IRS Can Now Seize Your Tax Refund To Pay a Relative's Debt

Hugh Pickens DOT Com (2995471) writes "Just in time for the April 15 IRS filing deadline comes news from the Washington Post that hundreds of thousands of taxpayers expecting refunds are instead getting letters informing them of tax debts they never knew about: often a debt incurred by their parents. The government is confiscating their checks, sometimes over debts 20—30 years old. For example, when Mary Grice was 4 (in 1960), her father died ... 'Until the kids turned 18, her mother received survivor benefits from Social Security ... Now, Social Security claims it overpaid someone in the Grice family in 1977. ... Four years after Sadie Grice died, the government is coming after her daughter. ... "It was a shock," says Grice, 58. "What incenses me is the way they went about this. They gave me no notice, they can't prove that I received any overpayment, and they use intimidation tactics, threatening to report this to the credit bureaus."' The Treasury Department has intercepted ... $75 million from debts delinquent for more than 10 years according to the department's debt management service. 'The aggressive effort to collect old debts started three years ago — the result of a single sentence tucked into the farm bill lifting the 10-year statute of limitations on old debts to Uncle Sam.'"

Comments

Over 18

[Anonymous Coward]

Since the kids were not over 18 - could the benefit received by the mother not be considered a contract between the govt and the mother and therefore since the kids were too young to be signatories how could they be held accountable?

Re:Over 18

[Fjandr]

The IRS doesn't recognize incapacity to make agreements.

Re:Over 18

[Lehk228]

because a social security overpayment is not a matter of contract law and so contract law is irrelevant.

Re:Over 18

[Skreems]

False. I made a mistake on my taxes 5 years ago and forgot to include a $17 capital loss. They sent me a letter saying they disagreed with my filed taxes, and that they owed me $17. Then a check. I was too lazy to cash it, and they've been relentless in trying to return my $17 ever since. tl;dr: they care about following the law, not taking your money.

Re:Over 18

[Sir_Sri]

Presumably it is the estate they are going after, and as beneficiaries of the estate they are responsible for the debts of the estate.

Of course this many years later it is impossible to try and defend yourself, particularly as the law *was* that 10 year old debts disappeared, so you could destroy any paperwork from the estate from before 2003 or 2004, and now have no paperwork trail to try and defend yourself with (assuming you had one to begin with, given that inheriting an estate comes with inheriting whatever recording keeping was done, which may have been terrible).

Re:Over 18

[AK Marc]

Of all the problems, that's the one you attach to? This is an ex post facto law (the debt was "clear" in 2010, and owed in 2014 due to change of law). It's seizing without due process, and it's an illegal bill of attainder. Though I'm sure it's a new class of "seizure" that doesn't need to follow any of the legal protections in the Constitution. Like being pulled over for speeding is both an arrest and not an arrest at the same time so they can pick and choose rights and powers that apply.

Re:Over 18

[innocent_white_lamb]

If you're a US citizen you do have to file with the IRS every year, even if you don't live in the US and don't have any income in the US.

The only way out of it is to renounce your US citizenship.

Re:Over 18

[rahvin112]

Not very wise, failing to file is a criminal tax code violation, even if you don't owe anything, hell even if they owe you something. You can be penalized for it and in fact you can be incarcerated for it.

Re:Over 18

[Sperbels]

You know, doing your taxes (and filing) in something like TurboTax takes like 30 - 60 minutes (assuming your taxes aren't complicated). Easy money.

Re:Over 18

[the eric conspiracy]

1. Ex post facto limitations apply to criminal cases, not civil cases.

2. Bills of attainder applies to a specific person or group of persons. I.e. a law saying Joe at 123 Maple Street has to pay 50% of his money to Small Town DPW. In England they were used to execute people, i.e. the govt would pass a law saying Bill will be executed such and such a day.

3. The problem here is due process IF they can't show you the records to justify the seizure. That's really really bad news.

Re:Over 18

[Cyberax]

Nope, the only WTF here is that it can be interpreted as an ex-post facto law. However, it's not so clear because tax violations have no statute of limitation for civil penalties. The only matter that was stopping the IRS from going after long-forgotten debts was its policy.

The fact that inheritors are responsible for the civil damages, including ones from future lawsuits, is nothing new. IRS also has power to seize funds without going to courts first, nothing new here as well. It's the combination of these two that makes a technically valid but WTFy situation.

Re:Over 18

[Vermifax]

Not strictly true.

http://www.irs.gov/Individuals...

Re:Over 18

[SumDog]

You still need to file. If you make over $90k USD, then it is taxable. Otherwise you don't need to pay, but you still need to file.

I just filed yesterday with $0 liability/return.

Fun fact, the United States is one of two countries in the entire world that taxes citizens on their income, even when they don't live in the country. The other is Eritrea which has a 2% tax for citizens living abroad.

Re:Over 18

[DarkVader]

That's a common myth, but no, if you owe no tax there is no criminal penalty for failing to file.

If you're owed a refund, you lose it after three years if you don't file.

Re:Over 18

[Z00L00K]

But they seem to recognize inheritance of debt.

I thought that inherited debt was something that was used in medieval times and in some third world countries to effectively create slavery.

Re:Over 18

[innocent_white_lamb]

I don't think your link has the complete story. You can find lots of information about this issue with a google search for facta (the name of a new US law that's trying to pull more people into the IRS dragnet) but here is one article that lays it out fairly succinctly:

U.S. citizens on the other hand, have an ongoing obligation to declare and report their worldwide income to the U.S.A., regardless of where they reside. U.S. citizens who have permanently departed the U.S.A. and have become full-time permanent residents of Canada are still required to file U.S. income taxes on an annual basis with the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). The only way for U.S. citizens to avoid this would be to go through a process to renounce their U.S. citizenship, which is not practical or desirable for most people. Therefore, a U.S. citizen who resides in Canada is essentially subject to the same U.S. filing requirements as they would if they continued to reside in the U.S.A. This means filing U.S. Form 1040 every year, and reporting worldwide income.

The bottom line for U.S. citizen residents of Canada is that they must file two returns each year â" a Canadian income tax return because they reside in Canada, and a U.S. return based on being a U.S. citizen. The Tax Treaty between Canada and U.S.A. has several mechanisms available know as foreign tax credits, to make sure the person does not have to pay duplicate taxes to both countries.

Original article here

Re:Over 18

[Anonymous Coward]

You are right, and that is effectively what they are attempting now. A way to increase revenue and have a class of people that are eternally in poverty with no recourse.

Re:Over 18

[MrKaos]

But they seem to recognize inheritance of debt.

I thought that inherited debt was something that was used in medieval times and in some third world countries to effectively create slavery.

That's the point. While you are busy attending to the debt left to you by the previous generation, you aren't concerned with matters of democracy to lobby against things like this.

Re:Over 18

[thogard]

The limit of income is as low as $400 and as high as $22,000 for some retired couples. Anyone working and making in the range of $10k a year had better check
http://www.irs.gov/publication...

Re:Over 18

[Cyberax]

Uhm, inherited debt has always been there, from the very start of the United States. If you inherit an estate then you also inherit its debts. It's as simple as that.

And of course, you can always refuse inheritance - then all the assets escheat to the state or to other inheritors.

Re:Over 18

[Opportunist]

Yes, but at least you could forgo it and deny inheriting it. In this case, you inherit your relatives' debt without a chance to avoid this.

Re:Over 18

[Opportunist]

That was 5 years ago. Now, the government needs money. MONEY. MORE MONEY.

The US is effin' broke, they'll sell their firstborn for money. Or, in this case, yours.

Re:Over 18

[MouseTheLuckyDog]

Hmmm. Is TurboTax tax deductable?

Re:Over 18

[Duhavid]

Quite. Now, who added the single line spoken of to the farm bill that opened the door for this?

Re:Over 18

[AthanasiusKircher]

While you are "required" to file if your income is above a certain amount, the IRS has stated repeatedly that there is no actual late penalty for failing to file a return that qualifies for a refund. I'd be interested if you have something that says otherwise.

Re:Over 18

[Applehu Akbar]

Yes, multi-generation debt is totally illegal in the private sector. For evil of this mind-numbing intensity, you need a government.

Re:Over 18

[belmolis]

Actually, no. The debts of the deceased are paid out of the estate. The heirs are paid out of the remainder of the estate. The heirs do not inherit the debt. If the estate is not sufficient to satisfy the debt, the heirs may receive nothing, but they never inherit any debt.

Re:Over 18

[belmolis]

No. The heirs are not responsible for the debts of the estate. The debts are paid by the executor out of the assets of the estate. The heirs are paid out of what remains of the estate. If the debts exceed the assets, the heirs receive nothing, but they do not assume any part of the debt.

Re:Over 18

[Teancum]

Hmmm. Is TurboTax tax deductable?

Possibly, if you can count it as a business expense. Just make sure that your "business" is profitable so it doesn't become a hobby (thus business expenses can't be counted). Sole proprietorships are reported on the standard 1040 form, although all of the reporting you need to do can be rather complicated if you want to take business expenses and tax credits too.

It can get even more complicated than that, as purchasing software like TurboTax may only be partially deductible if you are also using the software for both business and personal usage (aka if you have a salary from some other business where you are merely an employee) and other subtle things like that too.

Re:Over 18

[Mister Transistor]

Yes. Last year's tax preparation expenses is a deduction, if you are itemizing. If you take the standard deduction, then it's irrelevant.

