      I don't see any reason why a flat tax should have to be any more than %5 to %10 percent. If the government can't operate on that, then they are trying to do more than they should be.

    5. Re:Hmmm by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      Then they could do productive work instead of being blood suckers.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    6. Re:Hmmm by mcowger · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Yeah, and you'd have the most unfair (notice I didn't say inequitable) taxing system ever. What a mess this would be! The poor, who currently pay basically no taxes on their 18K per year suddenly owe $3.600 / year, which is like 4 months rent. The rich making $1million per year owe 200,000, but that doesn't affect them in the least - 800K is still ashitload of money.

      We have tax breaks because we want to ENCOURAGE people to get an education and child care, so that they dont have to decide between rent and school.

      The whole concept of a universal flat tax is just silly if you think about it for more than 5ns.

    7. Re:Hmmm by dagnabit · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Yes! IANAA (accountant), but I've always thought that a flat tax would be the way to go... the hard part would be determining the correct percentage to charge, and which transactions would be charged (just pay, or interest and dividends, etc).

      But no more whining from anyone about the different brackets, no more ways to "cheat", etc. It would simplify and reduce costs at the gov't level, at the payroll level for businesses, etc.

      The only people that would be against it would probably be all the tax accountants... and the democrats wouldn't have their red herring complaint about "tax cuts for the wealthy" anymore...

    8. Re:Hmmm by Croatian+Sensation · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      Explain to me, please, how it is unfair to pay for services that you use.

      Perhaps a flat tax would actually encourage those people to work harder and actually be rewarded for it.

      It is not the job of the government to perform charity. That's the responsibility of individuals.

      --
      Just cuz you ain't paranoid, doesn't mean they're not after you.
    9. Re:Hmmm by ect5150 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      moving to a flat tax

      The big issue with a flat tax regressive tax. By this, I mean its easier for rich folk to pay X% of their income than the poor folk. $10,000 is a lot of money to a lot of people, but Bill Gates sneezes and looses $10,000 and he doesn't care.

      It sounds good, but it hurts more people than it helps.

      --
      I have never let my schooling interfere with my education.
    10. Re:Hmmm by YU+Nicks+NE+Way · · Score: 3, Insightful

      A flat income tax. What a dream. I need help with something, though.

      What's income? Do you tax gross income or net income? Gross income is unfair: Boeing pays more WA state business op tax than Microsoft does, because making planes is a much lower margin business than pressing CDs. Net income is unfair, because people will game the system to take large expenses at the same time that they realize large incomes, in order to keep net income down.

      Does income include changes in the present values of investments? If so, then you're discouraging investment. If not, then I can easily hide lots of income by borrowing against a marketable asset. Oh, and how do you determine if that is happening anyway?

      A flat tax is a pipe dream. It works really well for extracting money from wage-earners with a single discrete income stream. It does appallingly badly with everyone else.

    11. Re:Hmmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But Bill Gates sneezes and loses $10,000

      Well he shouldn't stuff $10,000 bills up his nose, then!

    12. Re:Hmmm by weekendgeek · · Score: 3, Interesting

      From the article: Meanwhile, the cost of collecting $1 of revenue--45 cents in 2002, the last year for which statistics are available--has not appreciably declined in two decades. So in other words: 45 cents of every dollar collected is "overhead".

      --
      It would be presumptuous to conclude that Americans have no right to know what is being done in their name
    13. Re:Hmmm by An+Onerous+Coward · · Score: 1

      Are you insane?

      Not really asking. I just enjoy starting off posts that way.

      The thing is, people already have to decide what counts as income. So the complexity you claim is going to be moved towards determining what counts as "income" actually already exists.

      --

      You want the truthiness? You can't handle the truthiness!

    14. Re:Hmmm by donutello · · Score: 2, Interesting

      and the democrats wouldn't have their red herring complaint about "tax cuts for the wealthy"

      Are you kidding? The last tax cut brought us closer to a flat tax than we were and the democrats had a cow about it.

      Here's how it will work (numbers made up):

      Current situation:
      People earning less than $200,000 pay $40 Billion in total taxes.
      People earning more than $200,000 pay $45 Billion in total taxes.

      Flat Tax situation:
      People earning less than $200,000 pay $50 Billion in total taxes.
      People earning more than $200,000 pay $30 Billion in total taxes.

      This will be labeled as a $15 Billion tax cut for the "wealthy" paid for by $10 Billion in additional taxes on everyone else.

      --
      Mmmm.. Donuts
    15. Re:Hmmm by karnal · · Score: 1

      Quick! He just threw his kleenex into that trash can!!!

      --
      Karnal
    16. Re:Hmmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What? That can not be possible otherwise the IRS would be bigger than all government agencies combined. That doesn't pass the laughing test.

      The real question is what is that number? I'm sure it's significantly lower. And how low would it be with a flat tax? Certainly not zero. So those two pillars of your theory are likely false. I'm not saying a flat tax can't work, but you have not made your case with the handwaving and made-up numbers.

    17. Re:Hmmm by LordKronos · · Score: 2, Interesting

      What percentage of our income taxes paid in the US goes towards collecting those same taxes?

      Well, I'm not sure I'm understanding it correctly (since intuitively the figure seems kind of high to me), but according to the article:

      the cost of collecting $1 of revenue--45 cents in 2002, the last year for which statistics are available--has not appreciably declined in two decades.

    18. Re:Hmmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      yeah like maybe going to iraq?

    19. Re:Hmmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't think a flat tax will happen. No politician wants to go into an election giving his opponent lines like "X eliminated the per-child tax credit for working families," or "X eliminated tax breaks for struggling college students trying." Of course, he also eliminated all the other tax breaks that drive up the total tax rate, making the other loopholes necessary (and providing millions of CPAs with a living trying to interpret this horrible mess for normal folks). But that takes too long to explain.

      I think you're also overestimating the overall savings. The IRS would still have to do audits and investigate tax fraud, though that process would also be streamlined.

      And we would end up with hundreds of thousands of tax attorneys, accountants, H.R. Block employees, etc., looking for something to do. But from an economic standpoint, it's not a problem to lose jobs because the work no longer needs to be done. It would be like complaining when food magically starts appearing on store shelves, because it puts farmers out of business.

    20. Re:Hmmm by AuMatar · · Score: 1

      Simple: the people pushing for the flat tax already have theirs, so they don't give a shit about anyone else.

      --
      I still have more fans than freaks. WTF is wrong with you people?
    21. Re:Hmmm by pla · · Score: 1

      then you just push the mess back one level - what counts as "income"?

      Income - anything that comes into my posession that I do not need to eventually return (with the sole exception, for the purpose of avoiding recursion, that you do not need to consider tax refunds as income). So a loan wouldn't count, but my salary would.


      e.g. $1,000 student loan. is the tax -200, 0 or 200?

      Considering the numer of students who itemize deductions, does it really matter? But assuming you want to consider such things, "0". You pay it back, so not really income. As for getting a tax break on the interest - Screw that. I spend what I have. If I take out a loan, the interest on it serves as a direct disincentive, so what point exists in reducing that disincentive?


      Actually, speaking of recursion, I did encounter a curious problem while doing my taxes this year... To calculate the "Alternative Minimum Tax", you need to know your state taxes. But most states (mine included) base your taxes on your federal return. Anyone else get a tad confused by this? I suppose one could, in theory, iteratively recalculate both until the difference settles below half of a cent, but that doesn't really seem to make much sense for the majority of non-computer-geek taxpayers out there...

    22. Re:Hmmm by Mr.+Piddle · · Score: 2, Funny

      You could fire 99% of the IRS employees and get the operating budget to that of a Taco Bell.

      Unfortunately, the IRS is here to stay, for political reasons. Getting rid of the IRS as we know it would:

      1) Make thousands of IRS employees unemployed (who would, of course, bitch about it).
      2) Make tens of thousands of H&R Block, Jackson Hewitt, etc. employees unemployed (who would, of course, bitch about it).
      3) Put out of work many thousands of independent tax accountants (who would, of course, bitch about it).
      4) Make it hard or impossible for so many well-to-do people and businesses to pay no tax at all (who would, of course, bitch about it).
      5) It would put poor people out of their Earned Income Credit (who would, of course, bitch about it).
      6) Bitch, bitch, bitch, moan, moan, moan, ad nauseum, until no politician would ever dream of altering the IRS.

      Basically, the IRS is the biggest political tool ever created in human history. Getting rid of it is not only impossible, it's less possible than impossible.

      --
      Vote in November. You won't regret it.
    23. Re:Hmmm by LetterJ · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You've got to be kidding me. The hardest work I've ever done in my life was done for $6/hour and the easiest was done for $45/hour. In pretty much any society on this blue marble, those that work the hardest are also those who get the least financial reward. And, those who have millions and who 'worked hard' for it may have done so, but not any harder than someone working in a pipe foundry for $10/hour. Those people can work as hard as possible at those jobs and never get any closer to the reward.

    24. Re:Hmmm by Peyna · · Score: 1

      I think I broke my own record for replies to my comment in 30 minutes or whatever. I feel so special.

      To those of you without a clue getting all upset about this should look back to the 1996 elections...

      IT WAS A JOKE!

      Although the IRS is a cesspool of inefficiency, they're in the same boat as a lot of airports with their traffic control systems. They work right now, and they can't go for long without them working. So the cost and risk of upgrading is too high, and the only alternative is to live with what we have until the payoff for the upgrade outweights the cost considerably.

      --
      What?
    25. Re:Hmmm by angle_slam · · Score: 4, Insightful
      What a mess this would be! The poor, who currently pay basically no taxes on their 18K per year suddenly owe $3.600 / year, which is like 4 months rent.

      Simple solution to that, suggested above. The first $X aren't collected. E.g., the first $5k aren't collected. People who make less than $25k pay no taxes. You're effectively only taxed for what you make over $25k (or whatever arbitrary figure you choose).

      The rich making $1million per year owe 200,000, but that doesn't affect them in the least - 800K is still ashitload of money.

      That's BS. People who make $1M still notice $200k. It may not hurt them AS MUCH. But it still hurts them.

    26. Re:Hmmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >>he rich making $1million per year owe 200,000, but that doesn't affect them in the least

      of course it doesn't.

      why just last week, we needed more staff, and i could have hired 10 more people at $20k/yr each.

      10 payed employees for a year.

      yea, you are right, it doesn't affect me in the least.

    27. Re:Hmmm by beakburke · · Score: 1

      Most people pushing a flat tax do include a standard deduction so that people below a certain income don't have to pay.

      --
      ----- Question authority, but not ours. Hate the man, but we're not him.
    28. Re:Hmmm by beakburke · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Pay has little to do with whether the work is hard or easy. It has to do with how much $$$ you make for the company and the availabilty of qualified people to do the job. People need to stop thinking of pay as some sort of moral value judgement about who works "harder", because there is now real objective way to determine what is "fair".

      --
      ----- Question authority, but not ours. Hate the man, but we're not him.
    29. Re:Hmmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, and we increase the tax rate on higher income people, because we want to incentivize people to not earn a lot of money, not take risks, not start businesses, and not create jobs for others.

      GOOD IDEA!

    30. Re:Hmmm by Mullen · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You've got to be kidding me. The hardest work I've ever done in my life was done for $6/hour and the easiest was done for $45/hour. In pretty much any society on this blue marble, those that work the hardest are also those who get the least financial reward. And, those who have millions and who 'worked hard' for it may have done so, but not any harder than someone working in a pipe foundry for $10/hour. Those people can work as hard as possible at those jobs and never get any closer to the reward.

      Yet, again, we have to explain to the socialists how the world really works.
      There is a thing called supply and demand. The reason an unskilled shitty job pays $6/hr is that there are a ton of people lined up to do it. The reason another job pays $45/hr is that there are not many people who can't do it. Do you think the person who pays $45/hr wants to pay $45/hr? Nope, they would rather pay you $6/hr, but they can't because there is a scarcity of labor for the $45/hr job.
      It has nothing to do with physical labor. Very few people can NOT do a physical intensive labor job and very few people have the skill set for the $45/hr job.

      --
      Linux O Muerte!
    31. Re:Hmmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Holy heck, your cost for an employee is only $20K/year, including worker's comp, unemployment, and infrastructure costs? I'm not sure what third-world hellhole you live in, but I'm sure I don't want to work there.

      Not to mention the fact that we're talking about personal income tax, not corporate income tax here. I guess you could have added 10 more folks to your personal bodyguard of trained ninja assassins, but excuse me if I don't cry too many tears over your missed opportunity.

    32. Re:Hmmm by Rick+Zeman · · Score: 1

      The big issue with a flat tax regressive tax

      Err, a flat "regressive" tax is a contradiction. A tax can be flat (all taxed at the same percentage; example, making 100k and paying 20% same as everyone else), progressive (you make more you pay a higher percentage; example, making 100k and paying 28% where the guy making 40k pays 15%) which is what the US has in place now); or regressive, where you make more you pay a lesser percentage (example, making 100k and paying 12% while someone who makes 40k pays 18 %).

      How is a flat tax regressive? Just because something's not progressive doesn't make it regressive.

    33. Re:Hmmm by beakburke · · Score: 1

      We aren't talking about corporate taxes, IIRC, just personal. But I have a way to solve this gross/net cunundrum. We should eliminate the corporate income tax. Just tax capital gains and dividends as income. That should partially balance out the loss of the corporate income tax and it would encourage more investment from the poor, since their tax rate is lower than the current capital gains rate.

      --
      ----- Question authority, but not ours. Hate the man, but we're not him.
    34. Re:Hmmm by Carnildo · · Score: 1

      Income - anything that comes into my posession that I do not need to eventually return (with the sole exception, for the purpose of avoiding recursion, that you do not need to consider tax refunds as income). So a loan wouldn't count, but my salary would.

      So a $1000 student loan counts as $0 for income. What about a $1000 Pell grant? You don't need to pay it back, so in some sense it's income, but you aren't free to use it for anything other than college tuition. What about a four-year free-ride scholarship? If four years of tuition to that college is $40,000, does the scholarship count as $40,000 income, even though no actual money is involved?

      --
      "They redundantly repeated themselves over and over again incessantly without end ad infinitum" -- ibid.
    35. Re:Hmmm by Elias+Serge · · Score: 1

      If you had read the article, you'd know that it costs the IRS $0.45 to collect $1. This cost has not been reduced much in the past 2 decades.

    36. Re:Hmmm by WaxParadigm · · Score: 1

      Wow, not only are you ignorant, you spread FUD based on that ignorance.

      - Do you really think that people pay $1m/year pay according to their tax rate? No way. When you have money you can do two things: (1) buy loopholes (2) afford to hire an accountant to jump through said loopholes. So the poor get a free ride (no taxes + handouts), the rich get their loopholes, and the middle class get royally screwed (from the perspective of % of income actually paid in taxes).

      - Most flat-tax proposals include something like a standard deduction or include progressive rates at the real low end - so it's not truely a flat tax usually being spoken about...it's just a lot flatter than usual.

      - Mr $1m and Mr $18k both go to lunch and get the same meal. Mr $18k pays $0.36 for the same lunch Mr $1m pays $20 for and you're saying that's UNFAIR to Mr $1m (who has very likely created wealth/opportunity/income not only for himself, but for many other people and that $1m is a reflection of that contribution to society)? Wow, I hope you make more $$ than me and we have lunch sometime.

      - If you think someone should have a free lunch, or you think they shouldn't - you should be able to act on that. The government is horribly poor at identifying need (those with real need are often "not eligable" while others take advantage of the system) and even worse at efficiently helping those in need (LOTS of overhead). Individuals are much better at making charitable decisions, and private charities are much better at providing those services than the government. You might SOUND compassionate in passing a bill to yank another $200/year from every taxpayer through force and redistribute it for benefit...but really the effect is quite the opposite.

      - The government's job is not to encourage or discourage people from doing "good" or "bad" things (as dictated by YOU). You might have good intentions in strong-arming people to hold the same values as you or make the choices you think are "right" - but in the end you're still strong-arming people and setting precidence for truely evil things to be implemented/enforced through a similar means. It's VERY ignorant to think that a certain decision is right/beneficial for everyone. It's VERY oppressive/tyrranical to enforce that decision through law or use the cohersive powers (like tax) to all but enforce it.

      A "flat tax" would be more equitable than our current taxing system in many ways:
      1. Cost of compliance (not only is this more fair, it's more efficient - and an efficient economy is better for everyone).
      2. Fairness (no/less loopholes and no free lunches - at least not provided by the state).
      3. Socially. No cohersion as to how to run your life / what decisions to make.

      Educate yourself on the issues and use common sense - or take your Marxism and stay out of/leave the US!

    37. Re:Hmmm by jcr · · Score: 1

      Basically, the IRS is the biggest political tool ever created in human history. Getting rid of it is not only impossible, it's less possible than impossible.

      I used to think the same thing about the Soviet Union..

      -jcr

      --
      The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    38. Re:Hmmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      "The easiest was done for $45/hour"

      Yes, successfully completing high school up and through graduation, working hard every year in order to insure good grades and college entrance, and then completing a four year degree in CS was much easier than mopping the floors at your local Safeway?

      I don't think you realize that sitting in your office today is the result of *years* of work on your part.

      Working hard does not mean hitting your head up against the wall for hours on end. While painful, it isn't extremely difficult to pour forms or lay brick. But working hard usually means not only dedication to an idea, but the strength and willingness to sacrifice to accomplish that ideal.

      I've worked as a groundskeeper, retail, and construction. In my experience, the only people in those positions that never get any closer to a reward were those not willing to give up drinking, drugs, or a lazy lifestyle subsidized by people with the same misguided pretentions as you.

    39. Re:Hmmm by geekoid · · Score: 1

      or lost.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    40. Re:Hmmm by DunbarTheInept · · Score: 1

      The way inflation works, there is no difference between earning $18k a year in a depressed economy versus earning $25k a year in a prosperoous one. The worth of money is relative. And going to a flat tax system would affect the economy tremendously.

      How is getting paid 18k, of which you get to keep all of it, any better than what would happen with a flat tax, which is to get paid more for the same work, and lose some of it such that you're left with the same 18k. Employers pay what they think workers will accept for the work, and what they think they are willing to spare. If you tax the rich (the employers) more than the poor, then the rich get more stingy and don't pay the poor as much, espeically when they know the poor will accept a small pay because they aren't being taxed.

      --

      Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.

    41. Re:Hmmm by HyperCash · · Score: 1

      No, what you just described is a perfectly fair system. If people get hit in the pocketbook when they vote for people who spend, spend, spend then maybe they will stop voting for them. But if they can just say, "oh, tax the rich" then all we are ever going to do is spend, spend, spend.

      --
      So I'm jump'n up and down screaming show me the money.
    42. Re:Hmmm by holzp · · Score: 1

      because of course someone making 18k per year doesnt use any public resources (schools,police,fire,sewers,highways,military) so why should they have to pay for it?

    43. Re:Hmmm by Flower · · Score: 1
      It's in TFA.
      Meanwhile, the cost of collecting $1 of revenue--45 cents in 2002, the last year for which statistics are available--has not appreciably declined in two decades.

      I apologize in advance for the pain, suffering and rage I just inflicted on any in the community.
      --
      I don't want knowledge. I want certainty. - Law, David Bowie
    44. Re:Hmmm by DunbarTheInept · · Score: 1

      "flat tax" means flat percentage. It does not mean a constant value, as your $10,000 example is.

      --

      Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.

    45. Re:Hmmm by larry+bagina · · Score: 1
      If not, then I can easily hide lots of income by borrowing against a marketable asset. Oh, and how do you determine if that is happening anyway?

      So? You borrow money, you pay it back with interest. Why does it matter if someone does that? Millions of people borrow money to buy cars, houses, even TVs from Best Buy. It doesn't gain you anything as far as tax purposes are concerned.

      --
      Do you even lift?

      These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.

    46. Re:Hmmm by GlassHeart · · Score: 1
      Yeah, and you'd have the most unfair (notice I didn't say inequitable) taxing system ever. What a mess this would be! The poor, who currently pay basically no taxes on their 18K per year suddenly owe $3.600 / year, which is like 4 months rent.

      One reason why the US tax system is so messy is because people like you (and I don't mean that as an insult) want to use it also as a social equalizer. Thus, you get a credit for taking care of a child, or an elderly person, or for being blind, etc, depending on what portion of the population you think deserves a break.

      Alternatively, you can pursue equalizers on the spending side. Give free healthcare to the poor. Give free (and good!) schooling to the poor. Give them low-cost housing or low interest housing loans. The principle matters more than the examples I'm raising here.

      Now, this may look like simply transferring the mess, but notice that it's much easier to monitor and control government spending than it is to even figure out how much money you did not collect due to various tax credits. The added benefit is a much smaller IRS and much simpler tax form.

    47. Re:Hmmm by SedentaryZ · · Score: 1

      I'm sure that number refers to the cost of 'collections' (think collection agency).
      It's the cost for the IRS to identify and collect tax owed that hasn't been paid. It's clearly not the overhead on general revenue - that would work out to the IRS having a budget nearly half of the total government.

    48. Re:Hmmm by larry+bagina · · Score: 1

      More importantly, abolishing the IRS takes away one of congresses most influential tools. Think of the campaign contributions from people and corporations that would prefer a deduction for this or a credit for that.

      --
      Do you even lift?

      These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.

    49. Re:Hmmm by GlassHeart · · Score: 1
      Net income is unfair, because people will game the system to take large expenses at the same time that they realize large incomes, in order to keep net income down.

      This is a sincere question: what large expenses? Do you mean buy lots of useless office equipment, for example? If the expenses involve buying something, then whoever is selling that stuff will be taxed anyway. Why is that a problem?

    50. Re:Hmmm by SedentaryZ · · Score: 1

      Any flat tax that has a chance of being implemented would have some large check-off or deduction for the first X% of income.

      We already have one form of a flat tax - FICA (social security and medicare). FICA is a flat 15% of your income, up to a set limit (around 85K, I think), after which you only are taxed for the medicare portion, about 3%. So there's a nifty flat tax that *is* regressive, because it only applies to the first X dollars of your income.

      Speaking of inequality, one of the largest problems with the current taxation system (as I see it) is that for the past few decades the percentage of people paying little or nothing keeps increasing. We're turning into a society where a large proportion of the voters bear no direct responsibility for the cost of the programs being voted on. That can't be a good situation.

    51. Re:Hmmm by Peyna · · Score: 1

      So you're saying it reduce corporate and special interest influence in congress?

      How exactly is that a bad thing?

      --
      What?
    52. Re:Hmmm by the_rev_matt · · Score: 1

      Just to pick nits, no one who is poor is paying 900/month rent.

      --
      this is getting old and so are you

      blog

    53. Re:Hmmm by SedentaryZ · · Score: 1

      We already do have a regressive flat tax - social security. It's a flat tax (12.4% of income) for the first $87,000. Any income above $87,000 is not taxed.

    54. Re:Hmmm by repetty · · Score: 1

      "Yet, again, we have to explain to the socialists how the world really works."

      You have an excellent explanation but it does not invalidate his observation... or mine.

    55. Re:Hmmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Social security isn't supposed to be a tax. It's a pension plan. It also has low payout caps and clawbacks for high earners.

    56. Re:Hmmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Yet, again, we have to explain to the socialists how the world really works.

      If you claimed to explain capitalism, you would have been correct. But the world doesn't by definition work that way. Capitalism has a thing called supply and demand. It also creates artificial scarcity and defines "the economy" as the all-important issue.

      I don't mind it when people think capitalism is the best possible system; there are certainly valid points to be made for it, just as for other systems. But I hate it when someone sees it as some unchangeable basic physical law.

    57. Re:Hmmm by tordia · · Score: 1
      People who make $1M still notice $200k. It may not hurt them AS MUCH. But it still hurts them.

      You've just pointed out the main point of a progressive tax system. It doesn't hurt them as much, so they get taxed more. The goal is making the "hurt" even across the board, as opposed to making the tax percentage even across the board, as in the flat tax.

      --

      Frogs are primitive animals - so the occasional extra toe is not that unusual. But this is very unusual.

    58. Re:Hmmm by LetterJ · · Score: 3, Informative

      Unbelievable. Only on Slashdot would I get called a Socialist. Of course, only on Slashdot would someone make gross assumptions about my entire world view based on a couple of paragraphs.

      Nowhere did I say that the higher paying job isn't valued as such by a capitalist economy. That's just high school economics. What I was responding to was a comment indicating that directly linked the act of working hard (which many unskilled workers do for 30+ years) to the rewards of financial success. That's a false cause->effect link, hence my response.

      Do I believe that my current situation (incidentally not at that highest rate) comes from the years leading up to my current situation and I know that our economy values that. I'm not complaining.

      However, if I compare the amount of work I've put forth to the work my father has done, according to the post I responded to, he should have 10x my net worth. He's worked harder than anyone else I know and gained nearly none of the reward that the parent post claimed is linked.

    59. Re:Hmmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How about... no. Income is cash money, only. Period. How is this so hard?

    60. Re:Hmmm by LetterJ · · Score: 1

      That's actually my point. The parent post claimed that if they just worked harder, they'd get the reward that the wealthy have clearly earned. Anyone who's observed the lack of correlation you describe would see that there is no link.

      In a purely capitalistic view, there's no judgement about that fact, it just *is*.

    61. Re:Hmmm by poofyhairguy82 · · Score: 1
      People who make $1M still notice $200k. It may not hurt them AS MUCH. But it still hurts them.

      :Cue Big Band Music:

      "Oh Charles! Because of the taxes I have to drive a Lexus instead of a Bentley this year. "

      (Charles) "Don't worry honey. There will hopefully be another Republican president soon. Then we can fly to the mall in a jet!"

    62. Re:Hmmm by LetterJ · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It was the result of years of work, but clearly you didn't watch me slide through high school without taking a book home.

      The simple reality is that my father worked harder than I've ever needed to at his business and farm, as did my grandfather's 65 years on *his* farm. They sacrificed more to try to keep those farm afloat than any IT geek I'll ever meet and it still didn't work. In my experience, some of the hardest working people aren't any closer to the reward and it's got jack squat to do with a lazy lifestyle, drinking or drugs.

