Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

IRS Spent $60,000 Producing Star Trek Parody

Posted by timothy on from the but-they're-stimulating-the-economy dept.

An anonymous reader writes According to the AP, the IRS is being "scolded for spending $60,000 dollars on an elaborate parody video that played at a 2010 conference. 'The video features an elaborate set depicting the control room, or bridge, of the spaceship featured in the hit TV show. IRS workers portray the characters, including one who plays Mr. Spock, complete with fake hair and pointed ears. The production value is high even though the acting is what one might expect from a bunch of tax collectors. In the video, the spaceship is approaching the planet 'Notax,' where alien identity theft appears to be a problem.' You can find the hilarious and/or nausea-inducing video on YouTube."

9 of 280 comments (clear)

  1. Our Tax Dollars by pubwvj · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Well, this is better than some of the things our government spends our tax dollars on...

    1. Re:Our Tax Dollars by TemperedAlchemist · · Score: 5, Funny

      Like the F-35?

      It can't even go to warp.

    2. Re:Our Tax Dollars by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      Which F-35? The imaginary Navy one, or the imaginary Army one, or the imaginary Air Force one, or the imaginary combined version, or the imaginary one that won't kill the pilot due to mechanical and electrical failures?

  2. A manufactured controversy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The IRS decided to produce videos in house instead of spending more money to hire outside contractors. Before they could start producing actual videos for use in training, public information, etc., they had to get up to speed with using their new video production facility. They had to make some dummy video during that checkout/internal training phase, so they chose to make parodies of Star Trek and Gilligan's Island. Big deal.

    1. Re:A manufactured controversy by BasilBrush · · Score: 5, Informative

      The point is it's obviously been misrepresented. $60K wasn't spent on making this film. There was no expensive set. Just a few cheap costumes from a costume store.

      An earlier posts suggests that actually the $60K was spent on creating a production facility. And making this movie was just a byproduct of the training. That sounds more likely.
      http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3576059&cid=43258781

      Of course if you're one of those people for whom everything the government does is wrong, you'll choose to believe the worst regardless of the truth.

  3. Re:Who gives a shit? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    My girlfriend works at a library. A patron throw a hissy fit the other day because she thought they had used way to much salt on the sidewalk (this is snow country) and threatened to call the Mayor.

    It costs about $1500 per day to run that library branch. Yet people freak out because they might use $1 more salt than necessary once a month to keep the City from being sued by somebody slipping and falling. This is how people think.

  4. Good PR by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Look at the Star Trek cosplay, not the firearms we're stocking up on!

    The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) intends to purchase sixty Remington Model 870 Police RAMAC #24587 12 gauge pump-action shotguns for the Criminal Investigation Division. The Remington parkerized shotguns, with fourteen inch barrel, modified choke, Wilson Combat Ghost Ring rear sight and XS4 Contour Bead front sight, Knoxx Reduced Recoil Adjustable Stock, and Speedfeed ribbed black forend, are designated as the only shotguns authorized for IRS duty based on compatibility with IRS existing shotgun inventory, certified armorer and combat training and protocol, maintenance, and parts.

    (not that it's much compared to the DHS)

    --
    My God, it's Full of Source!
    OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
  5. Re:Who gives a shit? by Gimric · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The three largest expenses of the US Federal government are Social Security, Healthcare and the military. If defense was handled at the state level it would be difficult to prevent some states being free-riders, particularly land-locked states. Healthcare and social security could possibly be handled at the state level but the costs would still exist and would result in a great deal of duplication. Also, big business would love to be able to play individual states off against eachother for the best tax deal. It would be a very different country - in fact each state would operate much more like an individual country with all the potential for internal conflict that that entails.

    This doesn't excuse waste, but it is extremely naive to think that large corporations are intrinsically any less wasteful and bureaucratic than government departments once they achieve a certain size.

  6. Re:2010: 84,475,933 income tax payers by isorox · · Score: 5, Insightful

    For instance the 2009 Iraq war spending ($95.5B) was about $1.13 per tax paying household. On the other hand, the 2010 $521 billion cost of Medicare was funded by grabbing $6167.43 on average from each tax paying household.

    Score -1 Major math fail.

    95 billion is about 1/6th of 520 billion. Therefore Iraq costs 1/6th the Medicare budget based on your figures.

    Your figures say that there are about 90 billion households in the u.s. based on your iraq figures of 95 billion / $1.1

    I guess you have deliberately confused millions with billions to try to make a political point. Your figures should probably say iraq cost $1100 per household in one year.