Re:Over 18

[Teancum]

1. Ex post facto limitations apply to criminal cases, not civil cases.

While I appreciate the sentiment, I have known legislators who specifically write in "grandfather clauses" even for purely civil legislation because of the principle of ex post facto concepts applying to civil law. It may have more applicability to state laws, and especially legislatures controlled by the opposite party from the party which appointed the judge or currently runs the Department of Justice. This separate clause (independent from the congressional ex post facto clause) might also apply:

No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility. -- Article I Section 10

This clause suggests perhaps it applies in a greater measure explicitly to state governments. I have no idea if it has ever been interpreted as such by the U.S. Supreme Court though. There is of course the situation with the RS 2477 roadways based upon the concept of ex post facto legislation where current law doesn't permit establishment of roads through wilderness areas, but previously established roadways that can be documented on survey maps or other historical documents have been used as rationale to not only maintain but even upgrade those roadways.... even if all they were previously was just a horse trail or something an oxen wagon settler company used a century ago. That certainly is not criminal legislation.

As a matter of public policy, it is a really stupid idea to enact legislation that varies significantly from what the law was like in the past and expecting citizens to have complied with such legislation in the past as well.

BTW, does the bill of attainder clause also apply to situations where only a specific company, group, or organization can get a benefit or in cases that I claim are pure corruption where a request for proposals can only be submitted by a single person or entity due to the restrictions intentionally placed in the legislation? A good example of that is the Senate Launch System legislation, but there are other excellent examples of this routinely happening too.

Re:Over 18

[climb_no_fear]

Not if you live abroad, they're a nightmare, even if you owe nothing.

Re:Over 18

[buybuydandavis]

They can be held accountable because fuck you, that's why.

Since when does the government need to justify a shakedown? You got money. They got guns. Guess who wins.

Re:Over 18

[buybuydandavis]

What is the federal debt, but inherited debt?

Re:Over 18

[tlambert]

The only way for U.S. citizens to avoid this would be to go through a process to renounce their U.S. citizenship, which is not practical or desirable for most people.

Except for Eduardo Luiz Saverin, the Facebook co-founder who was basically paid by California and the federal government about $1.1B to move to Singapore. For him, it's was a pretty desirable and practical decision, given that the bite for short term capitol gains is treated as ordinary income by California for taxation purposes.

Who would have thought someone with a degree in economics from Harvard knew how to do money math? Uh... everybody? Hello?

Re:Over 18

[Anonymous Coward]

until now

Re:Over 18

[geezer nerd]

Nothing you say says that Mr Saverin has gotten away from his US tax liability. Only by renouncing citizenship can one end the tax liability, and even that continues for some years (10 I think) after the renouncement.

I am a US citizen living in a foreign country, and I do indeed file two tax returns every year. I have no intent ever to renounce US citizenship. Even with all its bumps and warts, US citizenship is still my birthright, and something I cherish.

The US tax rules allow for lots of deductions, exemptions, credits, etc - so sometimes my tax bill is zero. My country of residence taxes pretty much anything it can see. What I especially don't like is that it taxes the UNREALIZED gain on my US retirement funds each year. It does not tax US Social Security retirement benefits, however.

Re:Over 18

[geezer nerd]

In my 8 years of filing US returns from overseas, I have not found it particularly difficult. I use TurboTax. Starting with the 2012 tax year, they started allowing e-File even if your address is outside the US.

You do have to be a bit careful about deductions, as donations to foreign charities are not deductible to the same rules as for US charities, and you have to be clear about taxes you paid in your country of residence. Some may not be deductible.

Re:Over 18

[Chris Mattern]

No. The heirs are not responsible for the debts of the estate. The debts are paid by the executor out of the assets of the estate.

I think I see what's happening now. It's been sensationalized. What's happened is that the estate was settle and the heirs were paid. What the IRS is going after is not the daughter's assets per se but the inherited assets paid to her improperly out of the estate because the estate didn't settle its debts with the IRS.

Re:Over 18

[jafiwam]

10 year old debts DO NOT DISAPPEAR.

At 10 years in fact, the IRS is legally granted the power to charge you interest. 100%, PER DAY. Thank Al Capone for that one.

I see you subscribe to the "don't make me beat you any harder, kid" school of life.

Congress did that. Not Al.

Re:Over 18

[jafiwam]

Inheritors have to go through probate.

Just like any debtees do.

If the IRS is asleep at the switch, too bad for them. Obits are publicly posted, as well as probate hearings.

The IRS seems to have no problem figuring out the political leanings of non profits to selectively harass them, they can figure out how to notify themselves when someone who owes them dies.

Re:Over 18

[KingOfBLASH]

Actually for debts to tax authorities due process can be suspended if the government can show they believe providing you with notice of their collections efforts will cause you to hide the money, spend the money, or otherwise dispose of the funds.

I found this out the hard way. The state of MA, due to an error, believed I never filed a tax return and owed them money. When I found out, I told them I was going to dispute it, and a few days after I filed an abatement my accounts were frozen, and I had a tax lien in my name.

Technically, this is illegal (they're supposed to let me dispute the charges and there is supposed to actually be a judgement as to whether or not my case had merit). However, when I tried to get legal help, I found out the reason they could do this because they simply told a judge they had to have the lien so I didn't run away with my money. (Which is funny because I'm unemployed and just on this side of broke -- the judge should have laughed them out of town).

When I fought it, the lien and the frozen accounts were reversed promptly, but not without a big pain in the ass.

I'm afraid from what I understand, this is typical. Even if the IRS is wrong, the cards are stacked in their favor if they believe you're right (or incorrectly believe you to be an international man of mystery tax dodger). And until you convince them otherwise, they can make your life VERY miserable.

You need to get real legal advice and stop asking slashdot for help on your problems.

Re:Over 18

[DarkOx]

The entire reason for the IRS and the income tax was to restore slavery. Sure the slaves are different, but interestingly and unsurprisingly the slave holders are largely the same group.

Re:Over 18

[K. S. Kyosuke]

It's a debt you agreed with by voting for the people you elected into office. (It's either that, or you need an enlightened dictator instead.)

Re:Over 18

[Aryden]

Just make sure that your "business" is profitable so it doesn't become a hobby (thus business expenses can't be counted).

A business does not have to be profitable to be considered a business rather than a hobby.

Re:Over 18

[DarkOx]

I wonder if you can make an expost facto constitutional argument.

Re:Over 18

[usuallylost]

This is far worse than inheretence of debt. They are seizing these people's refunds based on debts that they claim their parents have incurred. Yet when the woman in the article demanded proof of the debt they were unable to produce any. She was supposed to get a due process review before they seized her money but all of the notices of that right just happened to go to a PO box she hadn't had in decades. Yet when it came time to collect they suddenly had her right address. From the article this pattern is not uncommon. So basically we have the IRS collecting a debt that they can't even prove is a debt and doing so, either through intent or incompetence, in a way that deprives the victims of their due process rights to challenge it. Even if you accept the premise of a child inhereting the parents debt, which I really fail to see any legimate basis for, this method of collecting those debts stinks on ice. I mean with they way they have this setup they could just declare anybody owed any amount that they desired to collect. After all they are not providing any proof and are simply siezing your money with no due process. I hope the lady in the article prevails in her court case. Because if she doesn't the rest of us will never know when some "old debt" will appear.

I noticed a couple of other disturbing things in this article. Ms Grice's father only owed, by their unsubstanitated claim, $2,996. Yet they seized her entire refund of $4,462 and only released the difference to her after the Washington Post started questioning it. So in addition to making her pay a debt that isn't hers, that they have no proof of and that they deprived her of her due process rights for, they also helped themselves to an additional $1,466 of her money that they only released under pressure from the press. Some of the other cases seem to be for fairly token amounts. Makes you wonder if what we are seeing here is the IRS adopting the tactic of demanding money from people that is just a bit less than what they can afford to fight for. Hopefully the courts will strike this whole thing down.

Re:Over 18

[bemenaker]

Gestapo? WTF man, The IRS is officially suspending this as of today.

Re:Over 18

[rcharbon]

Mod this up, and answer it.

Re:Over 18

[silas_moeckel]

Seems rather odd, The whole point of putting an estate through the courts is to find all debts and invalidate anything that does not show up. It's specifically meant to stop this sort of years later oh they owned me money and nobody can realistically dispute it.

Re:Over 18

[Cyberax]

Incorrect. If you chose to come into inheritance then you also inherit its debts. Some people do that for sentimental reasons to avoid estate being auctioned, for example. Besides, estate can later be sued in civil courts, for example for contract violations or damages caused by the estate. In a famous case a dead body was sued for damages it caused.

Re:Over 18

[bluefoxlucid]

I'm telling you we need to burn the constitution and write a new one. It's an alpha-quality document written for old architecture.

I keep telling people: ALL LAWS MUST BEGIN WITH A MISSION. At the top of the document is a mission statement in English, Latin, and Ancient Greek. Yes, it's mandatory to learn Latin and Ancient Greek. No, I don't care that it's hard; we used to teach both of these in primary school, remember?

So every bill starts with an English list of definitions, followed by Latin and Ancient Greek. These definitions may reference the English or Latin version, because you may need to explain "electricity" in Latin. Then, in simple English, Latin, and Ancient Greek, you write the mission: what the bill does. These must be verified against each other as consistent. The mission defines both the intent (goal) and the scope (method) of the law.

Now, when evaluating the bill, it's restricted to this mission. If an action is taken according to the law--a tax, a fine, an arrest--and it can be shown that this action does not act toward the intent of the law, that action is invalid. If an action proscribed in law is outside the scope of the law, that is invalid--this breaks earmarks and things like raising the age of consent silently from 16 to 18 on a bill about income tax (you're going to set the Age of Consent in a special law dealing with sexual crimes, not in a fucking tax law).