      I too have worked as a janitor in a college, worked in fast food, worked in retail stores and worked construction as well as in IT in small businesses, large businesses and schools. The thing is, that in both the "unskilled" jobs and the "skilled" jobs, I saw/see the same lazy attitudes everywhere. Most developers have no more ambition than auto mechanics.

      Does our American economy value one more than the other? Yes. However, lets have no delusions that it's because the auto mechanics don't work as hard.

    63. Re:Hmmm by Herkum01 · · Score: 1

      They don't notice because they never get it. Just like you it is taken out of their paycheck before they every see it.

    64. Re:Hmmm by SedentaryZ · · Score: 1

      Bzzzt. It meets every definition of a tax. You and I are being taxed to finance expenditures for provide supplemental income to older people who are no longer in the workforce. It's certainly not a pension plan. The benefit is not tied to the revenue - for years (pretty much since the beginning of the program) the government has been collecting more social security revenues than it has been spending in benefits. The excess money has been directed into the general fund, used to pay for any and all other government expenses. The pension plan idea (Al Gore's lockbox, anyone?) is pretty much a fiction.

    65. Re:Hmmm by bersl2 · · Score: 1

      Nominally flat tax rates end up being regressive.
      Nominally progressive tax rates end up being flat rate.

      IIRC, this is one of those things you learn in macroeconomics.

      In other news, what I say is that we should have some kind of exponential formula on which one's rate is based. I feel that the bracket system cheats people out of money.

    66. Re:Hmmm by Profane+MuthaFucka · · Score: 1

      Your numbers are not correct. Here are the correct numbers:

      Current situation:
      People earning less than $200,000 pay $900 Billion in total taxes.
      People earning more than $200,000 pay $400 Billion in total taxes.

      Flat Tax situation:
      People earning less than $200,000 pay $950 Billion in total taxes.
      People earning more than $200,000 pay $300 Billion in total taxes.

      --
      Fascism trolls keeping me up every night. When I starts a preachin', he HITS ME WITH HIS REICH!
    67. Re:Hmmm by iwadasn · · Score: 1

      To make it simple it doesn't have to be flat. A classic example is a hyperbolic tax code. The function approaches an asymptotic limit (say 50%, if you want to do something similar to our current code), then what you pay is still very simple. Just plug it into a simple formula, Y = f(X) where X is your income and Y is your taxes. Simple.

      The real thing that would help is a couple simple things.

      1) Tax code based on continuous function. (not steps and other BS).

      2) When you claim the value of something for property taxes the government can either accept your taxes, or buy the thing from you for the price you specified. Voila, no more property tax cheats.

      3) Get rid of most of the subsidies. These are mostly corporate welfare. Conservatives always complain about welfare for poor people and arcane tax codes, but the corporate welfare rules are more bizarre, and cost far more than the welfare that puts food on the table of the poor.

      4) The country should have one class of capital offenses. White collar crime and nothing else. The threat of the chair won't deter crimes of passion, insanity, or hopelessness (most crimes, murders, rapes, etc....) but it sure as hell will deter Embezzlement, bribery, and all manner of Enron/Halliburton style nastiness. White collar criminals are precisely the people who weigh the payoffs vs. the consequences and take whichever action is best on average. Tougher consequences will stop most of them.

    68. Re:Hmmm by ReadParse · · Score: 4, Interesting

      There are many people in the world who would call $18,000 a year -- as you say -- "a shitload of money". Laborers and starving people all over the world who see the incredible wealth all over this country. Then there are all the other countries of the world that pay a MUCH larger tax percentage than most Americans do. Tell them that 20% is too much to pay.

      Prosperity is relative, of course. I used to think of "the rich" in a different way than I do now, because I make more money today than I ever thought I would (and I was making more a few years ago). Of course I'm not "rich", which is kind of a silly word. But there are millions of people in this country who believe that I deserve to pay a higher percentage of my income than they do because I don't need mine as much. That's just not true.

      We all work hard for what we have -- some harder than others, admittedly -- and out standard of living goes up as our income goes up. Most of us spend about 30% of our income on shelter, about 12% on food, and about 5% on clothing. If you make more money, you can spend more on your shelter, food and clothing. And you can also pay more taxes, but the PERCENTAGE should be the same.

      The argument was presented that a guy who makes $16,000 a year shouldn't have to pay $3600 in taxes. Comparing it to 4 months rent was an emotional argument, and I could make the same argument but take it a step further. My total tax for 2003 is roughly equal to 7.5 months of my mortgage payments. How is that fair to me? There are people who honestly think that I have piles of cash sitting around my living room, I guess. Believe me, I don't. I have financial struggles too.

      And the guy who makes a million dollars a year? He probably has a $15,000 mortgage payment. You could confront him with that and shame him for living in an expensive house, but you, too, would probably want to live in an expensive house if your hard work made you wealthy (insert here the tired argument about how none of the rich have ever worked hard for anything).

      Fortunately, we have a universal law that makes everything fair. It's called math... more specifically, percentages. If everybody pays the same percentage, instant fairness. This won't happen, though, because the majority of Americans don't want to take the subtantial majority of the tax burden away from the "evil rich". It sure it weird for me to suddenly be among them and feel the hate spewing in my general direction. I'm really, honestly, not rich. I'm just trying to keep things rolling the way they are for me, and maybe a little better, just like everybody else.

      RP

    69. Re:Hmmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Guess what? Your "pension fund" just got entirely spent on a war.

    70. Re:Hmmm by cehardin · · Score: 1
      Simple solution to that, suggested above. The first $X aren't collected. E.g., the first $5k aren't collected. People who make less than $25k pay no taxes. You're effectively only taxed for what you make over $25k (or whatever arbitrary figure you choose).

      I think that is understood. Just like we have exemptions now. Also, the more dependants you have, the higher this amount should become (IMHO).

      That's BS. People who make $1M still notice $200k. It may not hurt them AS MUCH. But it still hurts them.

      You must be outta your mind. $800K/yr for 20 years is not only enough money for a single person, but also enough to enable your grandkids to retire, before they even start college. Think about that. One person making that much money can enable a family to remain wealthy for many generations, perhaps even indefinitely.

      The strange thing about wealthy people is that they posses a lot of money, yet don't bring in more income than the average person. So, they are "rich", yet don't pay as much taxes as people expect.

    71. Re:Hmmm by cheekyboy · · Score: 1

      If we can't decide on whats a fair tax rate, then have NO TAX at all at the income leve, (last I heard income tax as originally defined >150years ago was for IN-COME from outside usa, not inside it). Before 1913 there was no income tax. The govt was smaller, no 20m monkeys to pay audits to.

      What usa needs is;
      A) smaller fed, cut the fat from this lard-ass
      B) no income tax (or at most 5% flat outright no exceptions even if your jesus)
      C) flat/national sales tax 10-15%, with perhaps 5% for food/medical, and 20% for items costing >$1m.

      But its too late...
      the economy is like windows version 214.4

      Its so full of patches/updates , old stuff running with new stuff, stuff thats buggy, stuff thats too new, stuff thats invisible, stuff thats corrupted, its a BIG_ASS mess.

      Time for FORMAT USA:\ and install a new lean mean efficient machine.

      Thats where a forced slow crash by central bankers will happen and a redesign will be implemented with a 1 global currency, aka new world order, perhaps the euro is the contender or a testing ground. Maybe digital MS-CASH, who knows.

      --
      Liberty freedom are no1, not dicks in suits.
    72. Re:Hmmm by Mr.+Piddle · · Score: 1

      But I want to yell "F*CK!" All those tens of thousands of people could be free to get truly productive jobs instead of bullsh*t paper pushing to support political favors...

      Agreed, but there are too many people in the world, now, since so many bullshit jobs has allowed people to think they can afford to reproduce and raise their children to believe they can have a bullshit job, too. It's a vicious cycle.

      --
      Vote in November. You won't regret it.
    73. Re:Hmmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      BZZZT. Sorry, but you are wrong.

      With a flat tax system, everyone under a specified amount would be entirely exempt from taxes.

      Not to rain on your parade, but Russia switched to a flat tax system a few years ago for individuals, and it was an astounding success. In fact, several other Eastern european countries, impressed by Russia's switch, have considered switching to a flat tax as well.

      http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=2612

      Basically, the government ends up getting more money, it becomes impossible for the ultra-rich to hide their money, and it drastically reduces the need for the IRS, which is a huge waste of money in and of itself.

      Hong Kong has also had a very successful tax system, do a search on google.

    74. Re:Hmmm by nyseal · · Score: 1

      If you REALLY have to make the decision between rent and school than you shouldn't be having children to begin with; only to have others making the decision for you for tax reasons. I shouldn't have to ENCOURAGE people to get an education rather than having children based on an economic fact. I shouldn't also have to subsidize those children through my tax dollars because of some universities' idealism of 'a diverse community' and be penalized because I make 'too much money' for my son to get a student loan. I shouldn't have to talk to a 'loan counselor' about paying back a tuition grant because I was mistaken for a 'minority' during the application process. Bottom line: one HAS to choose between rent and school....which will it be?

      --
      [SIG] Remember Mattel handheld games?
    75. Re:Hmmm by rhuntley12 · · Score: 1

      Damn, they only get a 25000 SqFt house instead of that 30000 Sqft.

      I just pulled those numbers out of my ass.

    76. Re:Hmmm by nyseal · · Score: 1

      So I guess we should make the tax laws even more difficult just to inconvenience Bill Gates?

      --
      [SIG] Remember Mattel handheld games?
    77. Re:Hmmm by nyseal · · Score: 1

      Here we go...someone fucking up a simple idea with current government idealisms and allowisisms. Start from scratch. Taxes like these would do well; REGARDLESS of the income source(s). Net is net and gross is gross....regardless. In any scenario there's still a money trail to profit or loss, which is the ulitimate goal; regardless of intent. The whole point is to make this easier, not screw it up with current guidelines and laws that define sidelines or profitiablity as prescribed by the 'law'. The first step is to define the problem, then define the root cause and provide long term corrective action.....regardless of current investment interests by corporate (government).

      --
      [SIG] Remember Mattel handheld games?
    78. Re:Hmmm by mcowger · · Score: 1

      Your comment is the only one I've read so far that was decent and intelligent, so I'll respond to you.

      I DO think that we should use taxes as a social equalizer. I WANT that. I dont care in the least about credit for it, I just want it to happen. Fundamentally, our goal is the same, I think

      I agree, we DO need to offer free health care, and good free education. But thats costs MUCHO $$. Who is MORE able to afford that? The rich, pure and simple. Even those like me who make a decent living and dont need it all should be contributing. My argument is that the promary burden should be shifted to those to whom a large tax means less.

      I think we want the same thing....but I think flat taxes are the wrong way to get there. CERTAINLY we need it to be simplified, but flat isn't the way to do it.

    79. Re:Hmmm by mcowger · · Score: 1

      I agree with this concept - it makes alot of sense. I was just saying that a pure flat method is silly.

      Re: #4) I agree with the concept, but I dont agree with the death penalty....but pretty bad penalities like LONG prison terms and capture of assests doesn't bother me.

    80. Re:Hmmm by cheekyboy · · Score: 1

      No, but 3 poor people can live together and pay $300 each.

      The problem with the tax system is that a lot of old people 65+, are not working, thus not paying tax, and have some schemes going on that reduce their tax to zero. Not only that, most of their money was probly invested tax free. Add to that they get discounts/concessions for being old. And whos paying for that? All the young people by their income tax/SST/MC/SalesTax.

      TIP:
      do a sum of all people in usa, and their untaxed income, then calc the amount IRS takes from them per year. Then do the same for corporates, add up all their revenue and then tally up their tax contributions. I am sure you will see a very unqual spread.

      NOTE: companies these days have rights above a human citizen, but with the advantage that they can live forever. (IBM) And can be existing everywhere at once. But do they pay a fair amount of tax??? Afterall , they do use 'govt' services indirectly, they wouldnt exist without the military protecting them from invasion, or legislation or infrastructure (which more and more of it is owned by corporates so why not reduce tax).

      Now the question is , IS tax a 'fee' to be in the 'club' of the country? or a real 'fee' for the services for which you may never use. Or is it a redistribution of wealth because humans are naturally very greedy beyond any other life form.

      You have to also analyse why there are poor people, some because of circumstance, some because of greedy rich people, some are poor because other poor people are selfish and greedy for freebies.

      Perhaps what makes poor people is too much wealth being used for stuff that only helps more rich people, like too much $$$ going into realestate instead of other better productive investments, i mean prices keep going up, ie housing is sucking up more capital, its like a black hole. But housing can only do so much for us all, they can only hire so many builders/plumbers painters, the more expensive houses get, i doubt the builders are getting 15% increase in wages yearly, so where does all that money go? to the sellers whichi pocket it to buy more properties. If all those trillions of loans were instead used for better things, infrustructure, better roads, better schooling, cheaper alternative energies, solar etc... anything, mach7 planes, etc... $1000 billion a year could do a lot of help to USA each year, but if all of it goes into properties theres only so much usefull benefit it is having if all the profits just go back to developers which then convert all their profits back to bonds/tbills or safe investments. ( because we know a 15-20% rocketing property market is unsustainable)

      --
      Liberty freedom are no1, not dicks in suits.
    81. Re:Hmmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "What percentage of our income taxes paid in the US goes towards collecting those same taxes?"

      from the article:
      "Meanwhile, the cost of collecting $1 of revenue--45 cents in 2002, the last year for which statistics are available--has not appreciably declined in two decades."

      Some googling and a few back-of-the-envelope calculations reveals the significance of 45 cents.

      Total federal tax revenues amount to about 2 trillion dollars per year. So that 45 cents represents about 900 billion dollars: The federal government spends 900 billion dollars per year collecting taxes. We could go to war with Iraq eight times a year for that amount.

      That magnitude suggests that tax collection, like the New York City subway system, can never be made efficient. The IRS is paying out 900 billion per year to collect taxes, therefore to the recipients of those payments, the IRS employees and contractors, keeping the present system in place is collectively worth a total of 900 billion dollars per year. That is an invincible lobby. Congress can not challenge a group which has a 900 billion-dollar vested interest in maintaining the status quo with an 8 billion dollar investement and reasonably expect results. In fact all Congress has achieved is to contribute another 8 billion dollars of income to those with a financial interest in opposing reform. For two decades IRS employees and contractors have been totally effective in obstructing reform by operating from within the IRS and without even spending a dime yet on lobbying against reform. It is an indication of how seriously they take these reforms that they have not yet even begun to buy politicians for the purpose of protecting their jobs.

      The problem of inefficient tax collection will probably never be fixed but we can fantasize: Suppose that by modernizing tax collection the IRS could lower costs of operating its cash registers to 10 cents on the dollar from 45 cents. That would result in a total savings of about 693 billion dollars per year. How much is 693 billion dollars per year ? According to the Census Bureau web site the population of the U.S. in the year 2000 was 281,421,906. So 693 billion dollars is an average tax rebate of $2,500 per citizen per year.

      The Cencus Bureau also reports that there are about 34 million Americans living in poverty. If the goverment were to lower the cost of tax collection to 10% of revenues and transfered the savings directly to impoverished citizens, then each impoverished american would receive a cash payment of $20,000 per year. That is per citizen, not per houshold. A single impoverished mother with three children would receive $80,000 per year. Two impoverished parents with a total of four children would recieve $120,000. per year. That would be cash on top of benefits the goverment already gives them in food stamps, medicare, free housing and education. I'd give up my programming job and get rich by breeding with a female. With a wife and four children, after ten years of compounded interest on investments, we would be multi-millionaires.

      Any idea what you get if you add up the cost to tax payers of compliance (figuring out how much we owe), the economic loss of tax avoidance (what we waste on stupid investments for the sake of deductions), and the inefficiency of revenue collection (the 45 cents/dollar) ? Maybe a couple of trillion dollars per year ? I have hunch that if we could ever enact a flat tax with no deductions and reform the IRS that the resulting explosion of economic growth would be so great that we could soon extinguish poverty by letting the homeless stay at our floating palaces while we commute to the moon stadium in our private rocket cars. Serioulsy, there must be a point on the curve of economic growth when the bills which we casually hand to the beggers on the street are $100's and not $1's. We should question whether the opportunites lost by the poor living in a society economically retarded by a wasteful tax system might exceed the value of the government entitlements from which they benefit. Would we not all be made better off by terminating this wasteful progressive taxation system enacted in the name of "fairness".

    82. Re:Hmmm by nelsonal · · Score: 1

      Another thing is that most people who are making seven figs burn out at thirty, die at 40, or risked their net worth through their twenties. I'd suggest that everyone read the millionare next door, it describes a study that found that most millionares had very simple lifestyles, including buying used cars (or trucks) and Penny's suits. My income tax bill (state and fed) was equal to about 18 months of rent for me, of course I sort of skimp on rent.

      --
      Degaussing scares the bad magnetism out of the monitor and fills it with good karma.
    83. Re:Hmmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You don't live in the bay area, do you? $18,000 in the bay area sucks ass.

    84. Re:Hmmm by mindriot · · Score: 1

      My goodness, we're in a computer age - and the data processing won't be done without a computer anyway! So why should we not use more complicated formulas for tax calculations? Transparency for the citizens, you say? Put up a damn website that lets people find out how much they owe and why.

      Here's two examples. What's so much more difficult and complex about the second as long as people have possibilities (e.g. tools) to find out about their tax rates?

      tax1(x) =
      { 0, x < $25k
      { x*0.2, otherwise

      tax2(x) =
      { 0, x < $25k
      { x*(0.1+(x-$25k)/400k), $25k <= x < $125k
      { x*0.25, otherwise

      The second attempt is just linearly progressive. And the problem with that is still that it doesn't get the government enough money, becase the majority of the population sits in the middle class. That's why you'd usually make this not linear, but instead use a slight curve with d^2/dx^2 tax(x) < 0.

      What's the point in making the tax calculation easier ? It will please Joe Average and make him vote for whatever party in question, but it will either not bring the gov't enough money, or be blatantly unfair (of course, hey, Joe Average can calculate his taxes on a piece of paper, woohoo).

      Don't simplify the tax formulas. Instead, use technology to maximize transparency.

      (Note: I am not a financial expert, so go ahead and tell me off for BSing if you must :)

    85. Re:Hmmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just to pick nits, no one who is poor is paying 900/month rent.

      It's nice that you can make blanket statements. Never lived in an area with a high cost of living, huh?

    86. Re:Hmmm by Captain+Large+Face · · Score: 1

      So, people that earn less than $25,000 pay no taxes, and everyone else pays 20%? How high will taxes go the next fiscal year when your enormous budget defecit is revealed.

      Stepped taxation is the probably the fairest method of taxation. Those who can afford to lose the most will pay the most taxes. If you charge a static rate, you'll have to match that rate to equal the cost of public services. What do you reckon the weighted average rate is for taxpayers in the US. I bet it's a shitload higher than 20%.

    87. Re:Hmmm by Captain+Large+Face · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I'm British, and I don't know how it works in your country, but I don't think your assumptions about percentages really works, because it ignores minimum market costs for the various expenditures.

      If I earn 100 times more than my fellow man, is it really likely that I will spend 100 times more than him? Am I really likely to spend GBP 200.00 on each meal when my fellow man spends only GBP 2.00? I seriously doubt it.

      In the UK, we have a real issue with the cost of housing at the moment (house prices increased by 18% over the past 12 months) and are escaping the budgets of those earning minimum wage. Say the minimum house price is GBP 80,000.00, this is the minimum value my fellow man can pay for a house. I, however, am unlikely to have a GBP 8,000,000.00 house, so how do I justify the scale.

      Taxation should be about assuring a minimum quality of life. You may be earning a lot of money, and I'm sure you're not getting paid for no reason, so I expect you deserve to be able to spend a large amount of disposable income. However, someone earning a lot less than you is unlikely to be just sitting around on their arse doing nothing, so why should they struggle?

      I do pretty well in terms of my salary, but I can afford to pay more taxes to enable other members of my society to have more happiness in their lives, and increase the quality of public services. Taxes aren't about you, they're about society.

    88. Re:Hmmm by the_rev_matt · · Score: 1

      Nope, just L.A. and San Francisco, two notoriously affordable markets.

      --
      this is getting old and so are you

      blog

    89. Re:Hmmm by ciggieposeur · · Score: 1

      I call bullshit.

      Yet, again, we have to explain to the socialists how the world really works.

      Yet again, I have to explain to the libertarian how the capitalists really run the country.

      There is a thing called supply and demand. The reason an unskilled shitty job pays $6/hr is that there are a ton of people lined up to do it. The reason another job pays $45/hr is that there are not many people who can't [sic] do it. Do you think the person who pays $45/hr wants to pay $45/hr? Nope, they would rather pay you $6/hr, but they can't because there is a scarcity of labor for the $45/hr job.

      $45/hr is paid for the white-collar jobs because there would be open revolt in the streets if it wasn't. Look at Argentina and Venezuela to see what I mean -- they have engineers in those countries too. Also look at Brazil to see what the false assertions of supply and demand can ultimately lead to. Or if you want the home-grown version, just read Nickel and Dimed.

      It has nothing to do with supply and demand, it has everything to do with maintaining the social order. Don't believe me? Read up on the struggle to set a minimum wage. By paying a modest income to the middle class, the upper class maintains power by ensuring that the middle class identifies with them and not the working class, preventing the 99% of the country in the two lower classes from joining together and forcibly changing the distribution of wealth. Simple and effective, dating back to ancient times.

      FYI I know lots of $6/hr jobs that are actually quite fun to do, I'd even take one if I could ever find a combination of (barebones dwelling + mandated auto insurance + electricity) that $6/hr could pay for. Those jobs aren't shitty, and the people in them aren't shitty either. You might check your (false) classist elitism at the door next time you argue economics.

      It has nothing to do with physical labor. Very few people can NOT do a physical intensive labor job and very few people have the skill set for the $45/hr job.

      *laugh* Yeah, right. I may not be able to pick random people off the bus to do my (former) job, but I've got five friends making $10/hr who could've done it if they could have gotten through the hiring process. But without a college degree -- that is to say a piece of paper from an accredited school proving that they have family money or are indebted already -- they are magically unable to perform the same duties I did. It's called "artificial scarcity", and it's what happens when the bar is (needlessly) raised to get any good-paying job.

      <sarcasm>Next I suppose you'll be helping your employer outsource your own job, because that too is just an expression of supply and demand.</sarcasm> (Hint: Look up Bretton Woods, the petrodollar, and the creation of the floating money exchange. Yet another artificial monkeywrench into the global economy to make the American dollar purchase way more than it's theoretically supposed to.)

    90. Re:Hmmm by GlassHeart · · Score: 1
      I think we want the same thing....but I think flat taxes are the wrong way to get there.

      By flat tax I did't really mean that literally everybody pays 17% or whatever. If society decides that the rich should pay more, then the tax rates are still easily designed. For example:

      • first $25,000: 10%
      • portion beyond $25,000: 15%
      • portion beyond $100,000: 20%
      • portion beyond $500,000: 30%
      This way, if you make $100,001, then $25K of that would be taxed at 10%, $75K at 15%, and $1 at 20%. This avoids a huge difference in taxes between you and somebody who made $99,999. The good thing is that this is still nothing that would require a huge IRS, and takes literally minutes to compute.
    91. Re:Hmmm by larry+bagina · · Score: 1
      it would be a good thing. But who has the ability to abolish the IRS? Members of congress. Who benefits most from the IRS? Members of congress.

      See the major obstacle?

      --
      Do you even lift?

      These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.

    92. Re:Hmmm by Pieroxy · · Score: 1

      I, however, am unlikely to have a GBP 8,000,000.00 house

      And why not? Here, in the silicon valley, I can assure you that some people live in US$>10M houses.

    93. Re:Hmmm by CAIMLAS · · Score: 1

      That's BS. People who make $1M still notice $200k. It may not hurt them AS MUCH. But it still hurts them.

      I'm sorry, no. It doesn't. Not when they're still making over 40 times the income of the "median". All it does is hinder their ability to purchase their second yacht, increase their wealth further (exponentially) by playing the game that is the stock market.

      The current view behind =not= taxing the rich is that the rich are the ones that spur on our economy and create the jobs, thus they should be given leeway in the arena of taxes: after all, that money will come back to the public in the form of increased jobs and innovation, right? At least, that's what we plebians are told.

      Of course, we all know how wrong that belief is, given the outsourcing, abuse, and other such atrocities that those At The Top perform.

      --
      ~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
    94. Re:Hmmm by CAIMLAS · · Score: 1

      Net income is unfair, because people will game the system to take large expenses at the same time that they realize large incomes, in order to keep net income down.

      It's sick that this is true. In an economy where workers are valued, companies would use that profit to give more money back to the employees, improving the societal wealth.

      --
      ~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
    95. Re:Hmmm by Captain+Large+Face · · Score: 1

      I don't doubt it. The argument was about the minimum supply. I might earn 100 times my fellow man, but I don't *need* to spend 100 times on a house!

  10. IRS recordkeeping by vandelais · · Score: 3, Funny

    I don't understand why they just don't get Intuit to do it.

    No pun intended.

    --
    Game: Player 'Donald J Trump' now has AI skill level 'experimental'.
    1. Re:IRS recordkeeping by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      No pun intended

      No pun posted.

    2. Re:IRS recordkeeping by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Let me put it this way: I asked my girlfriend if she wanted to have a three-way but she said she wasn't intuit.

    3. Re:IRS recordkeeping by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Still no pun, just a misspelling. Unless somehow the reader is to presume that your girlfriend is denying being some tax software company and that that denial has something to do with her not wanting to fuck two other people at once. Is that the case, mister hypothetical dater of sexually-conservative girls easily confused with tax software companies?

    4. Re:IRS recordkeeping by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      If the Master File crashes, the government would not be able to collect its $2 trillion in revenue or pay for anything, whether it's Social Security benefits or the bill for new weapons systems.

      Just pray they don't go the Microsoft route.