You know that feeling you get where you keep looking at laws and going, "WHAT THE FUCK DOES THIS HAVE TO DO WITH HEALTH CARE? THIS IS JUST ANOTHER WAY TO ARREST PEOPLE AND SHAKE MONEY OUT OF THEM!" Well, that's what the Mission does: it sticks right at the top what the law is about, and makes that entire sentiment LEGALLY FUCKING BINDING. When a judge looks at the law and goes, "...what does this have to do with corn oil?" He is then legally empowered and required to declare that part of the law INVALID.

Then, when politicians try to put us back in Medieval times, they can put a "Medieval Government Rapes You For Your Parents' Debt" bill on the table in the house and vote on it openly. Try to misdirect that shit.

Re:Over 18

[ai4px]

I got a letter from the IRS in 1993 that said they'd found a math error on my 1040. I had over paid my tax by $17. Some months later I got a letter from a different department of the IRS saying that since my 1040 had been altered after April 15th, there was a $20 penalty. I owed them $3. I spoke to several layers of supervisors and finally one of them told me that they would waive anything less than $5. I never paid that "debt". Only the IRS can turn +17 into -3.

Re:Over 18

[CanHasDIY]

It's a debt you agreed with by voting for the people you elected into office.

By that reasoning, I don't owe said debt, as no one I've ever voted for has actually been elected.

Re:Over 18

[CanHasDIY]

10 year old debts DO NOT DISAPPEAR.

At 10 years in fact, the IRS is legally granted the power to charge you interest. 100%, PER DAY. Thank Al Capone for that one.

Al Capone was a legislator?

Re:Over 18

[operagost]

Indeed. You do need to be actively involved in the business. At least 100 hours over the entire year is sufficient.

Re:Over 18

[chihowa]

The estate is the remaining assets and liabilities of the deceased. Once assets are inherited, they no longer belong to the deceased's estate (as the estate, a legal construct, ceases to exist once liabilities are settled and assets are transferred).

In the US, at least, the only time you have the appearance of inheriting debt is if you inherit property that is collateral for a debt (eg, a house with a mortgage). The bank could take the collateral from the estate, as it is entitled to do, but can let you keep the collateral in exchange for continuing to pay down the debt. Is that what you are talking about?

Re:Over 18

[operagost]

It doesn't matter. The 10 year statute of limitations has already expired, and nothing but an unconstitutional ex post facto law can change that. Now, if this bill had taken effect 9 years and 364 days after the debt had been incurred, that would be unfortunate but probably constitutional.

Re:Over 18

[slinches]

Hopefully the courts will strike this whole thing down.

All of the IRS? I agree.

I think funding for the federal government should come out of the states' treasuries instead. That way federal spending decisions will be weighed against the lost opportunity to fund state programs.

Re:Over 18

[operagost]

It's no wonder to me. It's similar to the argument made that any creative works that went out of copyright protection in the USA can't be placed back under it no matter how the laws are changed. In fact, I think the argument's a lot stronger here.

Re:Over 18

[ai4px]

Until you make enough money so that the fee your accountant charges isn't deductible... nor is child care credit... meanwhile the person dressed up as the statue of liberty on the side of the street is giving away $9600 a pop of (un)earned income credit to people who had more kids than they can afford. I'm supposed to feel good about taking care of my fellow (irresponsible) man.

Re:Over 18

[ai4px]

...and my coworker found that someone overseas filed taxes for him. The IRS can't figure it out, so he's now got two returns filed this year, one valid and one forgery. Efile for over seas is a boon to the scammers, eh?

Re:Over 18

[ai4px]

Bingo... that's what probate is for.

Re:Over 18

[RabidReindeer]

Just make sure that your "business" is profitable so it doesn't become a hobby (thus business expenses can't be counted).

A business does not have to be profitable to be considered a business rather than a hobby.

Within certain limits.

Re:Over 18

[RabidReindeer]

No. The heirs are not responsible for the debts of the estate. The debts are paid by the executor out of the assets of the estate.

I think I see what's happening now. It's been sensationalized. What's happened is that the estate was settle and the heirs were paid. What the IRS is going after is not the daughter's assets per se but the inherited assets paid to her improperly out of the estate because the estate didn't settle its debts with the IRS.

It's been double-sensationalized. The headline would lead one to believe that the IRS could steal your refund to pay for what your brother-in-law owes.

Re:Over 18

[PortHaven]

In the article...

Re:Over 18

[ai4px]

Even more fun.... I was audited by the IRS a few years ago and they asked for documentation 2-1/2 years past the filing date. I sent them paperwork as requested. They sent me letter after letter saying they were over worked and needed 45 additional days. Come July 27 of the following year (3 years 3 months form the filing date), they sent me a bill. I objected to the bill because they had negated my claim of head of household. They said sorry charlie, you can't make changes to your tax return after 3 years... but THEY DID. They said it was their rule and it only applied to the tax payer, not to them. seriously. Also, I sent them a check once. It was delivered on thier requested due date. I sent it by USPS and it was post marked two days prior. They charged me a late fee. When I showed them their policy about USPS vs FEDEX/UPS and the postmark being a legal date, they said that didn't apply. The date used was when the check cleared the bank. They don't even follow their own rules.

Re:Over 18

[PortHaven]

Don't you know, the $4,462 was seized. Because of interest. That's right, when they find a debt like that they charge compounding interest. And they charge it at a rate no one can get on their savings accounts.

So I wager that they consider Ms. Grice to actually owe about $20,000 still.

***

Please note that I had a friend who was taxed on a million dollars in stock options that he never sold, and never made money from (dot com bust). Mortgaged house to pay taxes. Took it to court, won as it was deemed unconstitutional. IRS was ordered to pay it back. And they are....in increments over 20 years.

That's right, they demanded it now. And are paying it back slowly.

Re:Over 18

[ai4px]

Ohh and from the same episode involving the first time home buyers tax credit, since my ex and I filed as married that tax year (we divorced that same year and I didn't realize we had to file as single), AND I'd gotten the home buyer tax credit, that money had to be paid back. No problem... if it's due, it's due. I paid it back and 3 years of penalties and interest. OK. The IRS continues to garnish $250 a year from the ex's income tax returns since that was the original payback schedule for that tax credit. She's gone to them with the cancelled check showing the debt was paid and they won't accept it. She's asked that they look at the tax year in which I repaid the debt and they say they can't since we're weren't married in that year. So she's stuck for the next 15 years paying back a debt that's already satisfied.

Re:Over 18

[PortHaven]

Did you not read, an unconstitutional ex post facto law was attached to the last Farm Bill.

Re:Over 18

[Phreakiture]

Actually, a person doesn't inhert this debt. The debt is inherited by the estate. If the estate runs out of assets before the debt is settled, then the rest of the creditors are SOL, but the debt does not pass to the heirs. Mind you, nothing else does, either, but the heirs are not stuck with the debt.

Re:Over 18

[Z00L00K]

Magna Charta?

Re:Over 18

[Cyberax]

Not true. All kinds of debts might be inherited, only some personal debts are automatically forgiven after death (like federal student loans). Credit card debts might be passed on to the estate, depending on state. Nursing care debts are most definitely passed on, etc.

Re:Over 18

[ultranova]

By that reasoning, I don't owe said debt, as no one I've ever voted for has actually been elected.

You don't owe the federal debt, actually, the entity known as the United States of America does. You are only affected insofar as the US might be unable to provide its current level of services at their current price, and are free to renounce your citizenship and move elsewhere.

Federal debt operates just like limited liability corporations debt would, in this sense.

Re:Over 18

[CanHasDIY]

By that reasoning, I don't owe said debt, as no one I've ever voted for has actually been elected.

You don't owe the federal debt, actually, the entity known as the United States of America does. You are only affected insofar as the US might be unable to provide its current level of services at their current price, and are free to renounce your citizenship and move elsewhere.

Federal debt operates just like limited liability corporations debt would, in this sense.

Your reasoning definitely wins over OP's "you voted for it" nonsense.

Re:Over 18

[Anonymous Coward]

Has the IRS taken lessons from the music industry?

Re:Over 18

[Yakasha]

The estate is the remaining assets and liabilities of the deceased. Once assets are inherited, they no longer belong to the deceased's estate (as the estate, a legal construct, ceases to exist once liabilities are settled and assets are transferred).

You're missing a key logic point there (or misstating your point). If there are debts, any debts except federally secured student loans, the estate is responsible for paying them off. You only inherit stuff once all debts are paid. Therefore, if you've inherited anything, it is only because all debts were satisfied: either paid, forgiven, or assumed by the inheritor.

Belmolis has it nearly correct. The last sentence fragment ", but they never inherit any debt." is the only misleading portion. Inheritors can and do inherit debt, but only when they choose to (mortgage on a house, loan on a car, or, as Cyberax pointed out, any other debt to avoid sentimental items from being auctioned to pay said debt).

Re:Over 18

[thebryce]

the offending language in Sec. 14219 of the farm bill seems to first appear in H.R. 6124, Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 which was sponsored by Rep. Collin C. Peterson, D-Minn.

Send him a message here: http://collinpeterson.house.go...

Re:Over 18

[jfengel]

I think I see what's happening now. It's been sensationalized.

The news being distorted to make for a more paranoia-inducing headline? On my Slashdot? Unpossible!

Re:Over 18

[wiredlogic]

The IRS has to be basing its claim on something. File a FOIA request to get that info. If you end up in court and they didn't comply or insisted on a ridiculous fee you will have the favor of the judge. Before court ever happens they will of course forward their fraudulent claims to the credit reporting and collection agencies. Follow the FCRA dispute process (which they will just rubber stamp in their favor) to get more documentation demonstrating your due diligence to defend yourself. More bonus points with the judge.

Re:Over 18

[lgw]

Normally debts accrue to the estate, not the inheritor.

Re:Over 18

[lgw]

Yes, multi-generation debt is totally illegal in the private sector. For evil of this mind-numbing intensity, you need a government.

Bear in mind, it's the reason governments can afford to borrow money in the first place! Now I'd be happy with a world where governments couldn't secure loans and had to live within their means, don't get me wrong, but that would be a very different world.

Re:Over 18

[Shatrat]

By that reasoning, I really wish you had voted for the current president.

Re:Over 18

[Cyberax]

Doesn't matter. Estate is a temporary legal construction to administer the property rights of deceased. If inheritor chooses to come into inheritance then all the assets and debts of the estate are passed along.

Re:Over 18

[lgw]

If judges cared about the plain wording of the existing constitution, we wouldn't have these problems to begin with. But you see, sex is fun. And the plain wording of the constitution doesn't support mandating to the states from the bench that abortion must be legal. And, you see, sex is fun. And while the congress is perfectly empowered by the constitution to pass an actual law legalizing abortion everywhere, they lacked the courage to do so. But you see, sex is fun. So we decided "only crazy right-wing reactionaries talk about the plain wording of the constitution - it has emanations and penumbras!", and we lost that protection. About the same time, the birth control pill came to market, removing the urgency of such an extreme judicial measure. Oh, well, water under the bridge now.

Doesn't matter what constitution you write, we lack judges with the will to enforce it in unpopular ways, just as we lack legislators without the courage or insight to change with the times within the bounds of that constitution.

Re:Over 18

[bluefoxlucid]

But the bar is set higher, and legally there is a binding here. It now becomes extremely difficult to justify your stance.

Judges continuously rule that a law cannot take an action: marriage laws cannot take an action to exclude, abortion laws cannot take an action to rule abortions improper medical practice, etc. While you can swing these both ways, it is difficult to say "This law makes efforts in social policy by the criminalization of specific behaviors related to sexual activity with minors..." and say, "Well, the line 'Raise 15% tax against imports of fine tobacco from India', falls within the scope of Congress' power". The law's mission doesn't say anything about a tax, just about making sexual activity with minors criminal offenses. A judge would literally have to abandon all pretense of interpreting rights and other complex laws and simply state, "BECAUSE I SAY SO!"

Re:Over 18

[Raseri]

Are we pretending that Congress gives a fuck about anything we have to say?

Re:Over 18

[chihowa]

Nursing care debts are only passed on if (and because) the descendants sign as guarantors or cosigners when the parent begins to accrue that particular debt. That's more common with end-of-life services, but it's contractual and not statutory. In this particular case, the debt isn't inherited so much as it was shared with the children from the start.

Again, you're confusing "estate" with "heirs". All (most) debts are settled from the estate before any assets pass on to the heirs. In the US, if the assets of an estate are exhausted before the liabilities are satisfied then the remaining creditors and the heirs get nothing. The slate is then wiped clean.

Re:Over 18

[CanHasDIY]

By that reasoning, I really wish you had voted for the current president.

Yea, I'll bet - misery loves company, right?

Re:Over 18

[Comrade Ogilvy]

Yes, you can overtly accept debt when accepting assets, but you cannot take on stealth debt by accepting assets that appear to be free and clear when the estate is closed. That is a blatant violation of due process. If the IRS failed to give reasonable notice to the estate of the intention to attach a lien on assets, the debts are gone. They are creditors. Creditors who do not act in a timely manner when an estate is closing or a corporation is being liquidated are simply SoL.

Re:Over 18

[Curunir_wolf]

The only matter that was stopping the IRS from going after long-forgotten debts was its policy.

Obviously not true, or they would not have needed legislation to start doing it.

The fact that inheritors are responsible for the civil damages, including ones from future lawsuits, is nothing new.

It certainly is in the United States. You cannot go after an heir for their ancestors debts. Ever. You can sue based on property owner liability issues, based on ownership at the time, but that still has nothing to do with "inheritors" or relatives, just the current property owner.

Re:Over 18

[almitydave]

(this is US-centric obviously)
So the IRS and income tax have restored economic power to... cotton growers in the south? I'm not sure I follow your point. Maybe you're trying to claim the modern slaveholders are big business, but I think the traditional slaveowners were more like small family businesses and estates. I don't think the real "big-business" tycoons came until after slavery was abolished.

Could you elaborate?

Re:Over 18

[chihowa]

Reading back through the thread, it looks like most everyone is thinking the same thing but disagreeing because of different terminology. The key misunderstanding in this thread relates to the situation where the liabilities are equal to, or larger than, the assets and the heirs-to-be want some of the assets.

You and Cyberax are calling the situation "inheriting debt", whereas I think it's more realistically described as accruing new debt in exchange for certain assets otherwise owed to the creditors. If you choose not to accrue this new debt to retain the estate's collateral, there's no way the estate's debt would pass on to you. The debt belongs solely to the estate and can't be inherited.

Re:Over 18

[Cyberax]

No, it doesn't require any co-signatures on loans. I know from experience.

The slate is then wiped clean.

Nope, it's not wiped clean. Estate simply goes bankrupt - all the usual rules apply. Of course, inheritors don't HAVE to acquire a bankrupt estate - from their point of view it might as well not exist.

Here situation is more complex - inheritors acquired an estate that didn't appear to have debts only to find out about them later. It's an unfortunate situation, but it happens.

Re:Over 18

[Duhavid]

Thanks!

Re:Over 18

[DigiShaman]

Well YES! That's the Democrat (the politicians, not the voters) Party for you. Rules for them, and rules for everyone else. They actually believe in a caste based system. The idea being that if you accept your position in life, you'd be less inclined to fight for a higher standard of living. It makes management of a serfdom much easier along with the ease of accumulation of power.

Re:Over 18

[lgw]

During the bank bailouts we sailed right past ex post facto and landed firmly in bill of attainder, and no one batted an eye. After all, we were taxing bankers, why let a little thing like the Constitution slow us down. Yeah, we're pretty fucked.

Re:Over 18

[lgw]

You can certainly make the argument, and IMO it's a good one. But our government, as cash-desperate as any junkie, gets to decide whether to give your money back.

Re:Over 18

[Actually, I do RTFA]

They recognized the inheritance of debt. The IRS ended this policy shortly before Slashdot reported on it.

I suppose Slashdot will post a countering news study a few days from now.

Re:Over 18

[lgw]

There is no "come into inheritance" (wait, where do you live?) Debts are settled against he estate. If there's anything left, assets are divided amongst inheritors. There's this whole complex probate process. Occasionally, an inheritor will choose to take an asset with debts attached (such as a house with a mortgage), sometimes even one with clearly negative net worth, perhaps for sentimental reasons. But there no "all assets and debts pass from person A to person B" - primogeniture hasn't been a thing for centuries.

But the important thing about probate is that it's time-bound - while assets may be "in probate" for some time, when its done its done, and no further claims can be made.

Re:Over 18

[Z00L00K]

If it hadn't made the news, then they would have continued the practice.

Re:Over 18

[lgw]

judge would literally have to abandon all pretense of interpreting rights and other complex laws and simply state, "BECAUSE I SAY SO!"

So, someone like Roberts then. "The law says dozens of times this is not a tax, and the law originated in the Senate, not the House, so it can't be a tax law, but nevertheless it's a tax BECAUSE I SAY SO!". That ship has sailed.

Re:Over 18

[bluefoxlucid]

Still not equivalent. The law can try to call one thing another thing, and indeed can do so in its own context; but if law A says that a "tax" is one thing, and law B says "this is not a tax, it's a charge we implemented by which you give money to the IRS", then law B is trying to bullshit you out of being a tax.

Now granted you can argue Roberts' legal theory--although I encourage you to get better arguments, as you just argued that if the Senate writes a tax law it's valid because "it's not a tax law because it came from the Senate" and thus you can't reject it on the grounds that "the House must originate tax laws" because it was originated from the Senate and thus isn't really a tax law--but he is interpreting events and actions and definitions and legal things as they pertain to law.

The same thing would, of course, happen to the ACA in my system. It would say at the top: "...without implementing new taxes." Then we would argue over whether a "penalty collected by the IRS" is a tax disguised by semantic bullshit. Now of course there are arguments on both sides: it's a tax collected by the IRS. On the other hand, it's only collected by the IRS under certain conditions, therefor it's a fine (penalty). Or is a conditional penalty which is not applied to poor people actually structured as a progressive tax, and thus it is a tax? (That one's actually pretty harsh: your income is below a certain threshold, you're not eligible to be penalized--that sounds less like a fine and more like a progressive tax system.)

These arguments are fine. It's hard, however, to come back and say, "We also added provisions to earmark 750 million dollars for highway spending." That's out of scope: the bill's mission doesn't talk about infrastructure projects.

Re:Over 18

[AtariEric]

Interesting idea, but wouldn't that just push the massive taxation to the states?

Re:Over 18

[Bartles]

Why should the IRS actually believe it's accountable to anyone? It has come to light in the last year or so that it can do anything it wants, and it will have the full cover and support of the executive branch and "independent" journalism.

Re:Over 18

[Bartles]

That probably would have worked well prior to ratification of the 17th amendment.

Re:Over 18

[lgw]

Again, my point is: with good judges, we don't need this. With bad judges, this doesn't help. I think it would be fine parliamentary process, but congress will never adopt any such process that would reduce their ability to lard up the bill with pork of every kind.

Re:Over 18

[bluefoxlucid]

You're taking an overly pessimistic view with "doesn't help".

First off, with good judges, this provides stronger guidelines. It also makes it easier for the American People to understand what a law will and will not do. The method may be complex and wordy and a nightmarish hell of legalese, but the mission is clear in its goal and its bounds.