    5. Re:IRS recordkeeping by marhar · · Score: 1
  11. Let us have a crack at it! by cryms0n · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Why not publish the taxing rules and let someone
    throw together a Postgresql/Apache software package?

    1. Re:Let us have a crack at it! by Omega1045 · · Score: 1

      Well, I believe all the rules are published, in both laws and regulations.

      --

      Great ideas often receive violent opposition from mediocre minds. - Albert Einstein

    2. Re:Let us have a crack at it! by name773 · · Score: 1

      because then someone might crack it

    3. Re:Let us have a crack at it! by pseudochaotic · · Score: 1

      if(person == me) { taxes = 0; }

      --
      And the l33t shall inherit the 34r7h.
    4. Re:Let us have a crack at it! by afidel · · Score: 1

      Ah yes, but they are so obtuse that not even the IRS can always answer detailed questions, and even if they can they will tell you that the answer is non-binding and that a tax court may not rule the same as the answer you were given.

      --
      There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
    5. Re:Let us have a crack at it! by kfg · · Score: 1

      As has already been noted the taxing rules are public information, they are published. That's how and why people are expected to abide by them.

      You obviously havn't tried to read them.

      Give it a go.

      Good luck.

      Oh, and wear a truss.

      KFG

    6. Re:Let us have a crack at it! by LarsWestergren · · Score: 4, Funny

      Why not publish the taxing rules and let someone
      throw together a Postgresql/Apache software package?


      Ahh, the refreshing enthusiasm of the naive. Or perhaps you ment it as a joke and the mods didn't get that?

      --

      Being bitter is drinking poison and hoping someone else will die

    7. Re:Let us have a crack at it! by the_machine · · Score: 1
      Why not publish the taxing rules and let someone
      throw together a Postgresql/Apache software package?


      Sure, it's only 2.8 million words. I'm sure you could throw together a solution quite easily. Here you go... http://www.fourmilab.ch/uscode/26usc/

  12. 8Billion!! by nevek · · Score: 2, Funny

    Can I audit them when they just "write it off" ?

  13. unix? by anthony_philipp · · Score: 4, Insightful

    doesnt unix still run code from the 1970's or there abouts? just because its old doesnt mean it sucks. linux still runs code from its early days also. just a question anthony

    1. Re:unix? by reverendG · · Score: 3, Insightful

      a few key differences...

      Unix is written in C, many variants of which and decendents of which are still in use, so it isn't nearly as obscure as something written in Pascal or Fortran, not to mention some of the MUCH more outdated relics. The article didn't even mention what outdated language was used by the IRS in 1962.

      Also, Unix is an OS that has evolved in the public domain for decades, open to the light of day. The IRS hodgepodge has grown up and together like a blackberry bush. Neither system looks the same as it did when created, but at least some order was imposed on Unix.

      --

      Why should I argue rationally with someone being irrational? I'll just mock them instead.
    2. Re:unix? by sphealey · · Score: 4, Informative
      The article didn't even mention what outdated language was used by the IRS in 1962.
      If it is truly from 1962, IBM 1401 assembly language would be the most likely candidate.

      sPh

    3. Re:unix? by Electrum · · Score: 4, Funny

      If it is truly from 1962, IBM 1401 assembly language would be the most likely candidate.

      Now that's job security.

    4. Re:unix? by ThisIsFred · · Score: 2, Insightful

      That's also some damn good code. :>

      --
      Fred

      "A fool and his freedom are soon parted"
      -RMS
    5. Re:unix? by OneFootIn · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The fact that it's old and still in use probably means that it sucks less. Hell -- the IRS is still in business, isn't it? Think of all the headaches (and $) they've saved over the years by not upgrading. And everyone should stop blaming the ancient programmers -- they don't make the decisions.

    6. Re:unix? by biobogonics · · Score: 1

      If it is truly from 1962, IBM 1401 assembly language would be the most likely candidate.

      And the place to find experts in this would be ...... INDIA. Because of the export embargo from the US to India up until the late 80s, people in India were running old equipment long since scrapped in the US. (Sort of like the cars in Havana.) You want to find a manual on RPG (the programming language not the type of game) dollars to doughnuts it's on an Indian website.

    7. Re:unix? by danheskett · · Score: 2, Insightful

      That's a terrible way to look at it. If the IRS was a truly business organization they would have been eliminated through the market decades agao. They lose stuff, work in a haphazard way, and basically completely fail in virtually every metric available. If you call them for help with a tax question, you've got a good chance that the info you will get is wrong, incorrect, flawed, or simply false.

      I dont blame the ancient programmers. I blame congress. Hundreds of tax law changes a year for 50 years is the ultimate culprit. A real programmer of the Unix-ish variety could rewrite the tax laws to be revenue neutral in about 10 days to be no more than 100 pages long. That same programmer could implement the system that would effecitvely reduce fraud and run on a fraction of the hardware in a few months.

    8. Re:unix? by cgenman · · Score: 1

      Are you suggesting we outsource the IRS to India?

      *Sigh*

    9. Re:unix? by really? · · Score: 1

      and why not? Talking to some guy/gall in India whose accent it all but inintelligible can't be any worse than talking to some of teh IRS "help" staff. Sure the locally grown moro^H^H^H^H employee enunciates better, but at the end of the call I still have no idea if I have a lot of mony coming my way, or whether I have to run away from the country.

      And, I am not even an USian, I just have the good fortune of having some income/property there.

      --

      "Consistency is contrary to nature, contrary to life. The only completely consistent people are the dead." A. Huxley
    10. Re:unix? by Ronan_The_Barbarian · · Score: 0

      Right yeah! And and i think if Charles Darwin looked at you, he would find the missing link between man and beast

    11. Re:unix? by aallan · · Score: 1

      ...so it isn't nearly as obscure as something written in Pascal or Fortran

      Pascal, yes. But Fortran? There is still alot of development done today in the defense, and other related industries, in Fortran. It's robust and fast, and that's all that matters.

      Al.
      --
      The Daily ACK - Eclectic posts by yet another hacker
    12. Re:unix? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, a lot of Cobol. I know a several IRS programmers and that is their primary language.

    13. Re:unix? by Rick.C · · Score: 2, Interesting
      IBM 1401 assembly language

      Ah, you young whipper-snappers.

      That's IBM 1401 Autocoder.

      And the source code is probably long gone. One of Autocoder's "strengths" was that you could easily patch the object deck without having to re-compile. The compiles took a long time, so everyone just added a patch card or two or three to the end of the object deck, (which was punched cards), and re-ran the failing job. After serveral iterations, the patch cards outnumbered the original object code cards. The source code no longer matched what was running in production, so it was tossed in the trash. Any new enhancements were made via patch cards, and you were basically doing a manual assembly at that point.

      So if you want to maintain Autocoder, you should have the instruction set memorized and understand the concept of "word-marks".

      --
      You were 80% angel, 10% demon. The rest was hard to explain. - Over The Rhine
      "Math in a song is good."-Linford
    14. Re:unix? by cmdr_beeftaco · · Score: 1

      Actually that is part of the problem, nobody remembers the name of the language. Another advantage of C is that it's name is only a single letter and very easy to remember.

    15. Re:unix? by really? · · Score: 1

      Beast, moi? Well, now that you mention it, yes. And your point was ???

      --

      "Consistency is contrary to nature, contrary to life. The only completely consistent people are the dead." A. Huxley
    16. Re:unix? by Ronan_The_Barbarian · · Score: 0

      Sorry.
      The comment was meant as reply to: Re:unix? (Score:2) by biobogonics (513416) on Thursday April 08, @09:25AM (#8800303)

  14. IRS should hire Darl McBride by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    At least this way IRS has guaranteed income of $699 per person, company, pet, and everything else in the countey.

  15. taxes by name773 · · Score: 2, Funny

    cost overruns of over $200 million
    next time i'm off by $200 million while paying taxes, they'll understand

    1. Re:taxes by gd2shoe · · Score: 1
      cost overruns of over $200 million next time i'm off by $200 million while paying taxes, they'll understand
      True, but I think there would be no difference if it was 2.5% of your income (in proportion to their budget).
      --
      I won't join Slashcott. OTOH, If Beta goes live, I just won't be back until it's fixed. Sorry Dice.
  16. if it's not broken, why change it? by buht · · Score: 0

    other than making it easier on people, its only once a year so if its not broken why change it

    --

    -- The box said Windows 2000 or better... so I installed Linux
    1. Re:if it's not broken, why change it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      RT_A

  17. $200M and 7 years? Feature! by Tackhead · · Score: 3, Insightful
    > If this project was my responsibility, as CTO I believe I would have canned the whole project and started anew as from the sounds of it, there is too much baggage with which to continue. So, here we go: Don't deal with contractors and subcontractors or if you do, make sure that the IRS is actively involved with management and funding of the project so that nobody gets paid unless key points in the strategy are reached.

    You work in the private sector -- where a CTO's responsibility is to implement the new technology and deliver results.

    I can guarantee you that actually completing a project is not the goal of any government CTO.

    In the public sector, the longer a project takes, the more favorable contracts can be handed out to friends and people from whom political favors can be extracted in the future. The more favors you're owed, the more power you have. The more power you have, the more people you can hire, the bigger your budget, and the more people who owe you favors.

    If your goal is to decrease cost and increase customer service because there's competition that's ready, willing, and able to take customer dollars out of your pockets, those are bugs, not features.

    If your goal is to increase cost and decrease customer service because there is no competition -- and the only way to get more dollars into your pocket is to increase your power, these are features, not bugs.

    In brief: Government - working according to the parameters listed in its functional specification.

  18. They need to privatize the IRS - the only solution by User+956 · · Score: 1

    Privatization has the potential to put a huge dent in big government and save taxpayers billions of dollars each year. Unfortunately, certain people have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo.

    The relatively small number of people or institutions that benefit from a program, including federal employees and their unions, businesses that supply the program, and the communities in which buildings and operations are located always fight to preserve it.

    The important thing is to get people to realize the wasteful nature of self-run government programs and overcome this opposition. For example, opposition to privatization could be significantly reduced by providing government workers and managers with shares of stock in the new private enterprise, either at a discounted price or at no cost at all. Generous severance packages and no-layoff policies also can diminish opposition among employees whose programs are privatization targets.

    --
    The theory of relativity doesn't work right in Arkansas.
  19. GOOD! I don't want a tech advanced IRS, do you? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    keep them in the dark ages

  20. Proper allocation of funds? by Bobdoer · · Score: 2, Funny

    IRS's nearly failed $8 billion modernization attempt
    So, the IRS can't manage money? Then why are we giving our taxes to them?

    1. Re:Proper allocation of funds? by ahodgson · · Score: 1

      Because they carry guns and they'll come hunt you down if you don't let them steal your income.

    2. Re:Proper allocation of funds? by iggymanz · · Score: 1

      even better, if you're on a 1099 basis for self employment, they might come for you if you improperly estimate how much money you might make. Maybe it's time for another tea party.

  21. CIO, IRS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I figured the IRS would be the organization collecting the taxes.

    But what the heck is CIO?

    1. Re:CIO, IRS by (54)T-Dub · · Score: 0
      --

      "I can not bring myself to believe that if knowledge presents danger, the solution is ignorance" - Isaac Asimov
    2. Re:CIO, IRS by captain_craptacular · · Score: 1

      Actually CIO in this context means: Chief Information Officer...

      --
      They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty nor security
    3. Re:CIO, IRS by Uber+Banker · · Score: 0, Funny

      That's what they want you to think.

      But it really means Chief Iguana Ordinance. [Please note my slapdash emboldening of letters in emulation of the parent]

      The real head of the project has been firing iguanas for the last few years but secretly remaining in power, as people, wrongly, think Chief Information Officers are being fired (how can someone be the chief of information anyway - do they sit around all dat loking at numbers on paper saying "I am your Chief"??? NO THEY DON'T! BECAUSE YOU ARE WRONG!!!!)

      BZZT! WRONG!

      WRONG!

      WRONG!

      WRONG!

      WRONG!

      WRONG!

    4. Re:CIO, IRS by bluekanoodle · · Score: 2, Informative
      Actually CIO stands for Chief Information Officer.

      The CIO is usually (in simple terms) in charge of How the company uses IT to accomplish its mission. There is often confusion between the terms CTO and CIO and some companies use them interchangably. However I believe the the correct definition of a CTO oversees technology that the company creates.

      In fewest words possible, , A CTO overs creation of tech, a CTO consumes Tech.

      Of course maybe this can clear it up more:

      http://slashdot.org/askslashdot/01/01/06/2236247.s html

    5. Re:CIO, IRS by Uber+Banker · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      CIO stands for Chief Investment Officer. The retarded often do not understand this. In simple terms.

      Mentioning retarded, here is a little tip in HTML:

      If you want to post a link, encompass it in tags. So type:

      <a href="YOUR URL HERE">LINK TEXT HERE<a>

      Where capitals shows you where to put things.

      For text in bold, use <b>TEXT</b>, italics <i>TEXT</i>.

      I hope you find this useful in your apparant customary spreading-of-shit posts.

      Goodbye.

    6. Re:CIO, IRS by bluekanoodle · · Score: 1

      The retarded do not understand that in the context of IT systems, CIO definitely refers to Chief Information Officers, In fact until this discussion, I have never heard of a CHief Investment officer. Heres another non-link for you. (Because I'm too lazy to proeprly tag it.) http://www.google.com/search?q=define:CIO Also the article was published by CIO magazine, which, if you read the magazine, tells you: "CIO and CIO.com are published by CXO Media Inc. to meet the needs of CIOs (Chief Information Officers) and other information executives. CIO is read by more than 140,000 CIOs and senior executives who oversee annual IT budgets in excess of $175 million. CIO.com served over 100 million pages during over 10 million user sessions in 2003, and is visited by close to 500,000 unique vistor each month."

  22. Modernization? by NixterAg · · Score: 3, Interesting

    If it 'nearly failed', doesn't that mean it still succeeded?

    How does a 'nearly failed' attempt to modernize the IRS still run code from 1962?

    I doubt there was anything 'nearly' about it. Looks like they spent 8.2 billion, adjusted expectations, and called the project a success (or a 'near failure').

    1. Re:Modernization? by foofoodog · · Score: 2, Interesting

      In the death march projects I've worked on success is never clearly defined so conversly you can never really fail. It is a way for (incompetent) project managers to have an out. Commit to everything at once and nothing fully.

      --
      Can I bum a sig?
    2. Re:Modernization? by YaRness · · Score: 2, Interesting

      the new systems, those few that are in place, run in parallel with the old systems.

      certain returns, and all the associated data for that TIN (SSN) are put on the new system. IIRC they started with 1040EZs that meet certain criteria. if the taxpayer changes so they don't meet that criteria, they get moved back to the old system.

      it's pretty fucking hairy.

      there's also alot of business bullshit involved. CSC was put in charge of managing the modernization contract. they at one point decided to fire many contractors and use their own people (which they were not supposed to do) and did a fucking brilliant job of delaying the project.'

      with an enormous system of databases with duplicate information all over the fucking place, on 40 year old computers, run by 55 year old government employees, that has to process billions of transactions between april 15th and about may 2nd (and that's just individual tax returns), it's a little... uhh, complicated making a complete overhaul of such a system. especially when the former IRS commisioner (rosotti? i forget) had the insane idea of wanting to replace most of the goddamn infrastructure all at once instead of, oh, doing something that makes sense like replacing it one piece at a time.

    3. Re:Modernization? by value_added · · Score: 1

      Interestingly enough, I think that irrespective of how its failure or success is defined, problems at the IRS can be A Good Thing.

      Contrast the slow and inefficient IRS to how tax collection functions at the state level. Here in California, for example, they make excellent use of their resources and you can expect better turnaround than you would with the IRS, Practically speaking, this can translate as a next-day visit from a tax official who is going to close your business because you missed a filing due date by a few days.

      Sometimes it's better to be yet another name on a piece of paper sitting at the bottom of a pile of papers that no has time to look at. Unless you're name is Tuttle. Or was that Buttle?

  23. I worked on it 2002-2003 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    CSC was the prime contractor; they built a 12-story building across the street from one of their big DC datacenters with over 1000 people in it, and surrounding offices. Have their own stop on the Orange train line.

    And about one in one hundred did jack crap. It was a complete pig trough. I was a sub-sub-sub-sub-sub contractor, working for a company with 5 employees.

  24. It's party time! by activesynapsis · · Score: 2, Funny
    "Now the agency's ability to collect revenue, conduct audits and go after tax evaders has been severely compromised"

    What do you mean you don't have a record of my tax payment? I already....*cough* paid it!

  25. undergrads quote by name773 · · Score: 1

    person: what's that?
    nerd: it's an old apple, i use it to hack gov. servers, because nothing else is compatible

  26. Your Tax Dollars at Work by omarius · · Score: 1

    I don't know what the current process is, but around 1998 or so, I did some support work for a data entry firm, and I noticed that the job they were doing at that time were federal income taxes.

    Specifically, they were reading tax forms off of microfiche and entering the data off of them.

    So, the IRS has: paid time and materials to have tax forms photographed and developed onto microfiche, paid to ship said microfiche reels to data entry firms, and then contracted with those firms to enter the data in computerized form, presumably before even processing the returns (I suppose they could have been 'old' taxes that had been processed by hand and then recorded digitally for archival purposes, but still...).

    Yikes.

  27. Man oh man... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You would really have expected a certain degree of accountability at the IRS, wouldn't you... sheesh!

  28. It fails to point out... by FreeLinux · · Score: 2, Interesting

    It fails to point out that, like so many other replacements of vintage systems, the new system will likely not work properly for the first five years after implementation. That's if it ever works properly. That's after it's been delayed for years and run costs through the roof. The users will hate it because it is something different that they have to learn and it won't work properly half the time. Plus, it's slower than the old system even though it is running on hardware that is 400,000 times as powerful as the original hardware.

    I see this every day. Some sales schmuck sells a load of goods. The vendor hires a bunch of programmers and spends years yelling at them to hurry up. Then they finally deliver a crap application that is really a giant leap backwards. But, it's got cool little widgets everywhere and we call it a portal not a web interface. So, instead of realizing that productivity just took a nose-dive because of a crap application management says; we need some new software to automate this and that so that we can get the cost down. And the cycle continues...

    1. Re:It fails to point out... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What can I say your absoulty right. I work for a technology solutions providor and I must say we do a first rate job for our customers that is after all how we keep them. The trouble is we have to be able to show allot of our bigger customers how this stuff works in a production enviornment and our engineers need to gain experience with product in a production class setting, we have found the bench testing just does not work. So our own company gets to be the test pig, everytime. We spent some $150K putting an IP teleponey system in the head office, I did lots of the work its been four months and I still can't honestly say to management that we have the stuff functioning as well as the 12 year old Lucent PBX it replaced.

  29. Re:They need to privatize the IRS - the only solut by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That is the single most retarded idea I have heard all day.

  30. That's a lot of money by giminy · · Score: 2, Funny

    cost overruns of over $200 million and four CIO's in seven years

    So do they get a big tax write-off this year or what?

    *badum ching*

    --
    The Right Reverend K. Reid Wightman,
  31. OT: The Fair Tax (Was: Re:Sure there is...) by pjl5602 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I like the idea of the Fair Tax with the exception of one element -- the rebate. I don't like the idea of the government sending a check every month. By not taxing necessities it would seem to me that it can done without the rebate.

    1. Re:OT: The Fair Tax (Was: Re:Sure there is...) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How do you define necessities? The Fair Tax Plan defines necessities based on some "minimum level of subsistence," which is a dollar amount. The rebate check goes to everybody based on this dollar amount. You can't simply say that milk and bread (for example) are considered necessities and are therefore not taxed. Why? What if somebody spent $6000 on milk for a big Ovaltine celebration party...they wouldn't be taxed on that, which isn't the point of the whole "no tax on basic necessities" thing.

      I might agree with you if you can think of a different way to define "necessities," but so far the "dollar amount" thing is the best I have seen.

  32. Re:Easy Solution to All Our IRS Problems by Hawthorne01 · · Score: 1
    All goods considered necessities would be tax-free allowing one to live almost without paying taxes if you were surviving on a povery level income.

    See, this won't work, because programmers will petition for Mountain Dew and everything at ThinkGeek to be declared a neccesity, teens will demand that Abercrombie & Fitch clothing be considered one as well, I'd say that The History Channel is a neccesity and so my cable bill is tax-free, and so on... :-)

    --
    "Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former."
  33. Flat Tax by DigiShaman · · Score: 1

    I say we get rid of the IRS all togeather and go with a flat sales tax. It's simple, effective, and reduces administrative costs to manage revenue.

    --
    Life is not for the lazy.
    1. Re:Flat Tax by Artemis · · Score: 1

      It's also highly regressive (i.e. taxes the poor a larger percentage of their income than the rich). A consumption-based (sales) tax would turn a family that is getting by on the poverty line (around $18,000 for a 2 person household this year) from paying $0 taxes a year to whatever arbitrary percentage was chosen. Poorer people send almost 100% of their income on consumption (food, rent, etc), while rich people spend a small porportion of their income on consumption.

    2. Re:Flat Tax by DigiShaman · · Score: 1

      The idea is to keep jobs in the US. And because of a flat sales tax, even the poor will end up having a better lifestyle due to an increase in wages...unless they are non working bums. As for the rich, all prosperous nations have them. But in order to support the poor, you have to give the rich the incentive to NOT outsource their wealth to other coutries.

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
    3. Re:Flat Tax by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      OK, so I pay 100% of my income for housing, food, clothes, and transportation and 20% goes to tax.

      Some other schmo pays 5% of his income on housing, food, clothes, and transportation, 80% invested in term deposits and offshore assets and 15% while on vacation out of the country.

      So the most able to pay pay 1% while the least able to pay pay 20%. No thanks.

    4. Re:Flat Tax by cyril3 · · Score: 1
      even the poor will end up having a better lifestyle due to an increase in wages

      If they had enough for the basic food and shelter before a flat sale tax prices and wages will adjust faily rapidly to the same situation. People at the lower margins are paid as little as possible because of competitive pressures on wages. There is no magic jump in income because tax rates change. If jobs are going offshore because of wage pressure the only way to keep them is presumably to drop wages. If they are going for other reasons changing wages will have little effect.

      But in order to support the poor, you have to give the rich the incentive to NOT outsource their wealth to other coutries.

      Or you can just make sure that overseas income is taxed at homeland rates.

      There are no simple solutions to complex problems.

  34. Re:Easy Solution to All Our IRS Problems by Omega1045 · · Score: 1

    YES YES YES! This equates to a distributed computing solution to solve the problem. Each time a person buys something, they pay the sales tax and the cash register does the math at sale time. Hee hee.

    --

    Great ideas often receive violent opposition from mediocre minds. - Albert Einstein

  35. Can anyone say ..... by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Flat Tax?

    The time has come to remove the nightmare that is the Internal Revenue Code. Flat taxes would make it IMMESURABLY easier to find Tax Cheats, file taxes, keep records etc.

    Here is my plan. Short, simple and effective.

    Income x Rate = tax basis - deduction = payment ( negative = 0)

    10,000 x 22.5% = 2250 - 8000 = 0
    50,000 x 22.5% = 11250 - 8000 = 3250 (6.5% tax)
    150,000 x 22.5% = 33750 - 8000 = 25750 (17.2%)

    Save tons of time, increasing productivity, lowering operating costs. The people crying the loudest would be the Tax lawyers and accountants. Possibly even the rich (shut up). Lawyers right bad laws, and accountant have a vested interest in keeping things complicated, so they should be bared from this discussion.

    In addition, all those that say a tax cut favors the "rich" can all go pound sand. In my system a tax cut favors everyone, except those not paying any, and why should THEY complain about something that doesn't affect them at all?

    As it is right now, nobody, not even the IRS is 100% sure what is in the code. If the elections were held on April 16th instead of November, that too would help.

    --
    Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    1. Re:Can anyone say ..... by ari_j · · Score: 1

      Lawyers right bad laws

      Too bad this is just a braino. I think you meant 'write', but 'right' was good for a laugh. Thanks. :)

    2. Re:Can anyone say ..... by Fear+the+Clam · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The first problem is the difference between earned and unearned income. People who own things make their money/profits from unearned income. How do you deal with a rich person whose bonds pay 5%/year? Do you tax that stocks even if the paper profits aren't taken that year? What about a lower-middle-class family whose house increases in value by 6%/year?

      The other problem problem is in deductions. How do you deal with things like:
      * Children
      * Mortgage interest
      * Health care costs
      * Education costs

      I like the idea of a flat tax, but there's more to the idea of "money" than just a paycheck every week/fortnight/month.

    3. Re:Can anyone say ..... by Malc · · Score: 1

      Are you sure this isn't going to move the tax burden further on to the middle and low income earners? Right now the highest earners contribute the most, both relative to their income and as a whole (they're a smaller group). I guess you could make the basic deduction much much bigger and increase the tax rate further. Without thinking about it too hard, I suspect that would make it hard for middle income earners to get any kind of meaningful pay increase...

    4. Re:Can anyone say ..... by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 2

      I guess it could go both ways, since MOST of the legislatures are .... Lawyers. ;-)

      right = correct
      write = legislate

      since they sometimes do BOTH, conflict of interest?

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    5. Re:Can anyone say ..... by jejones · · Score: 1

      How about just repealing the Sixteenth Amendment?

    6. Re:Can anyone say ..... by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Paper income isn't really income, is it.

      Do you pay taxes on the appriciation of your HOUSE? why then would you pay taxes on appriciation of any other REAL property (including stocks, bonds etc).

      I have dealt with the other things, or perhaps you just missed it. ;-)

      The moment you start creating Deductions for SOME things, you end up exactly where we are today.

      What about ________ can be (and has) been applied to just about anything.

      With the exception of Health care each of the items is a choice. If we are going to increase or decrease taxes based upon choices, I would submit that we tax "Vices" and have them offset the "unfortunate" equally. Sin tax works because it does two things, lowers the rate of sin, and is a sustainable source of income.

      Legalize drugs and tax the hell out of them.
      Legalize Prostitution, and tax the hell out of it.
      Legalize Micky D's frech fries and tax the fat out them.