Second, bad judges can only distort reality so far. They categorically cannot simply make up law as they go; they need a hook, something that can withstand some legal scrutiny. The more legal scrutiny they can withstand, the harder it is for another judge to evaluate the appeal and overturn the decision. Further, judges who blatantly act in violation of the law--for example, judges who are NAMBLA members and give everyone with loads of child pornography and a dozen fourth-grade fuckbuddies a NOT GUILTY verdict (which you cannot overturn in appeal!)--can be impeached! That's right: if you bang a fifth grader, bring in a video, and the judge says, "This shouldn't be fucking illegal, I like screwing kids! NOT GUILTY, CASE DISMISSED!", he can be brought up on charges and stripped of his appointment!

I am pushing judicial decisions closer to this eventuality, where you must come up with some hella cool wizard shit to twist your way around the law, and it's going to be blunt and obvious and impossible to stand up to scrutiny in more cases than current, and in many cases doing so will get you brought up on charges. Further, congress should be less inclined to try to get shit through, as it will look bad for them and there will be valid complaint that this shit doesn't fit with the mission of the law, and then we have to rewrite the mission in three languages, every provision of the law has to abide by all three versions 100%, so we should just write another bill.

Re:Over 18

[geezer nerd]

I can't imagine why it would make a difference whether one is overseas or not. The efile process is overseen by Intuit in all cases when you use TurboTax.

Re:Over 18

[Yakasha]

Reading back through the thread, it looks like most everyone is thinking the same thing but disagreeing because of different terminology. The key misunderstanding in this thread relates to the situation where the liabilities are equal to, or larger than, the assets and the heirs-to-be want some of the assets.

You and Cyberax are calling the situation "inheriting debt", whereas I think it's more realistically described as accruing new debt in exchange for certain assets otherwise owed to the creditors. If you choose not to accrue this new debt to retain the estate's collateral, there's no way the estate's debt would pass on to you. The debt belongs solely to the estate and can't be inherited.

Ya. Whatever the terminology is, it seems people understand things. So, close enough. :)

Re:Over 18

[slinches]

Yes, at least temporarily. Everything that we've already committed to is law and would have to be funded, but future decisions about spending would be made with consideration of state funding in mind. Besides, it would make the structure of the government a lot more logical. Why have two houses of legislature at all if the job description of both is to bring home as much of the federal budget as possible?

With the states funding the feds, the House (representing the people as a whole) originating bills and the Senate (representing the states) accepting/rejecting them by weighing the costs against the benefits makes much more sense to me.

Re:Over 18

[Actually, I do RTFA]

I agree. But that makes this is an excellent example of how the world should work:

Shitty practice exists

News media locates and publicizes this shitty practice instead of focusing on celebrities/tragedies

People in charge fix the problem, either out of embarrassment or because someone who was ignorant of it but had the power to stop it finds out it's going on.

Fin.

Re:Over 18

[slinches]

Yup, the 17th would need to be repealed and a new amendment ratified in order for it to work. Unfortunately, we'd probably need to have a constitutional convention to make that happen.

Re:Over 18

[Yakasha]

Yes, you can overtly accept debt when accepting assets, but you cannot take on stealth debt by accepting assets that appear to be free and clear when the estate is closed. That is a blatant violation of due process.

Some debts, such as social security over-payments, do survive the death of the original recipient in certain situations. This link describes some of those situations.

Furthermore, as you describe it "appear to be free and clear" is absolute bubkis. Acting in good faith may protect you from criminal prosecution, but does not transfer property free & clear just because you thought it was. Shit, just ask somebody that got kicked out of their "free & clear" inherited house once an old loan popped up (fyi: title companies are not responsible in such situations, even if they cleared the title).

If the IRS failed to give reasonable notice to the estate of the intention to attach a lien on assets, the debts are gone. They are creditors. Creditors who do not act in a timely manner when an estate is closing or a corporation is being liquidated are simply SoL.

You're making 2 very flawed assumptions here (with your entire post actually):
1. That the Federal Government follows the same laws as a private entity in this or any other matter
2. That the law follows common sense.

Neither are true.

Re:Over 18

[Applehu Akbar]

I would love to see a Constitutional amendment mandating that governments could only borrow for physical infrastructure, which would have to be accounted for in the same way as in the private sector. Given suhc a limitation, Washington could issue bonds to build something like Hoover Dam, but not to feed the non-productive budgets of those three-letter bloodsucker agencies. This wold cause politicians to vie to build things that actually return the value it takes to pay off their bonding. Meanwhile DEA, ATF, FDA and all their useless ilk would be budget-starved into perdition.

Re:Over 18

[DigiShaman]

Nothing is ever free when it comes from the government. It all costs money and it all gets paid for by the citizens of that country; whether your realize it or not.

Re:Over 18

[Teancum]

If a business fails to show profits for more than five consecutive years, it is classified by the IRS as a hobby. In other words, you are indulging in this particular activity even if money is being collected. There are of course exceptions to every rule and of course piles of common law precedence to consider as well.

Re:Over 18

[buybuydandavis]

You are only affected insofar as the US might be unable to provide its current level of services at their current price, and are free to renounce your citizenship and move elsewhere.

Federal debt operates just like limited liability corporations debt would, in this sense.

No, I am affected to the extent that the government has guns and will use them against me if I don't fork what they decide I owe them.

Not exactly like a limited liability corporation, as few of them have the firepower to shake down hundreds of millions of people to pay their debt.

I'm free to leave? How kind of you! Where am I free to move *to*? Anywhere that I could actually be free from the Tax Ranchers? I thought not.

The Tax Ranchers have the guns. Today. May not always be the case.

Re:Over 18

[Kalriath]

Actually, the tax liability cannot continue after you renounce citizenship, as you are no longer a citizen and therefore not bound by the laws of your original country - you are only required to follow your country of citizenship's, and the country of residence.

Re:Over 18

[geezer nerd]

The US sets the rules under which a citizen can renounce citizenship. Those rules include an "exit tax" and continuing tax liability on earnings made on assets which remain in the US.

The exit tax seems to consist of "marking to market" all of the renouncer's assets in the US and taxing the resulting amount including "deemed" gains as of the date of renunciation. For folks sitting on long-term IRAs and 401Ks, this "exit tax" would be brutal.

A quick Google search led me to this source of information: http://m.klgates.com/files/Pub...

Re:Over 18

[Stuarticus]

Given the current rate of literacy in English is so poor why on earth would you consider writing these in Latin or Greek? It would just provide layer of obfuscation and significantly add to time and costs.

Re:Over 18

[usuallylost]

Not only the 17th but the 16th amendment. If you are going to make states directly responsible for collecting taxes, presumably on an apportioned basis, then you are going to need to give state legislatures direct power in the federal system. Which, as you have already said, means getting rid of the 17th amendment. Just as importantly you'd need to remove from congress the ability to levy direct taxes on people's income (16th amendment) or they'd just do an end run around the new system the moment they wanted more money. Ending up with high state taxes and then a federal tax on top of it would be horrible.

The problem is that the current system really benefits the people in power at the Federal level. They will fight to the bitter end to avoid changing that. Your only hope of changing that is a constitutional convention and even that only works if you can prevent them from stuffing the convention with their own people.

Re:Over 18

[bluefoxlucid]

We can't decide if "People" means the Government or individual people, or if there should be a comma or a semicolon, or if it really matters, and so we can't decide if individuals have the constitutional right to own weapons. The National Guard is the State Militia, not the individual with a Ruger in his house. The argument rages.

If our lawmakers and lawyers and judges can't achieve literacy, we have a huge problem.

As I have specified that each provision and enforcement of the law must be logically consistent with the mission in all three languages, and two of these languages are dead and unchanging, I have provided a layer of clarification. It adds to time and cost, but it greatly adds to the time and cost of earmarking and adding backdoors to your laws. If you want to modify the mission to technically allow an unrelated provision, you have to do it in three languages, consistently, without breaking the rest of your bill. It's easier just to be honest and straightforward.

Re:Over 18

[slinches]

Yeah, there's certainly some difficulties in implementing the concept and the most feasible way I've thought of to make it happen is if all (or nearly all) of the states just ratified the necessary amendments without calling a conventional convention. It may not technically be constitutional (what has recently?), but it would be effective if the states acted collectively to cut off funding or possibly just threatened to do so.

Of course, there's lots of ways that could go wrong too. There are simply too many people with money/power that have a vested interest in keeping the status quo that any structural changes to the system will be immensely difficult.

I was just trying to find the most effective and least impossible way to solve the fundamental structural issues our government. Unfortunately, history suggests that such changes are unlikely without an armed revolt.

Re:Over 18

[brunnegd]

Do you feel good knowing that the IRS is in charge of collecting for 0bamacare?

Re:Over 18

[Tamerlin]

If the IRS had any integrity, it would be putting its efforts into forcing companies like Google and Microsoft and Apple (at al) to pay the taxes that they owe due to their loophole abuse.

Re:Over 18

[Sir_Sri]

If the debts exceed the assets, the heirs receive nothing, but they do not assume any part of the debt.

In this case this is *after* the estate was settled, but it was settled wrongly. You can't just have the executor of the estate neglect to consider outstanding debts and act as though nothing happened.

The heirs are responsible for debts that weren't properly dealt with.

Re:Over 18

[spiritgreywolf]

Indeed. It's like a sheep and wolf discussing what's for dinner. The sheep might _think_ it has a say, but when it comes right down to it...

Re:Over 18

[gzuckier]

If you can inherit your parents' wealth, why wouldn't you inherit your parents' debt? Same attitude as bank bailouts. I'm only responsible for things which occur to my advantage, anything that guess against me needs to be absorbed by somebody else, like The government, who shouldn't get a piece of any estates even if they're over 5 million because that's a death tax which sounds wrong. The validity of the debt is a different question. Especially after all those years, questions arise as to where the evidence was hiding all this time.