      Just imagine what we could do with the money if we taxed PORN!

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    7. Re:Can anyone say ..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think there should be no tax at all. The IRS can hold telethons, charity runs, and fund-raising drives just like everybody else.

    8. Re:Can anyone say ..... by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 1

      The rate and the deduction are flexable.

      In actuality this is probably lowers the taxes on most people under $50,000 year. Either way we can adjust for it easily and people (rich, middle and poor) can plan for it better.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    9. Re:Can anyone say ..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Okay, I'll bite. Income is only useful when it's leveraged to obtain goods or services, correct? So just have a 20% sales tax on everything, minus that $8000 deduction. Rich people can save up all the god-awful amounts of money they want, but one fifth is ours when they decide to buy a house or boat or company.

    10. Re:Can anyone say ..... by say · · Score: 1
      The problem with your system is that it benefits those who don't have to get a regular paycheck to survive. There are, in general, two ways to earn your living without getting a paycheck (that is, doing work for an employer).

      You can either be an employer and money off someone else's work and your own money, or you can do your work in the black market.

      So your system will benefit the rich and the crooks. Now, that's not what I want.

      --
      Roses are #FF0000, violets are #0000FF, all my base are belong to you
    11. Re:Can anyone say ..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Do you pay taxes on the appriciation of your HOUSE? why then would you pay taxes on appriciation of any other REAL property (including stocks, bonds etc).
      Actually, yes. Try this experiment, attempt to take out a loan insured by the equity in your house (aka, a second mortgage). You'll find that the bank requires an appraisal, which you'll gladly pay for since it will allow you to access the equity gained due to appreciation in your home. Now sit back and wait. That thing that just arrived in the mail is the new property tax accessment based on your now more valuable home.

      So, when it comes to homes, ``paper income'' is taxed as regular income as soon as you leverage it. Something to think about before the next time you argue that capital gain/dividends/whatever is somehow sacred money that shouldn't be treated as regular income. As others have pointed out, trying to exempt these types of income is the trillion dollar loophole that is the undoing of most flat tax ponzi schemes.

      [Fun trivia -- when Steve Forbes the presidential candidate was championing the ``fairness'' of his flat tax system, someone pointed out that almost 100% of Steve's millions in income would have been tax exempt under his proposed system.]

    12. Re:Can anyone say ..... by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 1

      Your whole thesis is flawed because you are comparing yourself against others. This is just plain elitist. Why not compare what is fair and equitable for YOU?

      The current system is flawed because of people like you, who aren't happy until they stick it to somebody else. Twice in your post you say it isn't fair because of a comparison between two people.

      I am sorry to inform you buddy, but life simply isn't fair. And no matter how much you want to correct that "injustice" you can't. It isn't fair that you are smaller than me, and can sit in a theatre seat comfortably, therefore I should TAX you to pay for a bigger seat for me? Or how about I am taller than you, so you should tax me to pay for the ladder you need?

      Buddy, no matter how you "Feel" about life, and fairness and whatnot, it will NEVER be fair, so stop trying to make it that way.

      And just for your info, employers make money too, so they would pay taxes on that income. Black markets will always exist until we get the Mark of the Beast, cashless society, and the black markets disappear.

      But even then, they won't, they will just trade in something else. You cannot stop people from trading.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    13. Re:Can anyone say ..... by winwar · · Score: 1

      Uh huh. And how many days do you think we would still have this mythical flat tax?

      Congresscritter 1: "Well, let's see, I think we should allow a deduction for 'foo'"

      Congresscritter 2: "Excellent idea. How about a deduction for 'bar'"

      And on it goes...

      The tax code didn't get this way because the IRS wanted it this way. It got this way because various people (presidents, the congress, the public, etc.) wanted certain things encouraged (or discouraged).

    14. Re:Can anyone say ..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Do you pay taxes on the appriciation of your HOUSE? why then would you pay taxes on appriciation of any other REAL property (including stocks, bonds etc).

      uhhh...do you live in your stocks, bonds, etc? Maybe, just maybe, a house is not the same thing?

    15. Re:Can anyone say ..... by Rockin'+Az · · Score: 1
      Flat tax?

      Lots of people can say it...

      Not many can do it.

      It's the doing that matters.

      --

      I come from a LAN down under

      Where the packets flow and routers chunder

    16. Re:Can anyone say ..... by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 1

      You don't pay INCOME taxes on appriciation. You didn't pay income taxes on a second mortgage.

      Property taxes are a differnt beast.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    17. Re:Can anyone say ..... by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 1

      Congresscritter 1: "Well, let's see, I think we should allow a deduction for 'foo'"

      Congresscritter 2: "Well let me see. It says right here in the Flat Tax Ammendment that any congresscritter who proposes deductions shall be immediately removed from office, barred from ever holding public office again, and is to be banished to Barrow Alaska for a period of no less than 20 years. In addition, a minimum of three and a maximum of ten toilets shall be engraved with his/her name in federal building of his/her choice, so that the people will know, what a piece of shit he/she was! "

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    18. Re:Can anyone say ..... by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 1

      Rich are against it. Middle class is appathetic. Poor think it is a tax break for the rich. Lawyers, Politicians and CPA will fight vigously against it.

      Still, everyone complains, but are unwilling to try doing it differently. I am willing to try it. If it doesn't work, we can always go back the the UNGODLY code we have now.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    19. Re:Can anyone say ..... by BCoates · · Score: 1

      How does this make things any simpler? The tax bracket system is not a big, confusing thing, particularly since it's implemented as a lookup table. But it's only one step in the entire big process of calculating taxes.

      Changing the shape of the tax curve will not "Save tons of time" or "lower operating costs".

    20. Re:Can anyone say ..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Interesting idea. Would you then just have the government send everyone an $8000 check at the end of the year? What about companies? They would presumably have to pay sales tax, so would they get the 8000$ deduction/payment?

      How could you keep taxes from building up on companies? Imagine that company A digs up some ore and sells it to company B to make metal, which is sold to company C to make bolts, which are used by company D to assemble a component, which is installed in a car built by company E and sold to the consumer by company F. The metal in this part of the car is now taxed at 198%. Maybe that's OK.

    21. Re:Can anyone say ..... by Herkum01 · · Score: 1

      A flat tax is the you pay one rate for all income. What you are talking about is called a Progressive tax and we have that.

    22. Re:Can anyone say ..... by Shajenko42 · · Score: 1

      It's not the tax brackets that make the system so complicated, it's the deductions.

    23. Re:Can anyone say ..... by say · · Score: 1
      What are you trying to say? That my thesis is "flawed" because it tries to even out economical differences between people?

      No, dear sir, it isn't. It is certainly different from your suggestion, but my "thesis" is not flawed.

      By the way, thank you for making me aware of the fact that the world is not fair, and will never be. I thought it was, and that's why i opted against your flat tax system.

      Why not compare what is fair and equitable for YOU?

      So, your system is fair, therefore my opinion is flawed because it has a different view on what's fair? Your argument is inherently flawed. How can anything be fair (even for me) in a world that will never be fair?

      Your whole thesis is flawed because you are comparing yourself against others.

      I am looking forward to a logically valid explanation of this thesis. First of all: How am I comparing myself to anyone in my thesis - without mentioning myself? And secondly: Are you suggesting that all statements that compare myself to others are flawed?

      --
      Roses are #FF0000, violets are #0000FF, all my base are belong to you
    24. Re:Can anyone say ..... by /dev/trash · · Score: 1

      You sound like John Kerry. Tax the hell out of gasoline and people will drive less.

      Well except that if you have to drive 20 miles to get to work, you won't drive less. You'll just pay more.

      Plus you DO pay on the appreciation of your house. try buying a house for $1000 and selling it for $10,000. You have capital gains. Taxable. ( Well there is a loophole of course but my example is just that, an example. )

    25. Re:Can anyone say ..... by /dev/trash · · Score: 1

      Children - Plan ahead. Can't afford kids? Hold of and save some money.

      Mortgage Interest - Again Plan ahead.

      Health Care - I think you see where I am going here.

      Education - Yep. Plan AHEAD.

    26. Re:Can anyone say ..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Simple. Do it as is done with the GST in Canada. GST collected - GST paid = GST owed to government (yes, this can result in receiving money from the government, but it all works out in the end).

    27. Re:Can anyone say ..... by Fear+the+Clam · · Score: 1

      With the exception of Health care each of the items is a choice.

      Agreed. However, it is to the benefit of society to encourage certain behaviors. For example:

      * Children -- I don't have any and don't want any, but I realize that they are important for the future, even if it's just to have someone to wipe the drool off my face or keep the lights going when I get old. I'm willing to cut people slack (and a few hundred bucks a year in deductions), because I figure it all evens out in the end.

      * Mortgage interest -- Nothing makes people care more about where they live more than actually owning a chunk of it. A mortgage deduction encourages people to invest in their communities.

      * Education costs -- Education is necessary for better jobs and ultimately benefits everyone. Making this a deductible expense more than pays for itself in the long run.

      Just like you make a value judgment about what constitutes a "sin" as opposed to a "medical" expense (cf. prostitution), deductions shape society.

    28. Re:Can anyone say ..... by Rich0 · · Score: 1

      Do you pay taxes on the appriciation of your HOUSE? why then would you pay taxes on appriciation of any other REAL property (including stocks, bonds etc).

      Actually, I had to pay taxes last year on capital gains arising from the sale of my house - because I only lived in it for 1.5 years.

      The appreciation of homes is generally taxable unless it is your primary residence. If you have a rental property you will pay taxes when you sell it and realize gains.

      Flat taxes sound nice - but only if you don't have a mortgage and kids, and don't give to charity (at least not significantly).

      A sudden loss of the mortgage interest deduction could easily lead to a huge decline in home values nationwide - a form of deflation. People will no longer be able to afford to spend as much on a home since the cost of owning a home will rise. Consequently people will spend less money on homes. Those who already own them will suffer the loss. Those who still have mortgages without substantial equity may have to declare bankruptcy.

      In comparison renting might rise in cost - since there will be less incentive to buy yet a fixed demand for housing. This of course benefits those who have money already - since they will just buy up land mortgage-free and then rent it out.

      In the end everything will probably work out, but it will significantly benefit some and significantly cost others.

      And that is the problem with any drastic shift in fiscal policy. If you do it slowly people can plan for it. If IBM announced they'd start outsourcing 90% of their workforce over the next 10 years nobody would be upset - everyone would find other jobs, and as people left IBM could outsource their jobs with nobody being upset about it. On the other hand, when IBM announces 25,000 job cuts next week, there is no way for the market to absorb the loss.

      In a society where people pay for their own education and are expected to foot their own bills, you have to phase in changes very slowly to avoid hurting huge numbers of people. People can plan for their futures, but they don't have millions in the bank to ride out a five year decline in the workforce...

    29. Re:Can anyone say ..... by Rich0 · · Score: 1

      You do pay capital gains taxes on appreciation if it isn't your personal residence.

      Homes are an exception in the tax code - just like mortgage interest.

    30. Re:Can anyone say ..... by Rich0 · · Score: 1

      Children - Plan ahead. Can't afford kids? Hold of and save some money.

      Uh - at what age were you planning on having kids?

      Mortgage Interest - Again Plan ahead.

      You'll frequently find that anywhere within a 45 minute commute of lots of jobs have RAPIDLY increasing property values. I did the math and found that I was better off buying a home right away and having no equity at all than renting and trying to save money. Homes were appreciating at a rate of almost 10% annually - if I put my money in the bank I'd never have been able to save up enough to buy the house. Most stock fund advisors apparently would have had trouble saving up money quickly enough.

      Heath Care...Education...Plan AHEAD

      Uh, that's nice to say and all that, but a college education can cost about $40k, medical insurance for a family can cost probably close to $100k over a lifetime, and there are tons of other expenses.

      I guess in theory the correct approach to life is to get out of college making $50k (I'm being generous here), and after paying rent and the proposed flat tax and minimal living expenses you probably net about $30k. Then you can save up for a $250k house (sure, that is excessive now but won't be by the time you actually have it saved up), $100k for family health insurance, $80k for education for two children, probably another $40-50k for other increased expenses associated with having children. That's about $500k. So that will take you about 15 years to save up.

      So now you're 35 and can afford to buy a house and have your first kid. Mind you that you don't have any friends to marry since that $30k net per year didn't include having money to spend socializing/eating out/movies/etc. If you actually want to do something other than drive to work, eat, and sleep, it will take much longer to save up. Sure, your income will go up over time, which will help, but so will your rent and car payments (which is why people buy houses in the first place).

      Obviously planning ahead always makes sense. However, who wants to live like a machine solely so that they can be more financially secure when they're 45?

    31. Re:Can anyone say ..... by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 1

      Children, people have them all the time without considering the tax consequences of them.

      Mortgage interest - If you own a home JUST for the deduction, you are doing it for the wrong reasons. If you own a home and the deciding factor was a deduction, you are doing it for the wrong reason.

      Education costs - people usually get educated to improve their life. If the only reason you took that class, or obtained that degree, you are as stupid as they come.

      Deductions DON'T encourage behavior, they make certain behaviour more attractive, but then again, if deductions are the reason you do something then you are doing it for the wrong reasons.

      The purpose of taxes is singular. To raise money to run the Government. Because we do OTHER things with taxes doesn't make it right.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    32. Re:Can anyone say ..... by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 1
      A sudden loss of the mortgage interest deduction could easily lead to a huge decline in home values nationwide - a form of deflation


      So, what you are saying is that tax policy has artificially inflated the value of real property.

      As for drastic shift in fiscal policy, I would make it drastic for the reason people pull bandaids off real quick. It really hurts, but in the long run it hurts less.

      However, I would make implement it three years from passage, so that the market had time to try to adjust.

      "Jan 1, 2010 new tax policy goes into effect. A national flat INCOME tax (does not affect other taxes) set at 22.5% will go into effect. Taxes on all REAL (and realized) income (earn and unearned) will be collect with the new policy.

      "This new tax will not affect other state, regional or local taxes, such as sales tax, property tax, and taxes on specific goods and services such as tobacco.
      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    33. Re:Can anyone say ..... by /dev/trash · · Score: 1


      Obviously planning ahead always makes sense. However, who wants to live like a machine solely so that they can be more financially secure when they're 45?


      A 46 year old financically secure person? Stop living for the instant gratification.

    34. Re:Can anyone say ..... by eric777 · · Score: 1
      Yeah.

      That would make the IRS systems nice and simple, sure.

      But it wouldn't be fair.

      A tax attorney friend of mine explained this to me once.

      All of the clever tax planning would shift away from 'finding deductions' to 'hiding income.'

      In other words, if the IRS doesn't consider that pile of money 'income,' they won't take their pound of flesh.

      Now, do you imagine the working (salaried) stiffs are going to be able to hide their income?

      No, only the wealthy and super-wealthy will be able to play that game. So the flat tax will end up being nice and regressive.

      Oh, and all those complexities will come back right quick, in the form of rules about what constitutes (earned, unearned, implied, presumed, effective, etc.) income.

      Still, a little flattening and removing of sweetheart provisions might be nice for me - I know some pretty good tax attorneys... :-)

    35. Re:Can anyone say ..... by Syberghost · · Score: 1

      While a flat tax is nice, a far more useful idea if you want people to realize what they're paying would be to outlaw payroll deduction for income tax.

      Present everybody with a bill every April, and they'll remember it clear through November.

  36. Re:$200M and 7 years? Feature! by C.+Alan · · Score: 5, Informative

    You obviously don't work in Government.

    Local and state governments have deadlines just like in the private sector. The only real difference is that we have to deal with a lot more buricratic cr*p.

    If any of my projects were 7 years over due, I would expect to get canned, or demoted.

  37. Two questions by ShatteredDream · · Score: 1

    1) Have they referred this kind of waste to the Office of the Inspector General and if not, why not?

    2) Are they looking into how Google stores its information, and if not then what is the reason for that?

  38. 54 cents per 100 dollars (nt) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    dammit lame filter! (nt) means NO TEXT!

  39. Re:Easy Solution to All Our IRS Problems by sploxx · · Score: 1

    I disagree. Aggregated money is aggregated power (which is not democratically legitimated) and there are taxes which should have prevented such excessive aggregation.

  40. 20% Flat tax breakdown: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    10% to the US Government
    3% to the RIAA, to pay for the stuff they assume we've pirated in the last year.
    3% to the MPAA, to pay for the stuff they assume we've pirated in the last year.
    2% to Microsoft, as part of a "super-tough" DoJ settlement for Microsoft's wrongdoing.
    2% to Halliburton, for no apparent reason, the government just likes to give them money.

    1. Re:20% Flat tax breakdown: by Anne+Thwacks · · Score: 1
      The problem with this approach is how to hide the 5% that goes to the slush fund for things like the Campaign to re-elect the president (CREEP), Iran-contras, the CIA's illegal offshore operations, etc?

      Unless you have a good way to hide this, the terrorists have won.

      --
      Sent from my ASR33 using ASCII
  41. Which Language by SpyPlane · · Score: 5, Funny
    Maybe I missed it when I read the article, but what language are they referring to when they say,
    "Yet the system still runs code from 1962, written in an archaic programming language almost no one alive understands"
    ?

    I bet there are at least 1000 people right here on slashdot who could understand it just fine, and wouldn't mind putting a few "exceptions" in the tax code:

    if(733043 == UID){
    needPayTaxes = FALSE;
    }
    --
    "We need a fourth law of Robotics: Stop Fingering My Wife"
    1. Re:Which Language by mark-t · · Score: 2, Funny

      Possbly... but my bet's on it being written in a language that no self-respecting slashdotter would _want_ to program in.

    2. Re:Which Language by PalmerEldritch42 · · Score: 1

      Methinks it would look more like this: 10 print "Tax form 1-A" 20 print "------------" 30 if $totalIncome1000000 then goto 60 40 $tax=$totalIncome+5 50 end 60 $tax=0 70 end

      --
      Ceci n'est pas une sig.

      :wq!

    3. Re:Which Language by PalmerEldritch42 · · Score: 1
      well that didn't work- maybe we'll try again with paragraph spacing...

      10 print "Tax form 1-A"

      20 print "------------"

      30 if $totalIncome1000000 then goto 60

      40 $tax=$totalIncome+5

      50 end

      60 $tax=0

      70 end

      I really should preview before submitting...

      --
      Ceci n'est pas une sig.

      :wq!

    4. Re:Which Language by John+Starks · · Score: 1

      My, aren't we cocky? Sorry, but I doubt more than half a dozen people here know some of the highly-specialized low-level languages that were used in the 60s. I know I sure don't. Just because you can program PHP (poorly) doesn't mean you know a damn thing about something like this. (Yada yada, I don't mean to imply that you only code in PHP. But lots of quasi-geeks think they can code just because they know a web scripting language or two.)

      More off-topic, what's the deal with people putting the constant first in a binary operator? (733043 == UID)? When did this become good style? It's not just you; I even see it in "expert" tutorials for programming in this or that GUI toolkit. I've always written (UID == 733043). It's much more readable, since you know by just looking at the beginning of the line which variable you're comparing. Even worse, I've seen (FALSE == foo). Why not (foo == FALSE), or much better, (!foo)?

    5. Re:Which Language by threephaseboy · · Score: 1

      'cause if you accidently say (733043 = UID) its a compile error (easily checked), whereas if you say (UID = 733043) it'll compile just fine but harder to track down when it causes a problem.

      --
      .
    6. Re:Which Language by John+Starks · · Score: 1

      That's a good point.

      Of course, gcc -Wall warns on this unless you wrap it in another set of (), but I still see why that's valuable, especially in other languages and on different compilers.

    7. Re:Which Language by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Crutches to support the weight of an ailing programming syntax...

    8. Re:Which Language by russotto · · Score: 1

      Actually, that exception looks more like

      IF (UID .EQ. 733043) TAXES = 0

      Or maybe

      EVALUATE ALTER FINDTAX TO RETZERO WHEN UID IS EQUAL TO 733043

    9. Re:Which Language by Marko+DeBeeste · · Score: 1

      Well, we can't have archaic and eat it, too.

      --
      Faith: n. -- That human impulse that drives them to steal appliances when the power goes out
    10. Re:Which Language by SpyPlane · · Score: 1

      I think you'd be suprised to know who some of the readers of slashdot are and where their experiences lie.

      When writing up something quick, I always put the constant first, because I know I won't want to come back and debug a 'variable = constant' comparison mistake later on. But, I guess since the airplanes I write code for, obviously run on PHP, I must not know shit.

      --
      "We need a fourth law of Robotics: Stop Fingering My Wife"
  42. duh? by adamruck · · Score: 1

    Ok so it is pretty clear that the system is to big to be rebuilt from scratch. Instead of spending another couple billion trying again, why not spend the money to to SMALL INCREMENTAL UPDATES to the system.

    Hey guys... I cant figure out how to rebuild this car from scratch... hmm ... maybe ill try changing the oil.

    --
    Selling software wont make you money, selling a service will.
    1. Re:duh? by An+Onerous+Coward · · Score: 1

      How is that different from what the IRS did to get themselves into this situation in the first place?

      Here's something like how it might have gone:

      Hmm... it's too much of a hassle to convert the old software to output this data in the new format. So we'll just leave it as is, and throw in a program to translate the output to the new format.

      Five years later, all the stuff that relies on the new format has to be upgraded to handle a third format. Or does it? Nah, we'll just provide another compatability layer. Much, much easier. So now you have three levels to the system, one of which nobody dares to touch because "it just works, but we don't know why."

      A few years pass, and they have to handle electronic filings. Now they might have to translate the filings back into the earliest format in order for it to function properly. This wasn't a problem before because mailed forms were entered manually. But now they're writing new code that binds them even tighter to the old, evil code.

      A series of locally optimal choices slowly drag them to the point where they're trying to hold this huge, misarchitectured mess with duct tape and bailing wire, and praying that they can keep it running after their veteran coders retire.

      Of course, there are plenty of options in between "complete rewrite" and "just do whatever ugly hack will get this feature running (again)." Like putting a nice clean API over the top of a system that hides the cruftiness, so that people can write sane code above while you're cleaning up or replacing the code underneath. Or replace the format1->format2->format3->format4 chain with four translators that all translate between the respective formats and the one you really would like the whole system to use in the long run.

      But sometimes it really is easier to rewrite the whole thing from scratch.

      --

      You want the truthiness? You can't handle the truthiness!

  43. here's a simple solution by corbettw · · Score: 2, Funny

    Just outsource the work to Indian programmers. I mean, if politicians think it's such a boon for the economy, then what's the problem? What could possibly go wrong?

    --
    God invented whiskey so the Irish would not rule the world.
    1. Re:here's a simple solution by isorox · · Score: 1

      I mean, if politicians think it's such a boon for the economy... ... Why don't we outsource politicians?

  44. Re:Easy Solution to All Our IRS Problems by unfies · · Score: 2, Interesting

    ... All goods considered necessities would be tax-free ...

    Who decides what is a necessity/food ? Don't forget, in Louisianna that alcohol/beer is considered a FOOD and is tax free. Then there's the whole napoleonic code etc etc etc..

    I personally think we should get rid of the federal income tax. It was implemented to pay for The War, and it was supposed to be revoked afterwards.. but never was. The Constitution and subsequent laws following it were to keep the federal gov't out of our personal lives... and that's all changed in the last 80 years. I now have to pay taxes to a national organization, get a refund from them that is INTEREST free, and can even receive monies from them without ever seeing the face of the person who is giving me the money. Total lack of personal responsibility.

    The Federal Gov't taxes the States, and the States tax the people. That's how it was originally setup, and that's what I'd like to see return to our fair land.

  45. From the article: by jeffkjo1 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    the cost of collecting $1 of revenue--45 cents in 2002, the last year for which statistics are available--has not appreciably declined in two decades.

    This is completely unfathomable to me. If they cut this number in half, the federal budget would increase by 25%!! Without raising taxes a single penny! The idea that half of the money you pay into the IRS goes simply to maintining their 4 decade old software is insane.

    1. Re:From the article: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do you really think it costs a trillion dollars to run the IRS? Granted, I think the article was a tad misleading on this point, but if you think about it for 5ns... ;)

    2. Re:From the article: by aero6dof · · Score: 4, Informative

      The article left out two zeros.

      The IRS website publishes stats and has an Excel file reporting that in 2002 it took $0.45 to collect $100.

    3. Re:From the article: by thpdg · · Score: 1

      Thank you.
      We got the pulp copy of the article Monday, and everyone was running around trying to do the math, reading the budget and such. I was just about to post our results here, and I'm glad you had done so.
      The entire budget of the Treasury Department is only $10.8 billion a year, so it sort of makes a bit more sense.

      --

      -Patrick

      "They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."

  46. IRS = Incedible Rampant Stupidity by blcamp · · Score: 3, Interesting


    Seems even their circa 1962 code can't deal with more modern features, such as Direct Deposit of refunds.

    Case in point: my own refund.

    I just got a letter from the IRS yesterday saying "Sorry, we have to mail [you] a paper check because the Routing Transit Number [you] supplied from your account is invalid". I went and pulled out my checkbook, and confirmed that both my checking account number AND my routing number were CORRECT.

    Could they have been scanned incorrectly? Possible, but the numbers were written as clearly as if I had typed them.

    Could they have been manually re-keyed incorrectly? Don't we have SOFTWARE to prevent that? Oh, wait, this code was written in 1962.

    Worse yet, when I called IRS to complain, the lady on the other end of the line didn't seem to know what a Routing Transit Number was. Arrgh.

    There needs to be a cure for Incredible Rampant Stupidity.

    --
    The problem with socialism is that they always run out of other people's money. - Margaret Thatcher
    1. Re:IRS = Incedible Rampant Stupidity by angle_slam · · Score: 1

      Pretty obviously, not ALL the code was written in 1962. The IRS didn't direct deposit back then and people didn't file electronically back then.

    2. Re:IRS = Incedible Rampant Stupidity by garver · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I disagree that the IRS is filled with idiots. Frankly, it amazes me every year that they can boil that heaping pile of shit known as the tax code into a few pages and a bunch of worksheets. Despite the complexity, it's all there. Sometimes, you have to be a logic expert to follow it, but it's rare to catch a mistake in the 1040.

      In my opinion, it's the politicians that pass these tax laws that should be blamed. It's always about the latest feel good give-back, not about simplifying or removing.

      The tax code needs a refactor not more patches.

    3. Re:IRS = Incedible Rampant Stupidity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And I electronically filed for the last two years and got my refund by direct deposit in about 10 days.

    4. Re:IRS = Incedible Rampant Stupidity by YaRness · · Score: 1

      all paper tax returns are entered by one transcriber, and key-verified by another.

      with a few hundred million individual tax returns to process, even a half a percent error rate still means thousands of errors, regardless of how old the software is.

      there are much worse fuck-ups that could have happened. waiting an extra 2 weeks for your money just ain't that big a deal.

    5. Re:IRS = Incedible Rampant Stupidity by rapett0 · · Score: 1

      Actually, I Just wanted to clarify something here for you and many others I have heard of who have done the same thing you have. Most banks have multiple RTN's, usually at least two (most have many more). The one on your checkbook is *not* the one used for the tax refunds. I can't remember where I saw it (online, or in Turbo Tax, or something else) but it prompted me to call my bank to ask and lo-and-behold, I am glad I called. So it took me about 10 days to get both my refunds (state/gov) back. Call your bank.

    6. Re:IRS = Incedible Rampant Stupidity by lorcha · · Score: 1

      Maybe your bank changed RTNs? I know when mine did it created a huge upheaval. Had to get new checks, change direct deposit, etc. No fun.

      --
      "Avoid employing unlucky people - throw half of the pile of CVs in the bin without reading them." -- David Brent
  47. Re:$200M and 7 years? Feature! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Flamebait
    You obviously don't work in Government.

    Unless caught breaking the law or ignoring the many warnings from your supervisor about "attendance problems," it is impossible to get yourself fired.

  48. If it ain't broke, don't fix it by thedillybar · · Score: 2, Insightful
    If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

    If experts have looked at it and determined that it will break, or has a good chance of breaking, then fix it.

    If you want more features out of it (i.e. faster), then fix it (or rebuild it from the bottom up).

    Apparently neither of these is a big issue right now. When it is, it will get fixed. Until then, business as usual.

  49. Sounds good, but there'd still be loopholes by Ra5pu7in · · Score: 1

    It sounds good until you realize that any whose income was over a certain amount would be unwilling to pay that much. Tax on $100,000 comes out to $20,000. Very few people who earn that much want to pay that much, so loopholes would be created or discovered.

    Not to mention the many sources of "income". Corporations sit in a special class as far as taxation of their income. Income from stocks and bonds is earned from things purchased with already taxed money. And so on, and so forth.

    --
    I was taking one day at a time, but then several days got together and ambushed me. (from a Rhymes with Orange comic)
    1. Re:Sounds good, but there'd still be loopholes by Tackhead · · Score: 1
      > Corporations sit in a special class as far as taxation of their income. Income from stocks and bonds is earned from things purchased with already taxed money. And so on, and so forth.

      I agree with most of your post, but I gotta rant here: As an investor with a 9-to-5 job, whose parents aren't dead yet... Umm, apart from "already taxed money", with what the fuck do you think I purchased the stocks and bonds that make up the income-generating part of my portfolio? :)

    2. Re:Sounds good, but there'd still be loopholes by beakburke · · Score: 1

      ...So eliminate the corporate income tax and tax capital gains and dividends at the same rate as income.

      --
      ----- Question authority, but not ours. Hate the man, but we're not him.
    3. Re:Sounds good, but there'd still be loopholes by Tackhead · · Score: 1
      > ..So eliminate the corporate income tax and tax capital gains and dividends at the same rate as income.

      In all seriousness - yes, that would work, and would probably be the quickest and easiest way to do it. I wouldn't benefit from such a measure, but for the record, I would support it.

  50. Easy ... Audit 'em by failedlogic · · Score: 1

    Ironic how the IRS itself needs auditing!!

    Maybe, to get an acutal working system after the billions spent, taxpayers should scare the IRS employees responsible the same way when they audit people. That should get action done!

  51. bogus figures in article (I hope) by wes33 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    it says in the article that it costs 45 cents to collect one dollar, to quote:

    "Meanwhile, the cost of collecting $1 of revenue-45 cents in 2002 ..."

    WTF? What's the total tax revenue from IRS last year? Say a trillion dollars. Is the article really claiming that it cost 450 billion dollars to collect that??!

    That's just absurd. Please somebody explain the truth to me here.

    1. Re:bogus figures in article (I hope) by Pinky3 · · Score: 3, Informative

      The figure must be per $100 collected. A simple Google search found the following data for 2001.

      http://www.unclefed.com/Tax-News/2001/nr01-86.ht ml

      September 26, 2001
      Data Book Details IRS Numbers
      Shows Collection Costs Down,
      Charitable Groups Grow

      WASHINGTON - The Internal Revenue Services cost for collecting each $100 of tax revenue reached the lowest point since 1954, according to the new IRS Data Book for Fiscal Year 2000.

      The Data Book, released today, shows it cost the IRS 39 cents to collect $100 in FY 2000, the smallest amount in more than four decades. In 1993, it cost 60 cents to collect $100.

    2. Re:bogus figures in article (I hope) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The correct figure is in fact per $100. It has been corrected in the online version of the article.

  52. Hmm by SilentWatcher · · Score: 1

    Is that the IRS DBase that Trinity cracked?

  53. the most important point by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I think all of your hyping of open sourcing the tax infrastructure is missing the the most important point...

    are they hiring?

  54. Not sure if thats a good thing by netblade83 · · Score: 1

    If it could... it could do something like delete the database.... no database means they have no way of knowing if you paid for the last 10 years or so

    1. Re:Not sure if thats a good thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Very true. There's no way the IRS possibly could have performed a back up in the past 10 years or so.

    2. Re:Not sure if thats a good thing by meadowsp · · Score: 1

      And it also could because I'm sure VBS code will work on a mainframe from 1962.

  55. Perverse incentives by RealAlaskan · · Score: 3, Interesting
    From the story:
    The Master File is used to determine if you've paid what you owe, and without it the government would have no way to flag returns for audits, pursue tax evaders or even know how much money is or should be flowing into its coffers.
    So, if you're a U.S. taxpayer working on the system, you have to be aware that success is going to mean more audits, while disasterous failure is going to mean no chance of those old mid-April indiscretions[1] ever coming back to haunt you.

    Hmmmm ... what to do, what to do ... Stretch out the job and the paycheck, and hope the antiquated system fails catastrophically, or make an honest effort to get the new system on line before that happens?

    Of course, I'm sure that has nothing to do with the current difficulties. Seriously.

    [1] In the U.S., tax returns (complete with check) are due on 15 April.

    1. Re:Perverse incentives by KD5YPT · · Score: 2, Informative

      There's something called ethics. I want to pay my taxes as honestly as possible. And being on the track to become an engineer, if I was given a job, I'll try my darn best to do it well (IRS tax system included).

      --
      In US, you can easily buy enough major firearms to wipe out your neighbourhood but a few little fireworks are banned.
    2. Re:Perverse incentives by RealAlaskan · · Score: 2, Informative
      ... if I was given a job, I'll try my darn best to do it well (IRS tax system included).

      Well, I did say that those perverse incentives had nothing to do with the problems. I'm sure that it's the usual amalgam of unrealistic specifications, creeping featuritis, management by committee, and so on, which afflicts pretty much every large project.

      Remember ``The Bridge on the River Kwai'' ? Professional pride can get folks to do some crazy things, including shoot themselves in the foot for the public good (think whistle-blowers), or sabatoge their own side's war effort (in that movie), or make it easier for a particularly nasty bureaucracy to do harm.

      I would guess that most of the people working on the project are pretty frustrated by the progress it's making, and would be very proud of themselves if they got things back on track. I would also guess that most of them have thought, at one time or another: ``It's a good thing we're not getting all the government we're paying for.''

      My point was that any one of the taxpayers who's working on that is going to realize that if it fails, despite his best efforts, there's a bright side: he won't have to worry about his past tax returns coming back to haunt him. The tax code is complex enough, and confusing enough, that everyone is in some danger from the IRS, no matter how hard they try to pay all their taxes.

    3. Re:Perverse incentives by YaRness · · Score: 2, Informative

      most of the companies working on the modernization project are contractors, a lot of them ex-IRS, who make 3 times their IRS pension salary because they are extremely good at their job, and the fucking get things done. i've worked with many of them.

      many of the issues of why the modernization project is fucked is salaried upper-upper management of a few companies, not engineers making a paycheck.

      and as for IRS employees themselves, they are way more liable for correct tax returns than other taxpayers. they also don't make shit compared to private sector wages, but the retirement and other benefits are outstanding, and few of them would willingly jeopardize that.

      your blanket condemnation of people involved in that project is ignorant.

  56. Four Patches for the Internal Revenue Code by Tackhead · · Score: 5, Interesting
    > How much could be saved by moving to a flat tax and getting rid of all the exemptions and deductions and tax-breaks?

    At least $200 billion per year.

    5.8 billion person-hours in 2002 - the equivalent to the entire labor of a city of 2.7 million people.

    > Income: xxxxxx
    > x 0.20
    > Tax owed: xxx

    The question is "how do you define income" -- at which point we're back to square one. Capital gains? Dividends? Revenue from your business? Or profits? If profits -- how do you handle the deduction of your legitimate business expenses? What expenses are legitimate and what expenses aren't? That yacht you bought to entertain your guests? The hamburger you bought when you were interviewing your first employee?

    I believe that taxing consumption, not income, allows for a less complex system.

    If I had to "patch" the US Internal Revenue Code, I'd:

    1. Abolish the Alternative Minimum Tax. One tax code is enough.

    2. Eliminate holding periods such as the one-year holding period to differentiate a "short-term" capital gain versus a "long-term" capital gain, and the "30 days, not necessarily consecutive, during the 60 days surrounding the ex-dividend date" used to determine whether dividends are "qualified" or "unqualified" dividends, and the 2-year rule on principal residences. Eliminating these arbitrary time periods and the differential tax rates they cause throughout dozens of forms would eliminate *hundreds* of lines of calculations that deal with the intersection of these arbitrary time periods, Section 1250 contracts, and the myriads of "wash sale", "straddle" and "constructive sale" rules, etc etc etc.

    3. Eliminate phaseouts. There's nothing dumber than going through the entire year assuming you get a $5000 deduction, only to find out that the $5000 deduction is "phased out" by $0.25 for every dollar over $32,767 that you made, until $49,152. (Unless you're an Albino Sheep, in which case you have the Albino Sheep Allowance of $6000, phased out by $0.52 for every dollar over $39,152 to $42,767.) If you must have progressivity or social engineering measures in the tax code, make 'em all-or-nothing.

    4. Tax employment income, interest income, dividend income, and capital gains income at the same flat rate. (Double taxation on dividends could be prevented under such a scheme by providing full deductibility for corporations that issue dividends. My personal opinion is that because investments are purchased with after-tax dollars, the only morally-justifiable tax rate on investment income - interest, dividends, or capital gains - is zero. But in this post, I'm talking about how I'd patch the existing Internal Revenue Code so as not to be so fucking confusing, not to make it "right".)

    5. Scrap the motherfucker. And replace it with a consumption-based tax. But since #5 isn't gonna happen - ever - I'll vote for any ruler who includes any of #1 through #4 in his platform.

    1. Re:Four Patches for the Internal Revenue Code by rgmoore · · Score: 0, Troll
      Double taxation on dividends could be prevented under such a scheme by providing full deductibility for corporations that issue dividends.

      How about simply abolishing the corporate income tax completely? The corporate taxes are already vastly more complicated than personal taxes are, and they're far, far less equitable. On of the biggest problems with them is that they're so inequitable that many, if not most, large profitable corporations pay no income tax at all because of all of the loopholes in the system. Abolishing the tax completely would obviously make it more fair- everyone would be paying the same rate- and wouldn't even hurt the government that much because collections from corporate taxes are already so low. Even better (and quite possibly why it won't happen), it would prevent corporations from giving huge campaign donations to legislators in an attempt to get new loopholes written into the tax laws. It might even encourage more companies to move to the Unites States, bringing in more high-paying jobs at their headquarters.

      --

      There's no point in questioning authority if you aren't going to listen to the answers.

    2. Re:Four Patches for the Internal Revenue Code by PhilipPeake · · Score: 1

      I would tend to disagree about #2. I would prefer the tax to be 1/months+1, where months is the number of months the capital has been held. This kills off day trading immediately, and makes INVESTING really an INVESTMENT - not playing the game as though they are betting chips. So, but and sell the same day, tax = 100% Keep it for a year, tax = 1/13th, 2 years 1/25th etc.

    3. Re:Four Patches for the Internal Revenue Code by Adam9 · · Score: 1

      How much money would a politican get from corporations if he/she proposed no taxes for corporations?

    4. Re:Four Patches for the Internal Revenue Code by mc6809e · · Score: 1

      How about simply abolishing the corporate income tax completely?

      It will never happen because people believe "corporate income" or "corporate profits" are the same thing as CEO or shareholder income or profits.

      Of course they are completely different things, but it doesn't matter. People will continue to be confused.

      How often do people complain about some corporation not paying any income tax? Plenty. Why, because they really believe that some REAL PERSON is getting away without paying their fair share.

      There are plenty of good economic arguements for abolishing the tax, but they are no match for ignorance.

    5. Re:Four Patches for the Internal Revenue Code by itsdave · · Score: 0

      so long as people insist that #5 will never happen, it won't, we need people to believe in it, and insist on it, or else nobody will ever take it seriously. if everyone bitches enough and insists on the fair tax then maybe some day something will be done about it.

    6. Re:Four Patches for the Internal Revenue Code by cyril3 · · Score: 1
      The Australian system allows a credit to individual shareholders for company tax paid on the pre-tax dividend amount. The dividend is grossed up by the Co Tax paid and included in your income to calculate your tax liability then a credit is given for the co tax paid.

      So the company pays it's tax and the shareholder doesn't pay the second level of tax.

      Why, because they really believe that some REAL PERSON is getting away without paying their fair share

      If the company doesn't pay out the tax saving in dividends and the value is taxed only as capital gain because of the increase in cash held by the company then a long enough deferral will mean effectively that the shareholders do not pay tax on the income. The IRS along with every other taxing authority in the world realize that deferral is as bad as plain evasion as far as the revenue is concerned.

    7. Re:Four Patches for the Internal Revenue Code by DarkSarin · · Score: 1

      #5 IS the way to go.

      Consumption based tax is a great method. Of course, then you have to decide on what constitutes consumables.

      Personally I like the idea of a simplified progressive tax plan with ZERO exemptions.

      so if you make less than x (say 30k) you pay 1% (everyone pays something). but if you make 100K you pay 10% and if you make 1M you pay 15 or 20%, and it would cap out at 20 or 25 %.

      --
      "We don't know what we are doing, but we are doing it very carefully,..." Wherry, R.J. Personnel Psychology (1995)
    8. Re:Four Patches for the Internal Revenue Code by Shajenko42 · · Score: 1

      So if a company spends $100k in costs and only makes $105k in revenue, does that mean they take a loss for the year, despite making more than they earned?

    9. Re:Four Patches for the Internal Revenue Code by DarkSarin · · Score: 1

      I don't know. I really haven't put that much thought into it. Perhaps for companies it should be different (no taxes, just tax gains (so in this case the 5k), but I don't know for sure.

      --
      "We don't know what we are doing, but we are doing it very carefully,..." Wherry, R.J. Personnel Psychology (1995)
    10. Re:Four Patches for the Internal Revenue Code by andy_shepard · · Score: 1

      It would be a bad idea to eliminate phaseouts. In your example, if the $5000 deduction went away as soon as your income went above $32767, suppose I have an income of $32767 and take the $5000 deduction for a taxable income of $27767. Furthermore suppose that the marginal tax rate is 10%. If my gross income increases $1 to $32768, my taxable income is now $32768, and my taxes increase by $500.10, so my net income is actually lower than it was at $32767, and won't exceed that level until my gross income is $37768. Phaseouts keep the derivative of net income with respect to gross income positive, and without that people have an incentive to reduce their income, which would be decidedly bad for the economy.

    11. Re:Four Patches for the Internal Revenue Code by nelsonal · · Score: 1

      True trading is no more a gamble than any other business negotiation. Quick traders attempt to find patterns in very large trades and exploit those patterns. As an example, say a pension fund wants to buy 1,000,000 shares of Microsoft. That 25 million is going to move the market for a short time, if a trader recognises the games that a brokerage firm uses in their attempt to minimize the costs of that investment they can exploit that information to make money. It's not supposed to be just speculation. It could also look for pricing differences between assets that have value tied to each other (say S&P index funds and S&P futures) and wait for enough people to notice to reduce the difference.

      --
      Degaussing scares the bad magnetism out of the monitor and fills it with good karma.
    12. Re:Four Patches for the Internal Revenue Code by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No. That would be a Value-Added Tax like they have in Europe, where transactions between companies are taxed. A consumption tax is only at the retail level. Details at www.fairtax.org

    13. Re:Four Patches for the Internal Revenue Code by Rich0 · · Score: 1

      The Australian system allows a credit to individual shareholders for company tax paid on the pre-tax dividend amount. The dividend is grossed up by the Co Tax paid and included in your income to calculate your tax liability then a credit is given for the co tax paid.

      Uh - we were talking about simplifying tax code, right?

      Either tax the companies, or tax the dividends, or if you must, tax both. But don't tax the one and then tax the other, and then in some conditions allow a credit back.

      I'd hate to see how this is figured for mutual funds...

    14. Re:Four Patches for the Internal Revenue Code by Rich0 · · Score: 1

      Yes, but in what way has the trader exploiting those games contributed to the growth of the economy?

      What you describe is a transaction between one long-term investor and another long-term investor. However, for tax reasons the transaction isn't done in a lump sum. So the day traders gets in the middle and buys at the rate the dumping investor sells at, and sells at a higher rate to another long-term investor. The only thing this person has contributed is making the second investor pay more.

      Your second scenario would be like going into a Walmart and noticing a pricing discrepancy between the shelf and a sticker. Then you buy 800,000 items at the lower price, and then return them at the service desk for the higher price and walk home with the difference. What service did you provide Walmart? Sure, you pointed out a pricing problem, but you could have just been a nice guy and pointed it out.

      I'm all for paying people who provide services in making markets efficient - they do valuable work. However, the pay rate does not need to be anywhere near what it works out to under the current system. (Notice a price discrepancy of 25 cents - move a million shares of stock, pocket $250k in a few minutes.)

    15. Re:Four Patches for the Internal Revenue Code by Rich0 · · Score: 1

      Consumption based tax is a great method. Of course, then you have to decide on what constitutes consumables.

      Make everything a consumable by default. Then exempt everything that a poor person needs to survive. So unprepared food should be exempt. So should shirts, skirts, pants, shorts, simple winter hats/gloves, underwear, socks (you get my drift). Not exempt are prepared meals, suits, bathing suits, fashionable hats, fancy leather gloves, and stuff like that. Cars are taxable.

      An interesting question is whether to tax interest. When you pay interest you are purchasing a financial service (the lending of money). I'm leaning towards not taxing it - since generally people who pay interest are of limited means (limited compared to what they plan on buying at least), and they will probably spend the money they borrowed on something taxable anyway - not too many people borrow money to buy unprepared food...

    16. Re:Four Patches for the Internal Revenue Code by Shajenko42 · · Score: 1

      See, that's where the problems come in. What's a legitimate expense? Is the trip the CEO took to Hawaii (First Class, staying in a Four Star hotel for a week, riding around in limos) to meet some business prospects a legitimate expense or not?

  57. crapola $$ by cdc179 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    From the article, It cost 45 cents to process every dollar comming in. This number has been the same for over 20 years.

    This is BS...We work more than a third of our lives for taxes and they have the efficiency of a MBA on a Winblows system. Come on, get with the system.

    1. Re:crapola $$ by Bull999999 · · Score: 1

      It could be true if IRS taxes itself... It'll be like a infinite tax loop!

      --
      1f u c4n r34d th1s u r34lly n33d t0 g37 l41d
  58. Re:Easy Solution to All Our IRS Problems by vaguelyamused · · Score: 1

    The problem with sales tax is that it is very regressive. That is poor people are excessively burdened by it. I agree the tax code is over-complex but a flat sales tax would not be a good solution.

    --
    STOP ROCK VIDEO
  59. omg, $200 million?!? by pizza_milkshake · · Score: 2, Insightful
    IRS's nearly failed $8 billion modernization attempt that includes missed deadlines, cost overruns of over $200 million

    $200m is 1/40th of $8B. i wouldn't consider a 2.5% budget overrun headline worthy. of course, i guess it sounds like alot, so i'm supposed to be *shocked*

    i just hope the IRS checked CPAN for an IRS module before they started

    1. Re:omg, $200 million?!? by YaRness · · Score: 1

      well what's funnier is that none of this shit is really headline-worthy anymore. this is years old news in the gov't sector. no fucking clue what prompted slashdot to post an article about it other than knee-jerk reaction to "OMG 40 YEARD OLD COMPUTRSE RUN MY TAXES LOLOLOLO!!!!111eleven"

  60. Re:$200M and 7 years? Feature! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    While that is somewhat true, there is nothing preventing your supervisor from transferring you to crappy jobs so YOU would want to quit.

    And the DoD at least is moving to a system where it will be easier to fire federal employees (thanks rumsfeld! I'm sure that'll work just as well as your light, technologically advanced military is working in iraq)

  61. Easy FIX!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    mysql plus a little php.

    i can have it done by the weekend.

  62. Well, if you start with a 3500 pages book... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Seriously. This is something everyone agrees with, but nobody cares or does anything about it. It's just too complicated.

  63. Abuse by bluGill · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I interned at a company that made routers[1], and one of the big customers was the IRS. All the engineers joked that they wished they had known in advance so they could put backdoors in. Of course we didn't actually know the data formats (and at the datarates were are talking about, capturing isn't exactly feasible...) so it couldn't be done, but trust me, if you ever find that your code is being used by the IRS you too will be joking that you should have put a backdoor in.

    [1]Router in the sense that one of the optional modules you could buy was support for this protocol that a few academics were using called IP. Nobody in the real world used it at the time, as the mainframe didn't support it. Soon after IPX (Novel) came to dominate the market for routers, latter replaced by IP.

    1. Re:Abuse by DunbarTheInept · · Score: 4, Funny

      Better yet, for the ultimate hack, work on this project, doing nothing illegal while you are there, but pay close attention to the code that processes people's tax forms, and look for any buffer overflow bugs in the code that reads the text of the fields on the form (I assume they have some massive OCR system for this, instead of a warehouse full of typists doing it by hand).

      Then, next year, submit a very carefully crafted 1040 form on April 15...

      "Hey, this 1040 seems a bit odd. It's from a Mr "John Doe __________akjg908t9(%&@(dasaga9agajda(%(@Q@FAA062F root.exe"

      --

      Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.

    2. Re:Abuse by SphericalCrusher · · Score: 1

      I think the ultimate hack has already been done. That code was written in 1962, eh? Whose to say that someone doesn't already have their hands on it? Such as a really good social engineer. After all, that was 40+ years ago and security wasn't that tight back then. If you had the code then, you have it now and I believe that's a bad idea to use the same software again.

      --
      "Instant gratification takes too long." - Carrie Fisher
    3. Re:Abuse by SolusSD · · Score: 1

      believe it or not all that tax data sent in on paper is entered .... manually. and their emplyees are required to enter data in 90% correct. IMO ... that isn't that great, considering the amount of data.

  64. Re:$200M and 7 years? Feature! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    in my private sector, i let my girfriend fondle me, not some government employee, unless my girlfriend were a government employee. then it'd be strictly professional bureaucracy.

  65. Always wondered.... by Tangwei · · Score: 0

    ... why we should we tax the rich more then we tax the middle/poor? My limited understanding of the history of taxes is that they are there for "payment" of services rendered. AKA police, military, courts, ect... So do the rich use these services more then the rest of us? I think that before we fix the current tax situation, we need to look at what the taxes are being spent on. I for one am tired of hearing about things like 8 billion modernation attempts.

    1. Re:Always wondered.... by KD5YPT · · Score: 1

      Because the rich can actually hide incomes from taxes. Example, put some into "office improvement" when that so called office is their million dollar mansion. Poor people don't have that. Rich people got enough money so that hiding a large portion of it doesn't effect their ability to live a good life.

      --
      In US, you can easily buy enough major firearms to wipe out your neighbourhood but a few little fireworks are banned.
    2. Re:Always wondered.... by John+Starks · · Score: 1

      Uh, no. The rich are expected to pay more because, in theory at least, they are the ones that have gained so much because of the services. Sure, the rich don't use Medicare, but they sure appreciate police and national defense; after all, they have the most to lose. Furthermore, many believe that the rich should pay more because they have more excess income; most would agree with this to some extent, since the rich spend a lot on luxuries while the poor spend most of their income on necessities.

      Unfortunately, you misspeak when you talk about how the "rich" can hide their income from taxes, and thus we should overtax them to make up for it. This not only punishes the honest rich (and the upper-middle class that cannot afford to hide income), but rewards the thieves. Furthermore, it hurts small business owners because the cannot afford accountants to manage their finances in order to minimize tax payments. The real solution, I think, is to lower taxes on the rich while closing various loopholes in the tax code. Then, the upper-middle class and small business owners will not be hurt as badly.

  66. Re:Easy Solution to All Our IRS Problems by k8er · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I have always liked that plan myself. Punish the pissing away of money instead of people's hard work. Some might say that this will cause people to sit on money instead of spending it and stimulating the economy, but I don't think so. People do not have self restraint. You could double the price of all luxury items and people will still buy. They'll buy shit that they don't need even if they have to skimp on the kid's vitamins or school clothes. The simplified tax collecting will save a ton of money, and I say just give it to the ex-IRS workers as a severance or use it to pay for something that helps the country instead of all of the blood sucking. Tax attorneys and accounts can help the new small businesses that will be started. The lack of income tax bureaucracy will probably make small business startups more affordable. Whatever the downside is, it can't be as bad as the current system.