Re:Over 18

[gzuckier]

Yes, wouldn't out be nice if we had the right to max out our credit cards, give the proceeds to the kids, then die and have the debt evaporate. That's how any fair country does it.

Re:Over 18

[Ol Olsoc]

Well YES! That's the Democrat (the politicians, not the voters) Party for you.

If you see the Demoncrats or the Leeeeeburuls as the source of every problem, I have this awesome bridge in New yourk to sell you.

Re:Over 18

[tlambert]

Nothing you say says that Mr Saverin has gotten away from his US tax liability. Only by renouncing citizenship can one end the tax liability, and even that continues for some years (10 I think) after the renouncement.

He did renounce it. And he renounced it before the IPO. So his liability is for what he owed before he renounced it, which is ... not the $1.1B.

Re:Over 18

[DigiShaman]

Don't be silly. They're not the source of every problem, just the vast majority of them.

Re:Over 18

[MrResistor]

Creditors who do not act in a timely manner when an estate is closing or a corporation is being liquidated are simply SoL.

You might consider Reading The Fine Summary. I know, that's Crazy Talk! But, if you had, you might have noticed something about the statute of limitations (lawyer speak for "timely manner") has been lifted on these types of debt.

Re:Over 18

[geekoid]

Just remember, someone in congress shoved that line into the farm bill,, not the IRS. Find out who.

Re:Over 18

[geekoid]

Except all evidence shows it's the pubs that are doing that. The Dems have fought repeatedly to make things more even.

I am generally speaking of pubs and dems since about 1950 or so.
I am baffled at how, as a party, people can think the dems are doing that. The way out of a caste system is money.
You might want to pay attention to who tries to give who equal access to money.

Re:Over 18

[geekoid]

Which as nothing to do with his point.

Re:Over 18

[geekoid]

Congress. If Congress had any integrity. Only that can change the rules and go after the free loading corporations.

Re:Over 18

[Tamerlin]

Well, both. Of course, as long as american'ts are foolish enough to vote for repugnicans and dummycraps, we'll never have a congress that's worth as much as a pile of cat poop.

Re:Over 18

[tjhart85]

The thing I find funniest about the interest owed is that the Govt is sitting on my money all year since my employer gave them too much (and I allow it since I don't want to owe the govt money at the end of the year) ... do I see a penny of interest in *that* money? Nope, but when they feel I owe them money, all of a sudden interest *must* be paid. I got a bill from the tax man a tax adjustment on my previous years return for ~$600 ... I paid. I then get two more notices AFTER they cashed my check, which I just ignored since I had proof that I paid them ... finally, on the 3rd notice, they say they received the money and will waive the extra $15 in interest that was racked up between the time I paid the bill and the time it took them to acknowledge they cashed the check.

Re:Over 18

[Skreems]

In what sense? The law is they give you that money, and damned if they don't try really hard to do that, even for an amount you might as well just ignore...

This happened to my wife

[srwood]

We had a $186.00 deducted from our tax refund this year for social security. Having never collected social security we called the SSA and was informed that the social securities benefits my wife received as a teen following the death of her father were overpaid as she had a part-time job at a pharmacy and they had deducted the amount. Mind you my wife is 53 years old now.

Re:This happened to my wife

[artor3]

FYI, they've cancelled the policy and are encouraging people targeted by it to contact them for a refund.

Re:This happened to my wife

[Anonymous Coward]

They are encouraging people WRONGLY targeted by it... The IRS would ask his wife to prove she didn't owe the over-payment, and since she did actually owe the money (once the statute of limitations was eliminated) she has no case for a refund.

Re:This happened to my wife

[siddesu]

How come these, err, 'dues' aren't rescinded when the person dies?

Re:This happened to my wife

[rtaylor]

I assume the dues are tied to the estate of the person.

They're reclaiming it from the inheritance which should not have been passed down.

Re:This happened to my wife

[SumDog]

In all the videos the people leading the protests told everyone to put their firearms away and not show any weapons; always keep their hands in plane sign.

If one person had pulled out a gun, we would have seen a bloodbath.

Re:This happened to my wife

[msmonroe]

Love these people, their all talk! Come on guys, take up arms over throw the government, you bunch of losers!

Re:This happened to my wife

[kwbauer]

You mean the 8 or so million dollars the feds paid Randy Weaver for the death of his wife because the feds were in the wrong.

Re:This happened to my wife

[kwbauer]

Just what a liberal would say. All hail caesar!!!!

Re:This happened to my wife

[Opportunist]

Whoever loses, we win.

Re:This happened to my wife

[Chas]

FYI, they've cancelled the policy and are encouraging people targeted by it to contact them for a refund.

Where are you seeing that said? I've been searching around for a bit since you posted and I can't find information as to this policy cancellation ANYPLACE.

Re:This happened to my wife

[gtall]

Nested in the bowls of the White House, and Evil Presence plotted an atrocity on the sainted American people who would never think to hide their income. He theorized, he inspected the tax code with a malicious mind bent on Total Domination. Let the American People eat IRS Death he sang to his sycophantic followers in a speechifying voice.

What kind of moron are you? Is it not possible the IRS was just following the law that Congress had passed and, given the death of tax money to cover the U.S. debt that Congress has rung up, decided to shake the pockets of the sainted American people for some missing nickles. Then Congress, realizing they themselves were the idiots involved, waxed poetically and hysterically in front of the Klieg lights and television camera about what an abomination this was, the Republicans only too willing to attribute it to the the Evil Obama.

Get a grip, try the little yellow pills this time.

Re:This happened to my wife

[BitZtream]

Not likely, just like the feds didn't do anything to the armed militia that just closed an Interstate highway and told the Burea of Land Management to fuck off.

http://offgridsurvival.com/mil...

I'm not condoning this behavior in the case of the link above, but it happens

Re:This happened to my wife

[KingOfBLASH]

Then why is there an article about this happening 2 weeks ago?

Re:This happened to my wife

[K. S. Kyosuke]

Them Hessian soldiers still lurking around?

Re:This happened to my wife

[K. S. Kyosuke]

No, a liberal would call for people to have personal freedoms. That's what the "liber-" part means.

Re:This happened to my wife

[bemenaker]

It was on NPR this morning.

Re:This happened to my wife

[tsqr]

the Republicans only too willing to attribute it to the the Evil Obama

This little gem is in Section 14219 of the "Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008". You may recall that the Democrats controlled both the House and the Senate back then. So maybe attributing it to the Evil Obama isn't that far off the mark.

Re:This happened to my wife

[Anonymous Coward]

People have been saying that at a fevered pitch for sixty years. All it has done is drive up the profits of firearms manufacturers.

Re:This happened to my wife

[CanHasDIY]

It was on NPR this morning.

Then it should be on the NPR website by now, and whoever is claiming this occurred should produce the evidence that supports their claim.

Re:This happened to my wife

[cyberchondriac]

Oh woe is them, the IRS, an innocent government entity whose sole purpose of existence is to merely collect money for the benevolent (since being headed by Obama) US government, and the poor things are so unfairly villainized by us selfish, self important American people who expect due process of all things; why, the nerve!! Clearly this is all the Republicans fault. But wait, isn't collecting money for the government more consistent with big government and by extension, socialism? Yes, yes, must be the republicans behind that...

Re:This happened to my wife

[CopterHawk]

They probably spent $1000 researching this

Re:This happened to my wife

[Curunir_wolf]

Do you have a source for this claim? Without one, you sound like a right wing nut job.

Really? How about video footage of the standoff?

It's from InfoWars, so you could certainly say it's from a right wing nut job, but it's still a true story.

Re:This happened to my wife

[msmonroe]

No, a liberal would call for people to have personal freedoms. That's what the "liber-" part means.

yeah I agree. If I was liberal seems like I would be saying he should be able to graze anywhere he want's for free man. Peace, Love and Smoke Dope, Man!!!
Same ole thing I am starting to hear all the time; either you agree with me or you're a liberal. Seems like it's the new/old communism. I am for rule by law that's all.

Re:This is what Republicans...

[Oligonicella]

Do you have any teeth left at all after your knee impacted your chin?

Ex Post Facto Law

[Anonymous Coward]

Just what good is a Statute of Limitations when it can be raised after the fact?
Can they lift the Statute on 40 year old Federal crimes and go out and arrest people?
And this is beside the fact that you are not your parents. Once you are an adult you are an individual.

Re:Ex Post Facto Law

[MikeBabcock]

Pretty much what I was thinking ... I show up in court and say "your honour, five years ago, when there was a 10 year statute of limitations, I destroyed the records that would prove me innocent."

Re:Ex Post Facto Law

[flyingfsck]

So, he'll chuck you in the slammer for destroying evidence.

Re:Ex Post Facto Law

[the eric conspiracy]

Ex post facto has always been held to apply in criminal cases only.

This isn't anything like what ex post facto limitations apply to.

Re:Ex Post Facto Law

[gmhowell]

And yet Article 1, Section 9 makes no distinction between civil and criminal. How did the 'precedent' (pronounced 'bullshit') get set that this only refers to criminal issues?

BTW, can you be jailed for failing to pay the IRS? Makes me wonder how 'civil' that infraction is then...

Re:Ex Post Facto Law

[lonOtter]

And yet Article 1, Section 9 makes no distinction between civil and criminal. How did the 'precedent' (pronounced 'bullshit') get set that this only refers to criminal issues?

If what he said is true, then this is yet another (out of many) example of the courts 'creatively interpreting' (in other words, modifying it with invisible ink) the constitution.