  67. Outsource it! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Give me a few billion dollars and I'll hire some dudes in India, Russia, China, etc to get the job done. Pocket 70% of the money and spend 30% of the outsourcing. Isn't that the american way?

  68. The solution... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    is to scrap the tax code along with the source code. And that means scrapping the IRS as well.

  69. Outsource the damn thing to India by melted · · Score: 1

    The benefits are twofold:
    1. They'll fuck it up and nobody will have to pay any taxes at all (thus by "Dubya logic" the economy will take off like crazy)
    2. It'll be much cheaper overall to fuck this up. No $200M budget overruns

  70. Separated at birth? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    WT Grams

    D McBride

    Of course they all look alike to me...

  71. Easy Fix by Eisenfaust · · Score: 1

    Linux Box + MySQL + Perl

    --
    Grrrrr... don't bother me, I'm thinking.
    1. Re:Easy Fix by agentofchange · · Score: 1

      Yes, and MYSQL has the best transaction management around.

      Not everything has the same requirements as a small website!

  72. Re:Easy Solution to All Our IRS Problems by SoCalChris · · Score: 1

    there are taxes which should have prevented such excessive aggregation

    That's a bunch of BS. Taxes should NOT be to prevent someone from getting rich.

  73. Re:$200M and 7 years? Feature! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In soviet russia, crappy job quits you!

  74. Are you fucking serious? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No one would trust that much data, especially important data, to MySQL.

    Perl would probably work, but there are better solutions.

  75. Programming golden rule... by KD5YPT · · Score: 4, Informative

    From my professor...
    "In order to write a good algorithm that can solve a problem, you must be able to solve it yourself."

    How would you expect a computer knows how to file return when some people in IRS don't even know how?

    --
    In US, you can easily buy enough major firearms to wipe out your neighbourhood but a few little fireworks are banned.
    1. Re:Programming golden rule... by danila · · Score: 1

      Use evolutionary programming. There should be mutating virtual tax-payers and thousands of simple rules, checking compliance - you don't have to code all rules to fit together. When a virtual tax-payer pays the taxes, the rule checkers should make sure their rule is abided by. If not, they kill the tax-payer. Eventually programs will evolve capable of calculating their taxes with full compliance with the laws. As a side benefit, in such a system it would be easy to fight tax-evaders, just more rules to catch those paying the least amount of taxes per 1$ of gross income.

      --
      Future Wiki -- If you don't think about the future, you cannot have one.
  76. Re:They need to privatize the IRS - the only solut by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Oh really. Well then why is Halliburton ripping off the american tax payers. The only time privatization helps is when there is direct and frequent competition.

    Privatization has been a very mixed bag. If you make an objective review of the history of privatization you'll see that it has yielded very mixed results. And privatization does not prevent corruption or incompetitence.

  77. Cynical nonsense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The above post is cynical nonsense. As a specific example, the IRS has reduced form-mailing costs by tens of millions of dollars by making PDF forms available for free via anonymous ftp. Is that a waste of taxpayer money?

    As for handing our favors, the semi-crooks that foisted a similar failed project on the California DMV are now facing jail time.

    More likely in the IRS's case, if Congress tells the IRS to use 1962 technology and hire idiot slacker consultants, then 1962 technology will be used and idiot slacker consultants will be hired. But the pork and the cronyism comes from Congress, via laws and regulations that, currently, are legal.

    My wife works in the federal government: in the last five years they have fired their in house IT workers and hired them back as slacker consultants, fired the slacker consultants and hired them back as in house IT people, and now they are laying off the in house IT people and hiring another gang of slacker consultants. I'd rather have my eyes gouged out with a spoon than deal with that kind of turnover..

    1. Re:Cynical nonsense by Tackhead · · Score: 5, Insightful
      > But the pork and the cronyism comes from Congress, via laws and regulations that, currently, are legal.

      Although government agencies (bureaucracies) are accountable to nobody, and as a result, the IRS would never support its own downsizing, you've hit at the real root of the problem.

      If the Internal Revenue Code weren't so complex, the IRS would be forced to downsize, no matter how hard it screamed for self-preservation.

      The revolving-door "in-house"/"contractor"/"in-house" system you describe is symptomatic of bureaucracy. But that bureaucracy wouldn't exist if Congress didn't invent it.

      If every Congressman had to do his or her own taxes, with pencil, paper, and 4-function calculator, and with no assistance from anything but the IRS help line, web site, and published forms, the Internal Revenue Code would be fixed within a month.

      Unfortunately, the odds of Congressmen having to face the monster they created are zero. As much as I hate the IRS - they're just the guys running the trains and seeing to it that the gold teeth are accounted for. The real villians in the story of high tax compliance costs are the ones who issue the orders that we get into the fucking boxcars.

    2. Re:Cynical nonsense by Dun+Malg · · Score: 1
      Unfortunately, the odds of Congressmen having to face the monster they created are zero. As much as I hate the IRS - they're just the guys running the trains and seeing to it that the gold teeth are accounted for. The real villians in the story of high tax compliance costs are the ones who issue the orders that we get into the fucking boxcars.

      Wow. Good analogy. I'm gonna remember it and use it next time someone gets me riled up about taxation again (happens every 13 weeks, heh).

      --
      If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
    3. Re:Cynical nonsense by RussP · · Score: 1

      Bingo!

      The tax code is waaaaay too complicated. That's got to be a large part of the reason the IRS systems are such a mess.

      --
      I watch Brit Hume on Fox News
    4. Re:Cynical nonsense by nazgul000 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Wow. Is that a Holocaust metaphor in the parent? We're talking about the IRS and the bloat of the US TAX CODE here. Let's keep a sense of perspective...

    5. Re:Cynical nonsense by ghjm · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If it were true that private sector competition was a tonic against bureacratic inefficiency, then companies like IBM, GM, financial institutions, and insurance companies would not be large, ponderous bureacracies. Yet they are.

      The revolving door insourcing/outsourcing of IT has happened at many private companies, even mid-sized ones that should be small enough to figure out how to do better. Perot Systems and EDS have been involved in a number of these types of situations. If anything, in the current market government customers are less likely to be taken in because they've been fleeced so thoroughly in recent years already.

      -Graham

    6. Re:Cynical nonsense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I believe this is an intentional invokation of Godwin's Law.

    7. Re:Cynical nonsense by Kainaw · · Score: 1
      If anything, in the current market government customers are less likely to be taken in because they've been fleeced so thoroughly in recent years already.

      This statement would be true if it weren't for the early retirement factor. It is possible, and highly likely, that you will retire much earlier from a government job than a civilian job. Because of that, situtations like the following one that I witnessed while working for the government happen every day:

      SRC, a government contracting company, signs a small contract with a government agency, Spawar. The person at Spawar who is in charge of the project agrees to allow missed deadlines and budget overruns because:
      1. A project will not be reviewed until it is over-time by 5 years.
      2. A project will not be reviewed until it is over-budget by 5 million dollars.
      That basically comes down to a million a year for SRC per project at Spawar. For them, they don't need to produce anything at all. After 5 years, they just send the project to another company, assuming anyone wants to continue it.

      Now, why would anyone at Spawar allow this to happen? Early retirement. SRC has gained the nickname "Spawar Retirement Community" because the Spawar employees in charge of the projects are given nice executive positions at SRC in exchange for the millions of dollars they funnel into the company. This is a benefit for SRC because it is ex-Spawar employees doing the closed-door million-dollar deals with the current Spawar employees.

      So, in summary, the goverment customers are voluntarily getting taken in and fleeced because it is to their benefit.
      --
      The previous comment is purposely vague and generalized, but all of the facts are completely true.
    8. Re:Cynical nonsense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      > Wow. Is that a Holocaust metaphor in the parent? We're talking about the IRS and the bloat of the US TAX CODE here. Let's keep a sense of perspective...

      "IRS merely follows the law Congress sets down."

      "I was just following orders."

      "My job is to ensure that the trains run on time."

      The average guard at Dachau was part of the evil -- but the largest part of the evil was the system that put thim there.

      The coping mechanisms used by the people that ran the system included a labyrinthine bureaucracy that enabled workers to concentrate on the minutae of form-filling, so that they never had to think about whether what they were doing made. any. sense. at. all.

  78. Really poor project management by Flower · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Note the references to unclear goals and communication issues, lack of buy-in from internal staff, the assumption that the IRS team could have a thin team to work with CSC.... It doesn't seem the IRS learned from their past failures either. The article reads like a list of project management don'ts.

    --
    I don't want knowledge. I want certainty. - Law, David Bowie
    1. Re:Really poor project management by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Had this been a project outsourced to India, it would have been about how outsourcing doesn't work and Indians can't write code.

    2. Re:Really poor project management by agir · · Score: 1

      I don't really see why people haven't mentioned it earlier, but large scale systems development is hard.

      We're not even talking about building something new here. It's re-implementing a 40-year-old legacy system, maintaining legacy data, and adding new features to bring it into the 21st century. The software engineering task is mind-bogglingly huge.

      The IRS' problem, and others like it (FAA - Air Traffic Control System) have been going on for a long time. For a little history, check out Risks Forum Digest.

      June 1991 - http://catless.ncl.ac.uk/Risks/11.92.html#subj5.1 March 1996 - http://catless.ncl.ac.uk/Risks/17.96.html#subj4.1 February 1997 - http://catless.ncl.ac.uk/Risks/18.81.html#subj2.1 and April 1998 - http://catless.ncl.ac.uk/Risks/19.68.html#subj2.1

      Regarding the IRS doing the development in-house -- While on the surface it may seem like a good idea, in practice it isn't. The IRS does have the domain expertise. But they don't have the experience with large-scale systems development. This is a situation where outsourcing to one of the large consultancies or gov't contractors really is a good idea. The challenge is have effective communication between the experts at the IRS and the developers, not just during requirements gathering, but throughout the software development process.

  79. Re:$200M and 7 years? Feature! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting
    Myth. While it's true few people are fired, many people find their positions no longer exist and don't fit in any of the new positions. If government jobs are so great, why don't you get one? I'm sure you think you are smart enough to qualify.

    I've hired a number of computer people and it's really hard to find great people who want to put up with government work. The dotcom bust has been great for hiring.

    I put up with the red tape and piles of legislative rules, because I feel the research we do is worth it.

    I make a decent living, but I know I'll never with the stock option lottery. Which sucks for you too, because if I didn't have to work for a living, I'd be writing free software. Luckily, my employer allows me to submit patches to the packages I use.

    To sum it up: If government jobs are so great, why do so few qualified people apply to our opennings.

  80. Re:$200M and 7 years? Feature! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wow! I've never seen anyone censor the word "crop" before. Are you part of some anti-farming political party? Or do you come from Texas?

  81. misprint! it's 45 cents per 100 dollars by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The IRS's budget is NOT 1.1 trillion dollars. It's about 10 billion. "Defense" is the biggest piece of revenue, and it's officially around 450 billion. Disclaimer: I used to work at IRS, on the Modernization project.

  82. Exactly the opposite problem.... by Tony · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I've seen that exact same thing-- IT folks clinging to outmoded tech simply because that's all they know, and are too tired and/or lazy to learn something new.

    But, I've witnessed exactly the opposite problem, too, or perhaps the exact same problem with an outsourced project.

    My wife works at a nonprofit that does management of the federal Welfare To Work Program. The state (AK) installed a "wonderful" database system using all the latest and greatest tech-- based almost entirely on MS products. I mention this because I think it is relevant.

    The system sucks so hard, it blows. It is constantly down, data is lost with no real explanation ("The broker crashed," is a common refrain), it is difficult to use, and it sometimes returns incorrect results. There is a multi-hour lag time between data entry and data availability.

    Here's my theory: it was designed by people who think they are programmers because they can use MS Visual Studio to create a front-end to an application designed with MS-Access (deployed on MS SQL Server).

    One of the downsides of the vaunted MS "ease-of-use" is the proliferation of half-assed coders who think they are hot, who have managed to ignore 50 years of history and knowledge, and are doomed to make the same mistakes over and over again.

    I think this is worse than the aging IT folks who hide in government buearocracy, polishing and defending their niche until it both shines and cannot be assaulted. I would rather have old technology that works than new technology that is so misused or intrinsically faulty that it just barely works, and that's "good enough."

    But then again, that's just my opinion. I could be wrong.

    --
    Microsoft is to software what Budweiser is to beer.
    1. Re:Exactly the opposite problem.... by Uber+Banker · · Score: 1

      I absolutely agree. I guess the problem was compounded where I was as the programmers were cluless dead wood (they didn't know how to make the old system, just maintain them).

    2. Re:Exactly the opposite problem.... by CTalkobt · · Score: 3, Interesting

      One experiance I had, similair to the parent post, was when I worked for a contract company which shall remain nameless.

      They decided to do a "charity" project and surveyed serveral local charities to see if any of their IT needs could be filled.

      At the initial meeting, some questions on the project came up and I asked, "Why don't we consult with the users to see what's best for them?"

      I got laughed at and told that the project wasn't for charity but was instead to develop our skills in certain areas.

      Needless to say I shied away from the project and didn't help futher.

      The end project, from what I've heard, was just that - a bunch of code that really didn't fufill the users needs but was good for bragging rights on resumes.

      --
      There's a gorilla from Manilla whose a fella that stinks of vanilla and has salmonella.
    3. Re:Exactly the opposite problem.... by mdfst13 · · Score: 1

      Not to mention situations like what happened to one of my previous employers. They needed to implement a Solaris PAM module to authenticate with an AFS Krb4 server (if you don't recognize the terms, essentially it says that they wanted their Unix machines to allow login to people who had the ability to log in to their network file system; a Microsoft Windows machine does the same thing with Active Directory's domain controller).

      Anyway, they hired an expensive contractor whose resume said that he was an expert in PAMs (Pluggable Authentication Modules) on Solaris. His first day, they found him trying to compile Hello World (unsuccesfully). They ended up having someone in house figure out how to make the module.

    4. Re:Exactly the opposite problem.... by codyhess · · Score: 1

      What percentage of IT problems would you say are created because programmers think they know the right way but don't?

      --
      Standup Comedian New York, NY
    5. Re:Exactly the opposite problem.... by Tony · · Score: 1

      What percentage of IT problems would you say are created because programmers think they know the right way but don't?

      Exactly 43.92%, costing the industry around $2.34 billion in lost revenue.

      Now can I work for Forrester?

      --
      Microsoft is to software what Budweiser is to beer.
    6. Re:Exactly the opposite problem.... by danila · · Score: 1

      If you want a rule of thumb, here is one: always choose the simpliest and most elegant solution. It doesn't matter what is your favourite design methodology, just remember to regularly stop and make sure that what you just wrote is simple and elegant. If not, make it so through redisign (you only have to do it for the last step, everything before that is supposed to be simple and elegant already).

      --
      Future Wiki -- If you don't think about the future, you cannot have one.
  83. Huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hey, I'm canadian, so I don't know the US Constitution, but a little googling turns up this:

    U.S. Constitution: Sixth Amendment
    Sixth Amendment - Rights of Accused in Criminal Prosecutions

    In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

    Doesn't seem very related to me.

    1. Re:Huh? by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 1

      SIXTEENTH, 16, XVI, 10 hex, 10000 binary

      http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitu ti on.amendmentxvi.html

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
  84. Re:$200M and 7 years? Feature! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ah.

    So.

    That does explain why I most often met with diapproval from gov't COTRs when I delivered working product, on time, at or under budget, debugged and tested and ready to go into their vetting for production use.

    Ha.

  85. Seen it by Quila · · Score: 1

    I did a thing on IRS IT modernization in college in the mid-90s, and it was about the same story back then. Nothing new, really. Any company that actually manages to modernize the IRS deserves a $20 billion fee.

    Of course we could just abolish the IRS and solve the problem rather cheaply.

  86. misprint! it's 45 cents per 100 dollars by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    yeah, I know.... a billion here, a billion there, and pretty soon you're talking about real money

  87. Re: I take offense, sir by griffitts · · Score: 0
    In house development is usually a bad thing because in-house IT staff tend to be old, dead wood.
    As a 33 year old IT manager I consider myself to be young, dead wood, you insensitive clod.
  88. $8 billion ????? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Outsource it to India, baby!

  89. Similar to Norway... by say · · Score: 2, Informative
    Here in Norway, the State Education Loan-Fund (which grants loans and scholarships to students and pupils) run their main system on COBOL systems from the seventies. There are only a few engineers who can reprogram the system nowadays.

    The big problem is that the politicians tend to make new rules for education loans every second year or so. Then, the system needs to be reprogrammed. Then, you need that COBOL programmer again. And that costs money.

    So now they are getting a new solution. It's going to cost a lot. I'm not sure, but I think it was about $80M. That's a lot in Norway. For instance, you could give all secondary-school students free books for that kind of money (they pay it themselves now).

    --
    Roses are #FF0000, violets are #0000FF, all my base are belong to you
  90. Not the only one by DaveJay · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Unti his retirement, my father worked for the same corporation since 1964; he was heavily involved in the creation of their in-house mainframe accounting system at the time.

    In the mid-90s, they attempted to switch over to a new and modern accounting package, the same kind that the corporation I was working for (in the same business) was in the process of implementing.

    Within a year, his company had given up, and reverted back to the software that he had written in the late sixties. My company, on the other hand, pressed on for a few more years before giving up the ghost and starting over with another software package.

  91. Re:They need to privatize the IRS - the only solut by clnelson · · Score: 1

    Yeah -- privatize. They did that with online payments and now I have to pay a nasty fee to pay taxes online. Great job. I'll mail you the check, thanks. Oh, that's return reciept requested, you jerks.

  92. Actually a good thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Can you imagine what they would be able to do if they had all the latest and greatest technology? People are already scared of IRS audits as it is. If they were actually efficient they could theoretically do a lot more of those.

    What about that story the other day on /. about how all of the state governments are tieing into each other's (and I would suppose the IRS' too) databases?

    No, me thinks it's best to keep the IRS a bit slow.

    You think I'd post this kind of message any other way than anonymously? And risk an audit? No Way.

  93. Never happen by beforewisdom · · Score: 1

    I have heard and read several high profile tax experts voice the opinion that the flat tax is a pipe dream

    In a nutshell: members of the house and senate ( & even the president ) use tax distribution as leverage in election years.

    Besides think of all the foriegners who H&R block outsource too who will be out of work if doing tax returns becomes simple.

  94. A new strategy......Big Byte Projects. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Here's one thing I've noticed about this project, and the one the FAA is going though. No one starts small, gets that working, then gradually work their way up, and across. It's always let's tackle the whole thing.

    1. Re:A new strategy......Big Byte Projects. by ghjm · · Score: 1

      Start small and tack things on works for some projects, but not for others. Specifically for FAA ATC, if you get a detail wrong then maybe a couple hundred people die. It's really kind of important to know that the whole thing works, all at once, from the first day.

      -Graham

  95. Whoops. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    My Bad.

    Need more sleep before posting.

  96. Nah. A tiered federal sales tax. by Moderation+abuser · · Score: 1

    5% for essentials, food, housing.
    10% for less essential categories.
    20% for luxuries.

    Or instead of taxing labour with an income tax or consumption with a sales tax. How about taxing non renewable energy use.

    --
    Government of the people, by corporate executives, for corporate profits.
  97. uhhhh by rnd() · · Score: 1

    I know the temptation is to solve this as a software problem, but it's really a tax-code problem. A drastic simplification of the tax code would make the IRS much more efficient, make cheating nearly impossible, and would give people confidence that the system was actually fair.

    The whole thing should be so simple that it can run on a $1000 pc (with a large storage array, obviously).

    --

    Amazing magic tricks

  98. Why should the IRS modernize... by KimJ721 · · Score: 1

    ...when most people still keep their tax receipts in shoeboxes?

  99. Yeah, give it over to CATO & the libertarian p by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    and the Ayn Rand institute...

  100. Give 'em a break by GodfatherofSoul · · Score: 1

    "Those familiar with the Master File say it is poised for a fatal crash that would shut the government down."

    Well, if it's been running essentially the same code for over forty years (with tax law changes probably every year), that has to say *something* for its reliability.

    --
    I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
  101. Yeah, how about no taxes? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How about we all just trade our right to vote for the responsiblity to pay taxes? No one votes, and not like it matters, anyway, so it's only a gain for us.

  102. Re:$200M and 7 years? Feature! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I believe the parent is strictly referring to federal government. State and local governments have to balance their budgets and make ends meet. The federal government doesn't. I'm on a project now for a Big Agency (agency head is cabinet level) that has been going on for over 20 years through at least 3 different contractors just since the web became important (late 90's, to them). We are 18 months behind schedule and all we have produced is a glorified address book and the beginnings of a framework for managing a small part of the rest of their business.

    Our team is not incompetent. Put this group of 20 programmer/analysts, a half dozen business analysts, 4 really strong data wizards and assorted support staff in a commercial environment and I we could kick out some solid systems on time and within stone-throwing distance of the budget.

    The business processes we are replacing are fairly complex in the rules, primarily because the rules change every year and we are supporting data and rules going back 50+ years. That is not the problem. A significant part of the problem (and I freely admit we have made more than our fair share of mistakes on this as well) is that the half dozen different departments within the agency are all using the project as a tool to increase their political power and to screw the other departments. That is the one and only goal.

    I'm not at all surprised by what happened at the IRS. I'm surprised it isn't worse.

  103. Similar to Norway...Software patchpanels. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You know I'm sitting here and wondering why corporations and governments "hardwire" that kind of stuff in? Why not bring that part out, and make it easy? Or at the least use a language that lends itself to easy "on the fly" changes.

  104. Weird Terminology by cookie_cutter · · Score: 1
    nearly failed

    Is that a synonym for successful?

  105. Are you implying...... by FrostyWheaton · · Score: 1

    ...that the current system does not benefit the rich and the crooks??

    If so, which rock have you been hiding under for the past century?

    Your criticism, just like all the people whining about how the flat tax is regressive (not possible), and nit-picking about the definition of 'income' and the like fail to realize that the exact same problems exist in the current tax code, often with greater frequency.

    --
    Comments should be like skirts. Short enough to keep your attention, but long enough to cover the subject
    1. Re:Are you implying...... by say · · Score: 1
      Your way of argumentation is flawed.

      If I criticize a suggested system, does that mean I support the current system?

      I guess not. So, pointing out that a system of flat taxes on income only serves the employers better than the employees is quite valid in this debate. And yes, I believe that the current system serves the employees better than the system this guy proposes. That does not mean (and i repeat: not mean) I fully support, endorse or worship the current system.

      --
      Roses are #FF0000, violets are #0000FF, all my base are belong to you
  106. No EZ Fix For The IRS?? by yaj · · Score: 1, Funny
    Sure there is,
    • OFFSHORE all the development.

    That pesky $200 million "cost over-run"

    would only have been about $45.76 U.S. Dollars

  107. Re:They need to privatize the IRS - the only solut by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Oh yeah, privatisation works a treat. It's not like the government is going to give the contract to a campaign contributor, or anything corrupt like that.

    Nor will the government hesitate to farm the task out on a limited-term contract, so that when that contract expires, a new contractor has to re-engineer a solution from scratch and port all the previous schlub's data to it. That's what I call *efficient*!

  108. Re: CIO, IRS - acronym explained (by the IRS) by gugg · · Score: 2, Informative

    The meaning of the acronym CIO in the context of the IRS is explained here (from the horses mouth): IRS Manual - description of the responsibilities of the CIO

  109. Here's how to modernize, cheap by russotto · · Score: 1

    They can outsource the modernization and the data migration to India. And make sure they're trained by the people in the "train your own replacement" thread. By the time the dust settles, there won't BE an IRS...

  110. Archaic code by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny
    Yet the system still runs code from 1962, written in an archaic programming language almost no one alive understands. ... As a result, the system has become a high-tech Rube Goldberg machine.

    What?!? I didn't know they shared codebases w/ Microsoft!

  111. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  112. Modernization, hah! by Julian+Morrison · · Score: 1

    So far as I'm concerned, the IRS ought to be forced to use abacuses. With their left hands. Whilst wearing padded gloves.

  113. So that explains why they missed things by dbIII · · Score: 1

    That may help to explain why the IRS is missing a few things - like getting tax revenue from Hollywood.

  114. Re:$200M and 7 years? Feature! by bear_phillips · · Score: 3, Informative

    I did contracting work for the USDA for a while. There were a lot of bad government employees, but I thought most were pretty good. The real problem was the independent contract companies (like the one I worked for). They were only interested in billing hours, not in quality of work. The goverment depended on these companies to give them good advice. That advice usually slanted to what every would bill the most hours.

    --
    http://www.windmeadow.com/
  115. NEVER electronically file--overwhelm the bastards by coltrane679 · · Score: 1

    Not by internet, not by phone. Overburden the IRS with the most archaic, burdensome chores--shuffling papers, keying in data--at every level. These sons of bitches are the enemy, or at least the frontline troops of the enemy. We will never get a fairer, more rational tax system if you help them shear sheep.

  116. Re:$200M and 7 years? Feature! by Kindaian · · Score: 1

    It is very simple...

    Hire two teams to produce the results...

    The first to come with the project complete... earns it's pay...

  117. Re:$200M and 7 years? Feature! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    To sum it up: If government jobs are so great, why do so few qualified people apply to our opennings.

    Same reason why even very hungry people won't take food stamps: pride.

    Sorry, but there's a belief among the general populace, and the coding community in particular, that you don't live off the government.

    Additionally, the fact that you deal with bureaucracy puts a serious asterix against any and all research that you might be doing.
  118. national retail tax by sonatinas · · Score: 1

    1. gets rid of the IRS
    2. no more filing taxes
    3. get a monthly check for basic necessities
    4. encourages saving

    fairtax.org

  119. Why should this be a problem? by snarkasaurus · · Score: 3, Interesting

    One major reason why the IRS can't update their technology is that the US Tax Code fills more volumes than the Encyclopedia Brittanica. There's more lines of instructions in the friggin law than there is running the Space Shuttle.

    Many of those instructions conflict and contradict each other. It is impossible to computerize instructions like that. Can't be done. No way, no hope, no chance.

    But why should this be a problem? Perfect opportunity to introduce a FLAT TAX. Everybody pays some percentage of their annual income, like maybe 5%, no exceptions and no deductions. Make the income cutoff at $30,000 or something like that.

    SHAZAM, no more problem! The government gets the money it needs, because by reducing the 45 cents on the dollar cost of tax collection to somewhere around 5 cents (do you belive that? 45 fucking cents! And they say the military is expensive!) they more than make up for any reduction in the tax rate.

    Plus they can fire half the IRS in one go. That's a goal to work toward! Yeehaw! Problem solved, next up, the INS.

    1. Re:Why should this be a problem? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As much as I would love to see a flat tax, it's not feasible unless you close all the damn loop holes. think about all the business people who cheat by giving themselves a modest salary and have their business pay for their mortgage. There are so many ways to cheat and those who are multi-millionaires do. Instead of buying the car themselves, an unethical CTO/CEO could have the business buy it as part of their compensation. Are legislators suppose to write new laws to govern which business expenses are considered part of the salary? Remember that many of the tax laws were bought by by people who have hundreds of millions. I can guarantee those who are worth over 100million do not pay 45% tax. they are not that stupid. Instead they hide the money such that it doesn't look like they make that much.

    2. Re:Why should this be a problem? by /dev/trash · · Score: 1

      Do you know how many people you will put out of work with that plan?

      Think about it. Accountants. Software Developers. Real Estate Agents. The list goes on.

    3. Re:Why should this be a problem? by YaRness · · Score: 2, Insightful

      getting a flat tax is easy. all you need is a bigger lobbying budget than every big coporation that will lobby against a flat tax because a complicated tax system is easier to leverage for loopholes.

      where do you think the tax system comes from? congress. who tells congress what to do? constituents? yes, constituents. the ones with big pocketbooks.

    4. Re:Why should this be a problem? by KD5YPT · · Score: 1

      One, plz post with a registered name. I would've mod you up except you're posting anonymously... so...
      Either way, the law really should get written. There was this joke in Tom Clancy's Executive Order that when they place all the tax rule book on a beach nut table at the white house presentation room, the table broke and collapsed in full view of reporters. Maybe someone need to do it (preferably the president) to send a message that our tax code is WAY TOO BLOATED!

      --
      In US, you can easily buy enough major firearms to wipe out your neighbourhood but a few little fireworks are banned.
    5. Re:Why should this be a problem? by snarkasaurus · · Score: 1

      Thousands and thousands. Wouldn't it be GREAT? ~:D

      In truth, all those jobs are dragging on the economy. Those people reduce the loss of private funds to government and protect people from fines.

      Money spent defending a company from the tax man does not help it grow or prosper. Tax accounting is a cost over and above the tax itself, not an investment. Costs are to be avoided.

      Would it not be more beneficial if society didn't requite all those tax jobs to be performed, giving the people doing them a chance to do something else that would create value, as investments do?

      If taxes were simpler they would cost the government less to collect and cost us less to pay.

      People who used to make a living doing tax forms and tax law would no doubt be resourceful enough to find something else to do. People are smart, they just need the right motivation.

    6. Re:Why should this be a problem? by snarkasaurus · · Score: 1

      Give up now and avoid the rush? Why so defeatist?

      Notice lately how gun control doesn't fall from the lips of every Democrat running for public office the way it did in the 1990's? Who do you think has more money, the Million Mom March or the NRA? Guess what, the MMM's do. They get as much dough as they can use from a variety of foundations and super rich types like Paul Allen and the Monster.com guy.

      They have easilly twice as much money, and they are losing.

      Tax reform is the same idea. It is so obvious and stunningly simple that even a Liberal can grasp it. Eg. reduce the 45 cents per dollar of IRS costs to 40 cents per dollar, and you have an extra nickle to save the whales.

      Doesn't have to be a flat tax to work, you could get the same effect by firing the whole IRS and starting the Tax Code over from scratch. Hire Mastercard and VISA to do all the paperwork, you could get the cost down to 10 cents per dollar.

      Whatever works is the name of the game.

    7. Re:Why should this be a problem? by snarkasaurus · · Score: 1

      If you make the tax easy enough and small enough, it isn't worth it to dodge through loopholes. The accounting and capital cost are more than what you save by fiddling about if the top rate is under 20%.

      On the other hand, the top marginal rate is 35%+, then hell yeah go for the loopholes.

      Besides, if some rich guy chissels the taxman for a few hundred grand, do we care? He's paying a buttload anyway, you want the pennies off his eyes too?

      At a certain point the "make the rich pay!!!" concept starts costing more than its worth. I belive we passed that point in about 1930 and it has been downhill ever since. Time for a re-look before the whole thing crashes and burns, eh?

      Besides, I didn't say you shouldn't go after cheaters. I just think 45 cents is a ludicrous ammount to pay for collecting a measly buck. Flat tax would go a long way to fixing that. You have a better idea, go for it.

    8. Re:Why should this be a problem? by YaRness · · Score: 1

      Notice lately how gun control doesn't fall from the lips of every Democrat running for public office the way it did in the 1990's?

      uhh, who's in office again? who's dominating congress? republicans.

      so you won't be hearing much of anything about guns or pro-abortion, OR less taxes, since the republicans aren't talking about it, and the democrats are busy trying to win republican votes.

      (actually mostly all you'll hear IMO is how great/bad bush is)

  120. Now HERE's an idea. by kcb93x · · Score: 1

    Whoops, hit 'enter' instead of 'tab' there.

    But, here's a good idea.

    Feds can say 'everyone gets x% tax based on $xx,xxx income'

    States all add on top of that, whatever they come up with for their own.

    Even IF the code isn't cut down...it's still reduced to ONE form.

    Now, we *could* use some REFORM as in:
    -Reduction in laws
    -closing of loopholes (some, mainly those abused by rich/thieves/evaders)

    NOT as in:
    -getting to one simple system (maybe base it on that)

    but we do need to reduce the complexity. When a required government service/tax has a large percentage of the US paying someone to fill it out for them because it's too complex (mainly businesses) then there's maybe something wrong.

    --
    There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
  121. Re:$200M and 7 years? Feature! by Profane+MuthaFucka · · Score: 1

    Sure, there are good employees in government. But, it's not the good ones that get promoted. Promotions in government are political.

    And the contractors are smart enough to have figured out that they don't work for the smart government employees. They work for the politically promoted managers. That means if they don't forget to bring Krispy Kremes for the entire office, they can jack off in their cube all day long.

    Like any organization, when it's in bad shape, the fingers should be pointing at the management.

    --
    Fascism trolls keeping me up every night. When I starts a preachin', he HITS ME WITH HIS REICH!
  122. i pay tax on the appreciation of my home by caveat · · Score: 1

    there's a reassessment going on in town this year. land tax will be paid on the reassessed value, which is looking like it's going to be about half again as much as before (real estate values have shot up around here lately). wo while i may not pay tax on the appreciation of my house as *income*, i most certainly do pay some sort of tax on it.

    --

    Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored. - Aldous Huxley
  123. ..the cost of collecting $1 of revenue--45 cents.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    My God. If the IRS was competent at its job of collecting revenue, we could lower our taxes by one-third without cutting a single government program. Why isn't this on the front page of most major newspapers?!

  124. Re:They need to privatize the IRS - the only solut by cyril3 · · Score: 1
    For example, opposition to privatization could be significantly reduced by providing government workers and managers with shares of stock in the new private enterprise, either at a discounted price or at no cost at all

    Bribery doesn't seem to be a great way to kick off a new efficient blah blah privately run government service. Though it is in keeping with tradition.

    In any case, I don't really understand why you'd want to outsource any more of government. You've been doing it with Congress and the Senate with (theoretically) very tough contract reviews every couple of years and no one seems terribly happy with the results so far.

  125. better idea by zogger · · Score: 0

    Better idea. Scrap it, top to bottom, stop throwing good money after bad. Much cheaper and more effective. Shrink government down to manageable size,following constitutional guidelines, go back to excise taxes for funding like we had for a LONG time, switch from the erroneously named "free trade" to "fair trade" with quid pro quo tariffs at the borders.

    No way, no how, never - ever was the federal government designed or intended to be the out of control monstrosity it has become today.

    It's broke. It's breaking us. It's an out of control raging monster. It's hideous. Lose it. Start with the IRS and the "federal" reserve "debt = wealth" congame scams, ashcan them. Work from there. Trying to fix it is like pouring oil into an engine with all bad rings, shot valve guides and every gasket blown and leaking-it's just stoopid.

  126. Re:I worked on it ...(CSC stock prices unfazed) by gugg · · Score: 1

    Amazingly, CSC's stock price has climbed from about $29/share a year ago to about $43, in the face of seemingly horrible publicity. Seems like the piling on mentioned above hasn't really hurt the company's bottom line; after all, CSC's main business is reselling IT workers' time (at a markup) to the government. CSC's performance on this project is certainly not inspiring (they appear quite incompetent), but as long as they don't actually lose the contract, the money will keep rolling in (until the caps kick in), and the stock analysts will probably be pretty happy. It is a huge project.

  127. Re:$200M and 7 years? Feature! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    To sum it up: If government jobs are so great, why do so few qualified people apply to our opennings.

    Because they're usually entry level, at lease at the agency I work for. They want fresh outs right out of college and they only want to pay them $25k/year. I was making double that as contractor at the agency right out of college. So basically, why would I want to take a huge pay cut?

  128. Better Idea by Ikester8 · · Score: 1

    How much could be saved by eliminating the federal government entirely?

    Income: xxxxxx
    x 0%
    Tax owed [sic]: 0

    Look at what the welfare/warfare state is doing right now, and ask yourself what value you're getting for your money.

    http://www.lewrockwell.com/rockwell/shadow.html

    --
    That's the last time I run code posted in somebody's sig...
  129. Job security by Latent+Heat · · Score: 1
    We like to think of people in government as building empires and all of that. But given that the tax code is not really the work of the bureaucrats but really the work of the "special interests", the people who lobby Congress for this and other consideration, do you suppose the tax code is job security for accountants?

    If the tax code got simple, there would be a lot of people outside of government looking for jobs.

    1. Re:Job security by nelsonal · · Score: 2, Insightful

      That's why we will never have a flat tax (of the nature of Forbes' postcard 1040). Too many people are employed in preparing tax returns.

      --
      Degaussing scares the bad magnetism out of the monitor and fills it with good karma.
  130. Hmmm, flat tax with a $25,000 personat deduction.. by qtp · · Score: 1

    Congratulations, you've just invented the graduated tax!

    --
    Read, L
  131. Re:Easy Solution to All Our IRS Problems by Ikester8 · · Score: 1

    You're more correct than you realize. Saving, rather than consumption, is the engine that creates capital production and economic growth. More importantly, it's the only thing that can.

    --
    That's the last time I run code posted in somebody's sig...
  132. Classic example of patch and paste by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is a classic example of what happens when a company refuses to upgrade due to cost, fear to migrate to more modern systems, or just due to laziness and the fact that its easier to patch and paste your legacy system.

    Patch and paste can work ok but the big question is for how long? Before you know it, your so behind the times that upgrading becomes a nightmare.

  133. Simple Solution by Gunfighter · · Score: 2, Offtopic

    Fellow Americans, help abolish the IRS under the guidelines of H.R. 25 (currently making its way through the House). This will repeal the 16th ammendment and implement the Fair Tax. The bill has made it through the House before, but died in the Senate. Be sure to call your senators and tell them to make sure the bill gets passed once it hits the senate floor.

    The new government tax entity can start from scratch with their information systems, and all of the IRS records can go to the archives. There's no reason why American tax dollars should be wasted on trying to save the dying IRS dinosaur when it can be replaced with a more sensible solution for a mere fraction of the cost.

    Call/write your elected representatives up on the hill and tell them you're tired of this craphole of an economy AND tired of the ridiculous way taxes are collected. Tell them to support H.R. 25 or they can kiss your vote goodbye.

    Imagine it... no more individual (or joint if you're married) tax forms to fill out... no more audits... economy would probably shoot through the roof... more jobs... more U.S. exports... the benefits are seemingly endless unless you're one of those tax-avoiding million/billionaires who manage to fly under the IRS radar.

    For more info on the Fair Tax, visit http://www.fairtax.org/ or check out the brochure at http://www.fairtaxvolunteer.org/pdf/BROCHURE.pdf.

    --
    -- Stu

    /. ID under 2,000. I feel old now.
  134. I would sat more like this..... by Lehk228 · · Score: 1

    ld b,a
    ld c,$1f
    ld a,(hl)
    cp c
    jp z,refresh_data
    push bc
    inc hl
    ld b,(hl)
    inc hl
    push hl
    ld l,b
    ld b,a
    or c
    rlca
    rlca
    rlca
    ld h,a
    ld a,b
    and c
    add a,3

    (code blatently stolen from "ate" available on ticalc.org)

    --
    Snowden and Manning are heroes.
  135. BWAHAHAHAHAHA!!! Hey! by Master+of+Transhuman · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    I don't pay taxes!

    Have a nice day, Commissioner!

    --
    Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
  136. Guess you are not a John Kerry voter by Latent+Heat · · Score: 3, Insightful
    I guess you are in favor for more "tax breaks for the rich" because all of those AMT's, phaseouts, double taxations, and the like are the result of Congress worrying that somewhere, someone, is hanging on to their money without spending it all.

    There seems to be a big bias in our political culture against people of modest means accumulating any kind of money through control over personal spending and saving. There is a concern about wealthy people controlling all of the resources of the society by making it easy for those fortunate enough to even have a small surplus over their spending to accumulate wealth -- the kind of Huey Long concern. People at the top have access to financial advise, tax planning, and investment opportunities that one can only dream of, but people in the middle get hosed.

    Exhibit A is the advice for people of modest means to put savings into the stock market. Traditionally the stock market was a high risk undertaking for the very wealthy with money to burn. In the 1920's, mass ownership of stock caught on and then people got burned in a bubble collapse. A cornerstone of Depression era economics policy was Federal savings deposit insurance -- the idea was for people of modest means to have a low earnings but secure place to save money, and it wasn't in the stock market.

    Well, combine the 1970's and early 1980's inflation with regulated interest rates and taxation of savings interest and you had a negative rate of return -- your savings just kind of evaporated for being there. So first there was the money market mutual fund and then the stock market mutual funds as the answer to middle class savings.

    And then there was tax sheltered savings in IRA's, only they put in a phaseout on the IRA contribution, followed with the Roth IRA, which inverted the role of principal and earnings in terms of what was taxed, only that had a steep phaseout (actually an income cap), oh, and we are allowed to have tax-sheltered savings in 401K plans, only a good part of your earnings are paying an insurance premium to some pirate, and some 401K's have proven to be scams (can you say Enron? I knew you could!).

    Oh, and the answer to health insurance for the self-employed is the Medical Savings Account, which is another scam^H^H^H^H where you are allowed to save money if it is for some sanctioned purpose and is done in some restricted way.

    I guess we are really afraid of giving people the liberty to save money. People who have any kind of surplus over what they earn are suspect because apparently everyone from SSI recipients to Michael Jackson are spending every penny they receive and then more on top of it. From the principal of compound interest, even modest levels of saving in a minority of people can create great disparities in wealth, hence the need for inflation, low savings interest rates, and taxation of interest earnings to keep such people in line. And apparently our economy is one big Keynsian bubble -- if people stopped living beyond their means and buying on credit apparently the whole economy would crater.

    With savings there comes moral principles of self-reliance and disciplined appetites. One can save enough money for your eventual nursing home stay without having to go on Medicaid. One can have that fancy car but one has to plan ahead for it. With the war on savings, one can have one's fancy car, but one has to be on a credit treadmill, one can have that college education, but one must be a financial assistance supplicant, one can be treated in a nursing home, but one must receive Medicaid assistance. One can "save" money too, but only if for sanctioned purposes and by participating in the correct program.

    I say the problem is not the taxing of earned income but all the restrictions on what one can do with that earned income that follow from this great fear of income inequality is the heart of the problem.

  137. Master File by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    On kind of a side note:

    If it's old enough and the original coders were bad enough, it might actually be one file.

    Just the thought of my taxes getting processed with 1962 equivalents of sed, awk, and grep makes me shudder.

  138. Re:$200M and 7 years? Feature! by Chester+K · · Score: 1

    Local and state governments have deadlines just like in the private sector. The only real difference is that we have to deal with a lot more buricratic cr*p. If any of my projects were 7 years over due, I would expect to get canned, or demoted.

    Yes, but none of your projects are giant agency-defining cash sinks. The smaller projects, the details of the organization, they get done. The large, sweeping stuff doesn't; and yes I'm saying that from personal experience.

    --

    NO CARRIER
  139. The rich already pay a lower rate... by mdfst13 · · Score: 1

    The lowest marginal tax rate (federal, including Social Security and Medicare) is about 28%. Overall, taxes make up between 20% and 25% of national income, so effective taxes (the majority of which are paid by the "rich") are lower than even the lowest marginal rate.

    Special rates on capital gains, tax free interest, foundations, etc. leave those who invest (the ones who pay the least under a consumption tax) also paying the least under the current system.

    1. Re:The rich already pay a lower rate... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You have that backwards...the "rich" (please define that) pay a higher rate. The majority of all taxes are paid by top earners (notice I said "earners"). Some people pay (effectively) no tax at all, so somebody has to pay higher than average to make that zero average out to...uh...average. Right? Effective taxes ON AVERAGE are lower than the lowest marginal rate, but the "poor" pay lower than average and the "rich" pay higher than average.

      I'm not saying that it doesn't make some amount of sense for people that make more money to pay more tax. This happens under the current tax system, and under the "Fair Tax" system. Our current system is just plain stupid.

    2. Re:The rich already pay a lower rate... by mdfst13 · · Score: 1

      "the "rich" (please define that)"

      I was using the parent's definition: the rich are people who have a high rate of investment. I don't particularly care what the mark off is (e.g. 10% of income invested). My point is that there are *already* tax breaks for investments. The claim was that the "Fair Tax" system taxes the "poor" more than the "rich" because the "poor" consume more of their income (it's a consumption tax).

      I am neglecting the income taxed at 0 or negative rates (Earned Income Tax Credit), as that continues under the "Fair Tax" system.

      The real issue with the Fair Tax system is that its exemptions mean that the rate is probably too low. Currently, we need marginal rates from 28-50% (including Social Security and Medicare) to produce an effective rate between 20-25% (probably 23%, that's usually how they pick flat tax rates; when federal taxes were 19%, that was the suggested flat rate). Therefore, to maintain current tax collections, the rate would need to be higher, perhaps 27% to start with a 10% surcharge for "higher" income earners (higher being set at whatever level makes the numbers work).

      The part about consumption taxes that I like best is that they fix the capital gains system. Since it doesn't adjust for inflation, capital gains taxes use too broad a base. As a result, the government lowers the rate, which doesn't really fix the problem. A consumption tax automatically adjusts for inflation, because the original principal goes untaxed.

  140. inside info from an IRS employee by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I used to be a techie in Baltimore but after moving to Portland, OR and looking for months for another tech position I ended up taking a customer service postion with the IRS.
    I work on the toll free help line for individual tax issues and I use the IRS system on a daily basis.

    There are 2 parts to the user interface: IDRS (Integrated Data Retrieval System) and ICP (Integrated Case Processing).
    IDRS is the main text based interface to the database.
    ICP is a recent addtion to the system. It is a basic GUI which helps users enter command codes, switches and definers in the proper format.
    There are several hundred command codes.
    I use a couple of dozen on a regular basis.
    The system has proven to be pretty stable but it does go down occasionally.
    It does become inaccessible during the last week of the year so updates can be made in preparation for the new filing season.
    The first few weeks in January are called dead cycles.
    During this time, many of the command codes are taken offline so further maintenance can be done to the system.
    Our desktops run Windows NT 4.0

    Until January of this year, each of the ten service centers maintained a separate database.
    Each of the call sites was assigned to a service center.
    When data is entered or changes are made to accounts, it is first recorded to the service center database. Every two weeks, tapes of the changes made in the databases are flown to the central computing center in Martinsburg, WV where they are all integrated into a central database.
    This made research exceedingly tedious.
    If a taxpayer (TP) called in with a problem, you would need to check each of the active databases to find out what was going on.
    If changes were made to multiple databases, error conditions would occur when the changes were consolidated with the master database.

    In January, the service center databases were eliminated for individual tax accounts and we now access the master database directly which eliminates a lot of issues.
    This was all done within the confines of the existing system.
    There is some progress being made but it is certainly nowhere near being a user friendly system.
    It takes quite a while to learn the commands and how to format them properly.
    There is a 600+ page manual updated annually which helps you to interpret the information presented in IDRS.
    Everything is presented as a numerical code.
    For instance a refund being issued is designated with transaction code 846. Another subcode tells you if the refund is a direct deposit or a check. The date on the code is not the actual date the refund is scheduled to go out. To figure that you subtract 10 days if it's a direct deposit and 3 days for a check. All refunds are issued on Fridays.
    If you are being audited there will be a transaction code 420 ;)
    To correct errors on an account you enter the appropriate codes and dollar amounts and then it takes about 2 weeks to process,
    It shows up as a pending transaction until processing time is up. If you didn't do it right, it'll come back to you as an unpostable transaction in about 30 days or so.
    Needless to say this is not convenient for the TP.

    Anybody who spends more than five minutes watching someone work with the system will realize that upgrading the system is not a straightforward task.

    For those who are wondering how all those tax returns are entered:
    They are typed into the database manually by seasonal employees who are paid piecemeal.

    1. Re:inside info from an IRS employee by trevorkian57 · · Score: 1

      I worked for IRS between 84-90. I knew the system better than everyone except one guy at my service center. Everything said here is correct except the unpostables are supposed to return in 2 weeks. One week for pending unpostable another to post the unpostable. Yeah, archaic. I used to collect $50 awards for handbook changes by finding wrong procedures and even mispelled words. One was 'take the form to the Form unit where the girl will...'. I got $50 for changing girl to person.HAHA. I knew they printed reports on the weekend so to keep my old case percentage down I would sign out about 300 pieces of work on Friday and sign them back on Monday. The limit for old case percentage was 20%, mine was .05%. My manager would ask me how I did this and I would just shrug my shoulders thinking 'look if you cannot figure it out I am not telling', in any case I racked up another extra $300 a quarter for having high production and low old case work. I started teaching classes there after 6 months on the job. Why? The average intelligence level was so low. This was before PC's, do you think these people could work a computer made by Ross Perot? Big red and blue buttons and a black and white screen, please. Anyway, if you try and have these people retype all that data without errors we could have every person in the country working in Data Entry and Error Correction. Listen all the Service Center was was a big error correction factory. Hire people 'off the street' for $4.25 an hour, have them type in stuff at a 30% error rate and have it 'fixed' by people making $5 an hour. The attitude of the place was 'it will get fixed later'. My advice, do not trust the government to do anything right. It is amazing that anything gets done. I got $50 bucks once because the Entity Unit that kept a file of every taxpayer on those old library cards with the drawers had to rearrange the drawers and the had pulled out about 50% of them and put them on the floor. Someone called me because they thought I was smart but I just had a little common sense. Anyway they asked what do we do? It is a mess and we can't fix it? I looked, thought for 5 seconds and said 'put them in alphabetical order first'. They thought I was a genius. God I am glad I am out of the hellhole!

  141. Re:Which Language (assembly?) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


    S/390 assembly language? (360 then 370, now 390?)
    not C, assembly...
    Take a look at google groups link to y2 email
    1) ran for 3 weeks non-stop every month.
    2) was written in S/390 assembly language.
    3) had no MVS macros in the source.
    4) keeps dates in two digit year/three digit day, packed decimal without the sign nibble. 99365F is stored as 99365 and unaligned.

    Item three was the shocker. Since they were getting close to having a monthly job that took longer than a month to run, they squeezed every instruction possible out of the machine. One trick was to assemble the IOS macros and hand tune the macro generated code, keeping values in registers, resequencing instructions, eliminating unnecessary or redundant code.

    Item four is a surprise too. They were trading off the time to align and OI a sign against the time to move the data though the channel. Amdahl's Law says that they are doing the right thing.

  142. Exactly the opposite problem....Habit forming. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    "One of the downsides of the vaunted MS "ease-of-use" is the proliferation of half-assed coders who think they are hot, who have managed to ignore 50 years of history and knowledge, and are doomed to make the same mistakes over and over again."

    And they are coming to Linux. Be afraid, be very afraid. Save yourselves, flee to BSD, the HURD, or even AmigaOS. We'll hold them back, while you go to safety. Take the children, they have so much to live for.

  143. government bloat damages the IRS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The simple fact is that the tax code is intentionally made super complex by politicians on both sides.

    This is what makes the IRS's job / computer software so difficult.

    The politicians have a vested interest in things being complex because they are able to hide handouts for their 'campaign contributor friends' and punish those that don't give campaign contributions.

    This bickering about tax the rich, tax cuts is just a cover-up for the real issue - quality of life.

    Quality of life - if we spent 1% less time at all levels, business, government, personal, etc doing taxes, we would have that 1% to make things better, be more productive, be more competitive with India offshoring, etc.

    Essentially, consider voting for a candidate that wants to reduce complexity of government.

    1. Re:government bloat damages the IRS by scrame · · Score: 1
      No candidate will do that. You dont reduce government by retrenching it. Cutting down the size of government is a rallying call for the right who like to demonize the left for social programs, but that is simply doublespeak. The right doesnt seem to mind government expenditures and intrusive policies when imposing their morality or deregulating corporate interests, just as the left doesnt mind when they impose political correctness or their kickbacks from special interests.

      Either way, we're screwed.

    2. Re:government bloat damages the IRS by royalblue_tom · · Score: 1

      Yuo obviously haven't seen the british show "Yes Minister":

      "Slim down the government, Minister? We'll have to hire more people to perform the feasibility study, on what can be slimmed down."