Re:Ex Post Facto Law

[operagost]

If my property is being targeted by the government, I think that makes this a criminal case.

Re:Ex Post Facto Law

[Curunir_wolf]

BTW, can you be jailed for failing to pay the IRS? Makes me wonder how 'civil' that infraction is then...

Actually, no you can't. They can seize all of your bank accounts and assets (including your home, if you owe more than $5,000), but they cannot jail you.

But, they can jail you for tax evasion and tax fraud. Those are both felonies.

From Title 26:

1. Willful failure to file a tax return is a misdemeanor pursuant to IRC 7203. In cases where an overt act of evasion occurred, willful failure to file may be elevated to a felony under IRC 7201, Tax Evasion.
2. If failure to file a return is fraudulent, a civil penalty known as the "fraudulent failure to file (FFTF) penalty" may apply under IRC 6651(f). This penalty may apply to all returns due after 12/31/1989 (determined without regard to extensions).
3. The civil fraud penalty may be applied to all returns required to be filed on or before 12/31/1989.

Re:Ex Post Facto Law

[gmhowell]

The underlying offense is the same. The law is written to play legalistic games.

Re:Ex Post Facto Law

[gmhowell]

And yet Article 1, Section 9 makes no distinction between civil and criminal. How did the 'precedent' (pronounced 'bullshit') get set that this only refers to criminal issues?

If what he said is true, then this is yet another (out of many) example of the courts 'creatively interpreting' (in other words, modifying it with invisible ink) the constitution.

Sure, it's a wikipedia link, but it's trivial to verify.

Re:Ex Post Facto Law

[lonOtter]

Not you, but the one you replied to.

"Ex post facto has always been held to apply in criminal cases only.

This isn't anything like what ex post facto limitations apply to."

Re:Ex Post Facto Law

[david_thornley]

Nope; they're not going to jail you for destroying evidence that you had no reason to believe might be evidence. Of course, having destroyed the records, it's going to be harder to convince the judge and/or jury you had them in the first place, and they said what you claim they said.

It kind of makes sense...but it doesn't

[Xoc-S]

Survivor benefits are paid to the children, not the surviving parent. The parent only get the money as the custodian of the children, and is supposed to use it for the benefit of the child. The parent doesn't report the benefits on his or her tax return. If the child makes enough money during the year to file a tax return, the child does. So the IRS is going after the party to which the money was given. But of course, it really makes no sense...the child did not actually receive the money. The child has no records of receiving the money, or of any overpayment and can't contest it. It's unlikely even the parent has the records. And it is implied that the IRS can try to collect money from whomever they can get it from, not just the child of record.

Re:It kind of makes sense...but it doesn't

[readin]

I would like to know about the whole "due process of law" thing in the Constitution. I money considered property? If so, don't they have to give you due process before taking it (and generally "due process" is considered to be a trial where the burden of proof is on the government)?

Or is this one of those cases where some judges have already decided that their preferences and policies are more important than what the Constitution says?

Re:It kind of makes sense...but it doesn't

[the eric conspiracy]

It could be argued that this money never belonged to you in the first place since it was an over payment.

Due process not needed.

Re:It kind of makes sense...but it doesn't

[dcollins]

The following might to tangential to this particular incident, but do keep in mind that a major part of today's case law is that the government can file a proceeding where the money itself is the defendant, i.e., no human person ("you") is recognizable in the case. Historically that was used in cases where the owner was unknown, but in the drug-war era it's used for asset forfeiture even when the owner is known. If I had to prioritize things to get upset about, it would be that ongoing nightmare in our legal system.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_rem_jurisdiction

Re:It kind of makes sense...but it doesn't

[readin]

But if the money is in my possession, doesn't a fair reading of the Constitution mean they have to prove it never belonged to me?

Re:It kind of makes sense...but it doesn't

[readin]

That does sound like something to get upset about.

Re:It kind of makes sense...but it doesn't

[Cyberax]

IRS has ability to seize the funds without going to courts first if they deem that you made a mistake or committed a fraud. However, you can then contest their actions - with all the due process.

Re:It kind of makes sense...but it doesn't

[oobayly]

And in the mean time, life gets interesting trying to run a business for almost 11 months without the $35,000 the IRS has "borrowed" from you.

DEHKO: Bullied by the IRS
IRS "voluntarily" dismiss two forfeiture actions...

Re:It kind of makes sense...but it doesn't

[Fnord666]

But if the money is in my possession, doesn't a fair reading of the Constitution mean they have to prove it never belonged to me?

The US Government abandoned any pretext of due process many years ago with the passing of various asset_forfeiture laws. Now they pretty much seize anything that they can and require you to prove that you obtained it legally and that you used funds that were obtained legally.

Re:It kind of makes sense...but it doesn't

[mrchaotica]

The fact that "it could be argued" is what due process is fucking for! It's the goddamn forum in which you argue it!

Re:It kind of makes sense...but it doesn't

[Curunir_wolf]

Or is this one of those cases where some judges have already decided that their preferences and policies are more important than what the Constitution says?

Oh, judges decided long ago that due process does not mean "having your day in court." A bureaucracy simply has to publish their administrative procedure, which includes some provision where they are supposed to read any letter sent in by the defendant, and the administrative procedure is automatically considered to be all the "due process" required.

Re:It kind of makes sense...but it doesn't

[Curunir_wolf]

That does sound like something to get upset about.

Oh, no, it's nothing to worry about. They only use that against Drug Kingpins!

Late to the party as usual..

[epyx]

The IRS has already stopped collecting these old debts, but let's not let that get in the way of a good political rant..

http://www.forbes.com/sites/ro...

Re:Late to the party as usual..

[Cryacin]

So what? How about I go over your house and beat your face in. Hey, I've stopped now! Let's not let that get in the way of a good criminal rant!

Re:Late to the party as usual..

[Dereck1701]

That doesn't change the fact that they tried to and still are legally able to pursue these "debts" with no real recourse for those who are targeted. This stinks of a temporary hold to let the controversy die down so it can be reintroduced at a slower pace next time, if you're boiling frogs alive you bring the temperature up slowly so they don't jump out of the pot.

Re:Late to the party as usual..

[cdrudge]

Not sure that's the right link or not. That's about taxing freebies, not going after decades old debts.

Re:Late to the party as usual..

[eric_harris_76]

For now. So I hear.

They return any of that intercepted refund money?

And they've already stopped

[artor3]

They cancelled this policy almost immediately after it was brought to light.

Re:And they've already stopped

[Anonymous Coward]

It's good they are going to stop. But I think the issue is that it had to be "brought to light". What kind of government do we have now that is collecting supposed debts from people who did not even receive the money. What if the government told you that you owed money for your neighbors debts, almost the exact same thing.

Oh wait they do its called Social Security, Welfare, Food Stamps, Affordable Care Act and every other government hand out that is subsidized by the ones who work to the ones who don't.

Re:And they've already stopped

[mysidia]

No... they SAID they cancelled this policy, immediately after it was brought to light. if they quietly reinstate in whole or in part... who would be the wiser? :)

Re:And they've already stopped

[the eric conspiracy]

This has been going on for a while. And while it's stopped right now, it's only under review.

This sort of collection should be limited to the actual recipients, and have some sort of statute of limitations.

Commercial debt dies with the probate process. It's not passed on.

Re:And they've already stopped

[Livius]

The attempt reveals something about the IRS' attitude. That problem still needs to be fixed.

Re:And they've already stopped

[pitchpipe]

They cancelled this policy almost immediately after it was brought to light.

I dunno. Are the 0.01%ers trying to figure out a new way to fuck over the middle class?

Since middle class wages have stagnated since the late '70s our share of the tax burden hasn't really been able to grow, and the rich have had their burden reduced quite a bit. So now we have massive debts. Gotta pay 'em somehow. I know, sounds kooky, right?! Look at the filial responsibility laws. Parent racking up huge debts to the state because of the care they need in old age? Think you won't have to pay for that? Think again.

I expect that we'll start to see enforcement as a way to shift more of the tax burden onto the middle class (at least what's left of it). Banana Republic here we come.

Re:And they've already stopped

[epyT-R]

As opposed to the powerful growing the government and using it weaken and then control the slaves?

Re:And they've already stopped

[Anubis IV]

Since when did "not wanting the government to surprise you with unsubstantiated charges for alleged benefits accidentally paid out over 50 years ago" suddenly become an extremist view? Last I checked, that's the sort of thing most people would consider common sense. And even if they are entitled to the money (which I think they should be required to provide evidence of, given how easy it would be to extort money from people if there isn't that requirement), they still should have notified people well in advance so that they could plan for it, rather than springing it on everyone after they had already budgeted around receiving their expected tax refund.

Re:And they've already stopped

[MikeBabcock]

The big story up here in Canada last year was the IRS going after dual-citizens who'd not filed their incomes with the US ... because apparently they had to even though they didn't owe any taxes down there.

The IRS does lots of interesting things from one year to the next.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/...

Re:And they've already stopped

[readin]

They cancelled this policy almost immediately after it was brought to light.

I dunno. Are the 0.01%ers trying to figure out a new way to fuck over the middle class?

Congress is more like .0001%, and yes they are as always. (Perhaps your 0.01% is accurate if you include enough government functionaries.)

Re:And they've already stopped

[bill_mcgonigle]

They cancelled this policy [nytimes.com] almost immediately after it was brought to light.

Here's the thing: the data mining apparatus and amount of data entry required to get to this point must be enormous. Finding all of the information required to get to the point of issuing seizures of refunds would require complete integration of all SSI payment history, all tax payment history, family histories, movement pattern tracking, etc.