      Vote for a candidate that already has a proposal (such as HR 2525 "fair tax"), and get them to push it.

      Fair Tax:

      You could replace every other type of tax, and replace with a 22% sales tax (without changing the amount going to the government). After all, company tax is invariably passed on to the consumer, one way or another. Let the states collect the money, and have a central collections agency collect it from the states. The IRS would shrink to nothing, and everyone would only get taxed once ... why should I pay tax on my earnings, then tax again on my purchases (including all the hidden taxes paid by the vendors, that they pass on in the final sales price)? The only problem here is how/whether to collect tax on "used" goods such as houses, and cars. Even insurance/medical is easy - tax is only paid on the "service" part of the payment, not the part that goes to fund claim payments. Social security is just money paid out from the government (tax credits, horrible!).

      There are approximately 5 IRS agents for every FBI agent. The tax code's gotta be slimmed down.

  144. Barter breaks your plan by tepples · · Score: 1

    How about... no. Income is cash money, only.

    LOOPHOLE WARNING: If taxes cover only transactions conducted using cash or the equivalent (such as checking account deposits), then watch everybody move to a barter economy: you give us this for free, and we'll give you that for free.

  145. not all 8 billion wasted by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I worked on a TEENY TINY ITSY BITSY sliver of IRS Prime from 2000-2002. For a company other than CSC, and on something totally unrelated to CADE and the IMF (individual master file.) Our work was on-time, on-budget and made a significant impact on collection.

  146. Re:$200M and 7 years? Feature! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    To sum it up: If government jobs are so great, why do so few qualified people apply to our opennings.

    Nobody ever said government jobs are great.

    They only said that government work has good job security. (And yes, this is generally true.)

    The main drawbacks are: poor pay scale, few opportunities for promotion, and a huge amount of bureaucracy.

  147. Tax consumption instead by mdfst13 · · Score: 3, Informative

    Use a VAT to tax corporate income. Replace the personal income and wage taxes with a consumption tax (money invested is not taxed until it is pulled out for consumption). The nature of a VAT is to pay tax on *everything* but credit tax already paid (i.e. if you pay $10+VAT for a piece of wood, you get to credit the VAT you paid against the VAT you charge on the bookcase you make from the wood).

    A VAT is very hard to game. The only deductible expenses are tax already paid. The biggest concern is using business resources for personal use. Even that can be legislated away; enforcement is just tricky.

    Remember, a new system doesn't have to be perfect. Just better than the current system, which is a bizarre and ever changing mix of taxable, partially taxable, and non-taxable items.

  148. Re:$200M and 7 years? Feature! by falsified · · Score: 1
    Insightful? This is bullshit. You're not "living off" the government. You're providing it/us a service and being compensated for it monetarily. Oh, shit, I think that's called a "job", not leeching. Furthermore, people working in the government tend to get paid less than their private-sector counterparts, so it's not as if they're getting some sort of sweet deal.

    Following your logic, public defenders are nothing more than welfare recipients (actually, considering how they get paid, some actually might qualify for food stamps in some states...).

    --
    HI, MY NAME IS ISAAC.
  149. No suprise... by qtothemax · · Score: 1

    People actually expect the government to finish ANYTHING within the budget and on time? This will probably be modded funny, but I don't think I'v ever heard of any major government project from road construction to wars being finished in the amount of time and for the cost they say it will. This is the government we're talking about, it would be bigger news if they had actually been successful.

  150. ah yes ! HR 25 ! That one ! by stud9920 · · Score: 1

    More explanation please. Also a bit spin please. Will it make the rich poorer/richer ? the poor richer/poorer ? the midclass poorer/richer/larger ?

  151. That's a shame. by consolidatedbord · · Score: 3, Funny

    The software is over 40 years old, and STILL nobody has found a hack for major refund. ;-)

    --
    while true ; do echo this is my sig; done
  152. working for good gov't people is...good. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Whether working for government or private, I've really noticed that the big difference (as always) is the people.

    On either side, good leadership and management makes the difference. Acheivable, measurable goals, assumption testing, milestone markers...it all works together to make success happen.

    The IRS was designed by accountants and lawyers. And guess who they screw...anyone who is not an accountant or a lawyer! What a suprise there.

    True IRS reform would be changing the system so that the IRS takes money from the individual states, who take the money from us. The IRS would have a insanely simple job...50 payers.

    Sure, they would have to do some regulation and monitoring, but this would make a lot more sense to me.

  153. Re:$200M and 7 years? Feature! by pAnkRat · · Score: 0, Troll

    Sorry, but in our beautifull country (germany) you cannot get canned once your a gouvernment employee.

    Maybe thats why nothing ever really changes,
    and Billions are spent on bullshit here.

    --
    we need an "-1 Plain wrong" moderation option!
  154. obligatory simpsons quote by magister707 · · Score: 1, Funny

    IRS auditor: "Mr. Simpson, this government computer can process over nine tax returns per
    day. Did you really think you could fool it?"

  155. Re:$200M and 7 years? Feature! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If government jobs are so great, why don't you get one?

    Because I want to do something worthwhile with my life.

    By the way, nobody in the posts you were replying to said that government jobs were great. They pointed out that they were secure, that it's extremely difficult to fire government employees, even the lazy and incompetent. Great if you're lazy, frustrating if you're a doer. I've never worked for the government but I've worked as a contractor for the government, and seen it from the inside. There are people in govt jobs who work hard, believe that what they are doing is very worthwhile, and really try to do a good job. But they are in a minority, and most of them seem to get disillusioned after a few years. Mostly they stay for the better pension deal and eventually end up like the others.

  156. Re:$200M and 7 years? Feature! by chimpo13 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    No, he's right. Government jobs are for mostly for leeches. As one guy said at the gub'mint job I have, it's the 40-60 system. 40% of the people do 60% of the work. I think that's over-estimating the laziness of the common government leech because it's worse than that.

    Sure, I've worked for corporations and there's plenty PLENTY of slack off time (just like in Office Space about the 15 minutes of actual work a day), but it's nothing like Gub'mint Work where I've been penalized for working too much. I ignored the first "slow down, you work too much" warning and it nailed me on a review.

    You're paid for not working because that's the Magic of The Job. If you can't finish your job, you get a bigger budget.

    My 2nd job is at a small company and I'm not paid more in the private company like you said. But I enjoy working there.

    And public defenders, and I'm thinking of the one that told my uncle to plead guilty to an armed robbery that even the witnesses said wasn't commited by him, wouldn't do it if they were qualified enough to get a real job.

  157. same system everywhere by rastamutz · · Score: 0

    Here in Belgium only 1% of the company's gets a manual check of their taxes... all the rest is left alone and are not double checked... people who goto work everyday have no chance to fraud on there taxes cause everything is in a computersystem, and that runs well... The system is let the small fish pay for everything and leave the big fishes alone cause they provide jobs and they rule the country... ehrrr world. capitalism everywhere... whats the option? learn to live with less

  158. 45 cents/dollar ??? by Fat+Cow · · Score: 1

    I don't understand this "45 cents to collect a dollar of revenue" thing. If that were true then the IRS budget would be approximately 1/3 of the federal budget. Clearly this isn't true.

    Can anyone resolve this for me?

    --
    stay frosty and alert
    1. Re:45 cents/dollar ??? by danheskett · · Score: 1

      A lot of government revenue doesn't come in through the IRS.

      Though it seems like it should, it doesn't.

    2. Re:45 cents/dollar ??? by danila · · Score: 1

      RTFA. They say it's 45 cents/100$. That's not terrible really, although it is too bad they didn't reduce the cost in the past 50 years...

      --
      Future Wiki -- If you don't think about the future, you cannot have one.
    3. Re:45 cents/dollar ??? by cwerdna · · Score: 1

      I think they might have had a typo before. I could've sworn when I read this article, it said 45 cents to collect $1 of revenue... which seemed insane.

      I think they silently corrected it...

  159. US government backward? This happened TODAY... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    My brother is out of town on business so I am picking up his mail for him.

    Today he got a notice from the Illinois Department of Revenue. You know, the tax guys. I don't know what it is about, all you can see is his name and address through the window in the front of the envelope.

    Oh, and his SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBER through the front of the envelope. No, not through the window. You can read it through the tracing-paper thin envelope itself.

    Hello. It is 2004. Have any of these people heard of identity theft? I write my checks with a special pen that makes it harder to wash the ink off and these guys are shooting SSN's through the mail without so much as a goddamn security envelope?

    After seeing this the article on the computer systems doesn't surprise me in the least. Which is either sad, funny or pathetic. I'm not sure which.

    1. Re:US government backward? This happened TODAY... by Tonttoro · · Score: 1

      It's 2004 and you're still writing checks. At least in Finland we got rid of that by late 80's. Not that our taxes are nice, actually they're quite high.

      --
      when everyone gives everything, then everyone everything will get
    2. Re:US government backward? This happened TODAY... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Woop dee doo... Late 80's, congrats. I'm happy for you. No, seriously.

      Yes, I still write checks. It is called a paper trail and comes in quite handy when a company tries to screw you.

      I do love your idea though, I believe I will call my bank and my employer first thing tomorrow and tell them I'm through with checks. I'm sure the entire country will bend over backward to accomodate me.

  160. Oversimplification by cgenman · · Score: 3, Insightful

    We could fix that with a flat tax on ALL income over $25k a year, but that is a different thread all together.

    Does that include inherited assets? What if the recipient is under 18? Does that include appreciation? Does depreciation count as negative income? What about taxes people pay overseas? What about money earned overseas? Dual citizens? Deferred earnings? Gifts to relatives?

    The flat tax is a red herring. It's as if the additional math of a sliding scale is going to be a tremendous burden to the system. It's not. The system is complicated because of all of the various special cases involved in it. What about the parent who is earning 40k per year, but spending 20k on education for their children? Or the father making 70k but spending 35k on medical bills?

    Make no mistake about it, flat taxes are a way that rich people can pay less, period.

    Besides, the most byzantine part of the tax code is corporate taxes, which, it was recently revealed, %60 of all corporations don't pay. First of all, unlike people corporations only pay taxes on net income, not gross. So if they didn't earn any money, they don't pay any taxes. Of course, what qualifies as taxable income and taxable expenditures varies. Then you have exemptions and reductions for where you're headquartered, the types of workers you employ, what industry you are in, what kinds of R&D you do, employee training, and about a million other things. Add into that the problem of overseas earnings, and earnings at home from overseas labor. What about earnings passed up from wholly or partially owned subsidiaries? Do they pay twice?

    A lot of these corporate special cases are desirable, because they encourage things that you want to encourage. To say that they must all go and be replaced with a "flat tax" is a gross oversimplification. You haven't even defined what a "flat tax" is in a multinational corporation. Is a man in Denmark buying a book on Amazon.uk using an American credit card to an american bank a taxable transaction?

    With apologies to Einstein, it would be good to simplify the tax code as much as possible, but no further. The "flat tax" is not applicable to real-world situations, does not directly reference that which makes the tax code complicated, and does not solve the problem.

    No disrespect to you or your family intended, but the flat tax is no solution. Personally, I wouldn't mind a total tax rewrite, but I suspect that in the current political climate that would open up a field day for all-new abuses.

    1. Re:Oversimplification by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Screw the whole income tax altogether. Just tax end-user sales. Have you ever seen state sales tax returns? In Texas, for example, even the LONG form is only one sheet of paper! And only retail outlets have to submit tax returns. How's that for simplification?

      Obviously, things like tuition payments and charity would be tax-exempt. Selling used items would be tax-exempt so selling crap on eBay wouldn't incur tax liabilities. Everybody with a social security number could get monthly rebate checks assuming some minimum poverty level of consumption.

      This would solve almost every problem with the IRS, reducing it to merely a sales tax collection agency that has to handle only the 15M or so retail establishments in the country.

      aQazaQa

    2. Re:Oversimplification by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      except of course for the problem of generating revenue.

    3. Re:Oversimplification by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


      Does that include inherited assets? What if the recipient is under 18? Does that include appreciation? Does depreciation count as negative income? What about taxes people pay overseas? What about money earned overseas? Dual citizens? Deferred earnings? Gifts to relatives?

      The flat tax is a red herring.


      No, the you've just highlighted the *current* problem, that the tax rate is different if you are accounting for depreciation on a gift to a relative for an overseas earning inheritance, when compared to the rate you'd pay on your salary.
      It shouldn't be different!
      No, it would not be perfect, but it would be an Improvement.

      As for making rich people pay less?
      WTF? It's a percentage! 10% of 100k is 10%. 10% of $1 is 10%.
      How the hell do you get
      x*y / 100 z?

    4. Re:Oversimplification by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How the hell do you get

      x*y / 100 z?

      Crap.
      That should say:

      How the hell do you get
      x*y / 100 < x*(y-z) / 100 for y > z?
      Lucky I'm in as AC so I'm forced to preview! [Dick]
  161. Re:$200M and 7 years? Feature! by cgenman · · Score: 2, Interesting

    A friend of mine works in the Department of Revenue for one of the contiguous 48 states. According to him, because there is no way to differentiate managers according to pay, they differentiate themselves (and therefore, gain power) though the number of people under them. It doesn't matter if they are doing work or not, just that you get as many people as possible and hold on to them.

    Work does get done, but generally the size of the team has nothing to do with the work being performed. Hence, things finish far ahead of time and under budget. But, since you don't want your team cut, you just let them run freely for 3/4 of the time. The more wasted time the better, as that means you'll need more workers to do the work.

    They did, oddly enough, lock down internet surfing. I guess the infrastructure managers want the implementation managers' budgets.

  162. What are we doing wrong? by Laconian · · Score: 1, Interesting

    What are we doing wrong these days that programmers could get right in 1962? Why are we failing at these attempts at modernization, when we know for a fact that software engineering methods have advanced so much since then?

  163. Re:$200M and 7 years? Feature! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    But not fired? Yeah, that sounds *just* like government work.

  164. April fools day by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just looked at the article's date, which is Apr. 1...

    Could it be a "good" april fools day article ?

  165. Actually there is an easy fix for the IRS by BadluckShleprock · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Get rid of it. One third of all of the individual tax returns gets spent on the IRS' budget. If we were to scrap the IRS and create a federal sales tax (two have been proposed in congress), then the individual burden would be reduced because people with illegal incomes (they usually don't file tax returns) and tourists would all be paying into the federal pile just by buying things. Sticking your money in an offshore bank account wouldn't do any good. The more you spend the more taxes you pay. If this were to happen, however, we would have to make sure we don't do something stupid like keep the income tax AND incorporate a federal sales tax. If your country already does that, no offense intended.

    --


    ------
    There's a fine line between cuddling and holding someone down so they can't get away.
    1. Re:Actually there is an easy fix for the IRS by DuncMan · · Score: 1

      In the UK the government steals money from us in a number of ways, the ones I can think of easily are;

      * Income tax
      * National insurance (state pensions and health care)
      * Value added tax (a sales tax)
      * Specific taxes on petrol, cigarettes, alcohol etc.
      * Tax on interest earned in bank accounts etc.
      * Annual Tax on owning a device which can receive television (funds the BBC- for now)
      * Annual tax on owning a car
      * Stamp duty- a tax on buying a home (a percentage of what you pay)
      * Tax on anything you inherit from a deceased person ... and so on.

      Pretty stupid, eh? And I'm not offended... it's the government that's stealing (taking without permission) over half the money I earn.

      The UK is a terrible country to live in, full of skint alcoholic bigots.

    2. Re:Actually there is an easy fix for the IRS by Mxyzptlk · · Score: 1

      it's the government that's stealing (taking without permission) over half the money I earn

      Okay, so you mean that you do not use for example public health care or roads? You obviously do not mind an inflow of drugs, since customs are paid by ... guess what? Yes, taxes. How about education - didn't you go to school?

      You obviously do not use one single governmental service, since you see taxes as the government stealing from you.

      The UK is a terrible country to live in, full of skint alcoholic bigots

      Well, move to another country then!

    3. Re:Actually there is an easy fix for the IRS by DuncMan · · Score: 1

      I take your point that there are some very valuable services being funded by the money being taken from me. But I don't *know* what my money is being used for, nor do I have any say in the matter.

      For example, I'm happy to pay the wages of nurses, but don't want to subsidise poorly performing rail companies. I'm happy to pay for gritters on motorways, but not for the ID card scheme. Surely I should have some say in how my money is (mis)used?

      The goverment is taking money from me without my permission- that matches the definition of stealing. And backing up their demands with dubious laws and penalties doesn't make it right- that's too much like extortion through intimidation for my liking.

      And the system seems needlessly complex and expensive... For example, why have a local council tax which is subsidised by national government? Why not just request the whole budget from national government and do away with council tax?

      I'd like to move to another country since things are getting worse and worse here. I'd like one with laws which protect individuals rather than prop up businesses. And a mature attitude to drugs and sex. And where the law is "innocent until proven guilty", rather than "we'll secretly spy on you and take away your freedoms and generally treat you like a criminal until you're proven innocent".

    4. Re:Actually there is an easy fix for the IRS by BadluckShleprock · · Score: 1

      I didn't want to single out the UK, but I lived there for almost 2 years and paid a butt-load of taxes (almost 50%) thanks to an accounting screw-up by KPMG. However, even without the screw-up, I was paying around 35% in addition to a cost of living that was at least 100% of what I am used to here in Florida.

      --


      ------
      There's a fine line between cuddling and holding someone down so they can't get away.
  166. This is from the April 1st issue by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Does that mean anything?

    Or is your IRS really poised on the brink of disaster?

  167. Re:$200M and 7 years? Feature! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Every country should have at least two governement, so that here is a sane competition. The best governement will get more citizen and more taxes. :)

  168. OR.... by GooberToo · · Score: 1

    ...we can all pay a flat tax, each paying our fair share and almost completely do away with the IRS.

  169. Would a flat tax help? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I've always assumed that the tax code is complicated:
    - largely to counteract the schemes of tax evasion specialists (accountants, lawyers, and rich people)
    - and possibly to hide/obscure the tax benefits of being rich

    Really, the one line where you look in the table of tax rates is the simplest part of our tax forms. The hard part is all these millions of loopholes, forms, caveats, etc, that keep us honest.

  170. Re:$200M and 7 years? Feature! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "If government jobs are so great, why don't you get one? I'm sure you think you are smart enough to qualify." It's a 'closed shop'. They will hire legions of consultants and put a career civil servant who can't tie his shoes in charge of them rather than hire someone qualified from the outside. The only way to get a govt. job is fresh out of school or military, or to buy it from a politician.

  171. Re:$200M and 7 years? Feature! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "To sum it up: If government jobs are so great, why do so few qualified people apply to our opennings."
    Qualified people apply. You just never see the paperwork. It never makes it through the hiring bureaucracy. Don't believe me? Try applying for one of the positions you are trying to fill. Don't check any of the non-competitive eligibility boxes. Don't say you're a current govt. employee. Don't tell them you're 'reinstatement eligible'. You'll never see the application, even if it's a perfect match to your original request.

  172. Autocoder by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    See here.

  173. PDF by grip · · Score: 1

    Honestly, how hard and expensive is it to set up banks of scanners and some PDF software?

    chuck

    --
    Failure is not an option. It comes automatically enabled in every Microsoft product.
  174. Another option: Fairtax by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Fairtax: national retail sales tax of 23 percent, replacing all other tax. Revenue-neutral. Fair to the poor, because you give everybody a monthly rebate, of 23% of the poverty level. You do that regardless of income. Net, the poor pay no sales tax, everybody else pays it for purchases above poverty level. You use, basically, the same infrastructure as state sales taxes, with no other reporting requirements.

    About a hundred U.S. Reps have already signed on. Might be a good time...

    1. Re:Another option: Fairtax by Azghoul · · Score: 1

      Exactly. Then you can even "soak the rich" because they'll be buying expensive things. 23% of their $150k Mercedes is a lot more than 23% of your $12k Kia...

  175. Another option: Fairtax by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Fairtax: national retail sales tax of 23 percent, replacing all other tax. Revenue-neutral. Fair to the poor, because you give everybody a monthly rebate, of 23% of the poverty level. You do that regardless of income. Net, the poor pay no sales tax, everybody else pays it for purchases above poverty level. You use, basically, the same infrastructure as state sales taxes, with no other reporting requirements.

    About a hundred U.S. Reps have already signed on. Might be a good time...

  176. Re:$200M and 7 years? Feature! by KevinDumpsCore · · Score: 1

    > If government jobs are so great, why do so few qualified people apply to our opennings. [sic]

    Because government HR systems are antiquated!

    I applied for a job at one agency and had to get a login account for three different systems. I never got any confirmation that they had my resume. I also remember getting a rejection postcard for a state government job that I had applied for a year and a half back! I was already a year into a private-sector job by then.

    For the record, I worked in state goverment to 2 years...

  177. Who says #5 won't happen? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    www.fairtax.org says about a hundred U.S. Reps have already signed on...

  178. Sure, that happens. by ghjm · · Score: 1

    But again, it's not confined to the public sector. I saw what you're describing at a power utility - it was well understood that if you worked to supply lucrative business to the outside contractors for 5 - 10 years, then you would be given a cushy job with one of them, but if you allowed the boat to be rocked, you'd be out of the club. Nobody really cares if the projects succeed or fail, as long as truckloads of the (customer's/investor's/taxpayer's) money gets redirected to a holding area where you might personally be able to go pick some of it up later. The only people who get upset are the poor, frustrated fools whose ego demands meaningful accomplishments in a work-related field. Oh, and the honest people, but in this sort of environment the honest people usually departed the scene years or even decades ago.

    This happens at power and telecom utilities, financial and insurance institutions, academic and government centers, manufacturing plants, car dealerships - basically anywhere you have people and money.

    -Graham

  179. MOD PARENT DOWN - incorrect by eoyount · · Score: 1

    No, no, no! You troll! It costs 45 cents to collect $100 of revenue. Less than one half of one percent is "overhead."

    --
    To understand recursion,
    you must first understand recursion.
  180. Master File...? by Jogar+the+Barbarian · · Score: 1

    "Master File", huh?

    What uses it, the Master Control Program?

    --
    3. Profit!
    2. ???
    1. On Soviet Slashdot, a Beowulf cluster of alien Natalie Portman overlords welcomes YOU!
  181. And people complain about 30 billion to go to Mars by Thub · · Score: 0

    8 BILLION, with a B, spent with apparently more to come, and this wasn't even the first time "...in 1995, Congress pulled the plug on a second modernization program after the IRS spent 10 years and $2 billion with little to show for it." Granted this is not a department of the government we can afford bugs in. Not that I would mind a surprisingly large return, but if someone misplaces a decimal the wrong way, that could go very badly form some people. "You owe $21,320.00." "DOH!"

    My point is this. When the IRS fails to perform, people say "Well what did you expect." When NASA fails people are surprised. Let us spend the $30 billion to try to send people to Mars, and if we fail, we will fail spectacularly. If we succeed, we could inspire the next generation, possibly the entire world, to push farther and ignore the perceived limitations of the human race's ability to adapt, excel, and grow. When Christopher Columbus set sail for the east looking for a shorter route to Asia many people thought it was impossible. Some of his own crew thought they would sail off of the edge of the world, but they set out anyway. Spain paid for his voyage in spite of the perception that it couldn't be done. Whether Columbus was the first westerner to come to the Americas or not, his discovery, for better or worse, lead to a new age of discovery and exploration. Let's do that again...It's time.

    I know this has gotten a bit off topic, but it's something to think about.

  182. everyone loves their deductions/checks by peter303 · · Score: 1

    I read someone like 90% of the US with taxpayer IDs either get deductions (mortgage, childcare, etc) or a government check (social security, dependent children). There are like a dozen for education alone. So immense complexitry makes everyone feel like their getting more from the governement. Just look at each presidential candidate promising more of these.

  183. Re:$200M and 7 years? Feature! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So may I ask what sort of worthwhile job are you doing now?

    I would agree with you in that a CONTRACTOR is not diong anything worthwhile. I've seen plenty arrogant, incompetent contractors who are only out to leech off government money without providing any useful service. The competent ones try to lock the government into their own proprietary applications and try to get long term maintenance contracts out of it.

    Yes its frustrating sometimes being a gov employee, but I experienced frustrations in academia and the start up world too. But by far the gov job I'm in now has afforded me a lot more flexibility than even startup jobs, if you are smart enough to work the system.

  184. Audits aren't bad by nuggz · · Score: 1

    I'd rather that an "expert" either person or algorithm flag and audit people, then just a random sampling of Joe Minimum wage who isn't going to have a paper trail anyway.

  185. Vote by nuggz · · Score: 1

    The thing is your elected representatives probaly don't want those things either.
    If they do elect some that do.

    IMH(and Naive) Opinion, the politicians actually want to help make a good stable country that they, their friends, and family can live in.

    Even some rather unpopular leaders can be seen acting in what they think is the best interest of the world, their country, or at least those who vote for them.
    Just happens that some of them make bad decisions.

  186. Re:$200M and 7 years? Feature! by stretch0611 · · Score: 1
    They were only interested in billing hours, not in quality of work.

    You are absolutely right. In my Job I was outsourced to CSC. (The same CSC in the article) and then offshored. CSC follows the bill more hours principle in the public sector as well.

    Somehow, CEO's think outsourcing/offshoring saves money. Unfortunately as they pay more, and more IT people get laid off, no one will be able to afford their products.

    --
    Looking for a job?
    Want your resume written professionally?
    DON'T USE TUNAREZ!!!
  187. A code is a code is a code. by digitalmudras33 · · Score: 1

    A code is a code is a code. Title 26 of the United States Code contains the federal tax laws of this country. http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/26/ Look at this code like any Operating System plus Legacy Code. It has it's own kernal, directory structure, variables, and commands. See how the variables are used. See how the call-routines work. Keep in mind that certain elements of the power structure (corporate accounting and legal industries) are embedded in the code and have a serious vested interest in keeping it more complex than it needs to be. Similar to how Windows is bloated, so is the tax code of the US. Yet the tax code is in the public domain available to every internet user. Just like the Matrix.