There might even be a tie in to NSA/"not-TIA" to enable this, since the scope is so large. They probably started putting out bids for the work shortly after the law changed in 2008 and have only recently yielded results.

It's not going to be turned off just like that.

Re:And they've already stopped

[whistlingtony]

Logical Fallacy, ad hominem attack! Logical Fallacy, black or white! Don't tell people to use their real logins when you're posting as AC, you look like an idiot. And don't assume OWS folks are smell useless cunts. You probably also shouldn't assume they're all moneyless hippies. Also, I'm in my 7th year of college. I have to do it on my weekends. Nothing wrong with that either.

Also, at least the OWS people were actually fighting against real corruption. They didn't do a very good job, but man did they try. Can you say the same, oh armchair general?

Also, keep it polite. Asshole.

Re:And they've already stopped

[CodeBuster]

Incorrect. They suspended enforcement while they review the matter. However, if the IRS finds, as a matter of law, that they're obligated to collect these debts, per the meaning of the statute, then they must attempt to collect them unless the law is changed or the courts rule otherwise. I've often heard from those on the left, "Oh, don't worry they're not going to enforce that" or "they're only going to use that against the right people", but here is the perfect example of why the law isn't always the best instrument to use in pursuit of social policy goals. There can be no mercy under the law. It binds all, whether they be high or low, equally. Anything less and the law fails to defend our individual rights and freedoms against the mob or the corrupt rule of the strong over the weak.

Re:And they've already stopped

[CodeBuster]

The United States is one of the few (only?) countries that makes no distinction between income earned at home or income earned abroad for purposes of taxation. If you're a US citizen then all your income is taxable, subject to the US tax codes, regardless of where you earned it or where you lived. That is why you never hear about US "tax exiles" because the only way to end your US tax liability is to renounce your US citizenship which can only be done at a US embassy on foreign soil and only upon presentation of proof of alternative citizenship.

Re:And they've already stopped

[CodeBuster]

The attempt reveals something about the IRS' attitude.

It's not a matter of attitude. Attitude is irrelevant in this case. The employees of the IRS and government officials working there could theoretically be punished or prosecuted for failing to perform their lawful tax collection duties. It's a matter of law, not attitude.

Re:And they've already stopped

[CodeBuster]

rather than springing it on everyone after they had already budgeted around receiving their expected tax refund.

If you aren't paying quarterlies then why are you even getting a refund? Adjust your W-4 withholding so that you don't pay them more than you have to in the first place. If you are paying quarterlies then try to improve your income estimates so that you don't give Uncle Sam an interest free loan of your money. I understand that it can be difficult for self employed people with highly variable incomes, but most Americans don't fall into that group and should know their yearly tax liability to within a fifty dollars or so at the beginning of the tax year.

Re:And they've already stopped

[AK Marc]

The law doesn't require them to do it, so they can cancel the policy without canceling the law.

Re:And they've already stopped

[sjames]

I've heard plenty of "don't worry, they won't enforce that" from both parties and in almost always proves to be incorrect (as was intended from the start).

Re:And they've already stopped

[PhilHibbs]

And, do it with your real login.

Priceless.

Re:And they've already stopped

[drinkypoo]

The big story up here in Canada last year was the IRS going after dual-citizens who'd not filed their incomes with the US ... because apparently they had to even though they didn't owe any taxes down there.

It's not just the country, it's the states, too. I moved to Texas for a while, and California had enough information to know this. You're not required to file if you don't owe, but they decided to tax me for my Texan income and then I did owe according to them, and then they came after me for back taxes of thousands when they actually owed me over a hundred bucks.

Corruption weakens governments. We're ripe for plucking.

Re:And they've already stopped

[Fnord666]

I understand that it can be difficult for self employed people with highly variable incomes, but most Americans don't fall into that group and should know their yearly tax liability to within a fifty dollars or so at the beginning of the tax year.

Since the tax codes and the taxation tables aren't finalized until the end of the year I've always found it difficult to predict what my end tax liability is going to be.

Re:And they've already stopped

[Simulant]

A few years ago I was hit for several thousand dollars because I was supposedly overpaid during my tenure working as a DOD civilian overseas. (less than 10 years ago at the time) The explanation for the overpayment was and remains cryptic and would change depending on which agency I spoke to, one agency said they overpaid health insurance, another said it was a housing benefit. After a year of phone calls and emails I could never get a straight, specific answer and so I could never prove them wrong. let alone find anyone willing accept any kind of responsibility for resolving the issue. After setting a collection agency on us (who we ignored because it seemed so obviously a scam), The IRS took my entire tax refund one year, and then half again the following year.

Re:And they've already stopped

[dcw3]

Interest still matters? Where do you invest?

Seriously though, I agree with you conceptually. However, a large portion of the population isn't very self-disciplined, and prefers getting a refund. You can lead the horse to water, but...

Re:And they've already stopped

[dcw3]

And yet, many people call the Foreign Earned Income Exclusion a loophole.

Re:And they've already stopped

[frank_adrian314159]

Commercial debt dies with the probate process. It's not passed on.

Don't give Congress any more ideas.

Re:And they've already stopped

[Anubis IV]

There are all sorts of reasons why someone might not know far in advance, and if they don't want to micromanage their W-4 they'll end up with a refund at the end of the year.

Using myself as a case study, I'm at the point in my life where a lot of things are changing from year-to-year, and it's not always obvious at the start how things will go. For example, I bought a house this last year, but I didn't know precisely what my budget was going to be for the house at the start of the year, since it depended on a few other things. The year before that, I had a relative die and I donated a sizable chunk of the inheritance to charity, which ended up being a rather nice deduction. I switched to an HSA last year. I began investing a few years ago. I expect I'll be married and have kids within a few more years.

Maybe once things stabilize a bit you shouldn't have an excuse, but I'd rather not go through tax documents multiple times a year to calculate my deduction and adjust my withholding. I have better things to spend my time on. I'd rather just set something reasonable and have an expectation that I'll get back a modest refund whenever I do my taxes at the end of the tax year.

Re:And they've already stopped

[pubwvj]

And if it hadn't been brought to so much heat they would have just kept beating up old ladies, and anyone else they could get away with abusing.

Remember: only 10% of the government is evil. That is more than enough.

Re:And they've already stopped

[CodeBuster]

The brackets in the US are now indexed for inflation which is tracked and published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, so you can get a rough idea of next years tax amounts by looking at this year's tax table and making the appropriate multiplication.

Re:And they've already stopped

[CodeBuster]

A modest refund is alright and I get that your time is valuable and that you have had yearly life events, but when I hear of people who aren't receiving the Earned Income Tax Credit having 3000 refunds it's a bit shocking that they wouldn't rather have an extra 250 dollars per month in their pocket. As you said, you probably won't be buying houses, getting married and having kids every year for the next ten so eventually when things settle down you may want to have another look at that withholding or you estimated tax payments because nobody that I know ever wishes that they put more into the escrow account with Uncle Sam at zero percent.

Re:And they've already stopped

[CodeBuster]

I've never been paid in foreign currency or paid foreign taxes, so I cannot speak from personal experience, but I think that the basic concept is sound. If you work in Europe say and are paid in Euros and pay European taxes then you ought to be able, at the very least, to write off that amount that you paid in European taxes from your gross income so that your US taxable income reflects the fact that you paid foreign taxes. Otherwise, you're being taxed on taxes and it's tough to argue that relief from that is a "loophole".

Re:And they've already stopped

[Rakarra]

Huh. Constant insults and language like that, and you have low karma? I never would have guessed!

Re:And they've already stopped

[david_thornley]

Yes, but if you withhold at least 80% of final tax liability for the last year you don't get hit for underpayment. So, figure what you owed last year, multiply it by .9, make sure you get at least that withheld (or paid as estimated) and you're good to go.

Pocket change

[Anonymous Coward]

"The Treasury Department has intercepted ... $75 million from debts delinquent for more than 10 years"

Let's put this into perspective:

      $ 75,000,000 collected
$1,386,100,000,000 last year's revenue from individual income tax

Re:Pocket change

[nctritech]

*dodge* Oh shit, I almost got hit by facts! Whew. (seriously though, great perspective illustration.)

Re:Pocket change

[VortexCortex]

Not to mention all the billions in tax breaks of 98% or more that all of the very rich corporations are getting away with...

Seriously. Collect on a couple of those business's taxes instead of letting them double Irish, and this "pocket change" would look like pocket lint.

Re:Pocket change

[Spad]

Pocket change for them, maybe, but it's slightly more significant for the people having to pay it.

Re:Pocket change

[parkinglot777]

Maybe that pocket change is the bonus for their people this year? :-P

Re:Joke's on you feds

[viperidaenz]

I'm sorry, the center you were raised at has unpaid tax bills. They've since shut down so we're recovering all debts from the orphans.

Re:This is what Republicans...

[Berkyjay]

Wow, I had just assumed that it was the recent farm bill when I read the story elsewhere. But what can you expect from the media these days?

Re:This is what Republicans...

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeessssss. Yeeesssss... let the childish, passive-aggressive comments flow through you!

Am I the only person...

[DoofusOfDeath]

Who has a deep and abiding desire to beat the shit out of every Congressman who votes for a bill without fully understanding it?

Re:Am I the only person...

[dbIII]

That is all of them. Remember one of the nasty tricks with the "Patriot" act (apart from it's name) was to rush it through before anyone in Congress who was not responsible for drafting it had a chance to even see the first page.

Re:Am I the only person...

[readin]

I have long thought that we should amend the Constitution to say that every bill must be read out loud in its entirety before it can be voted on, and that only members who sit quietly with no electronic equipment though the entire reading should be allowed to vote on it.

A bonus would be that every sponsor of a bill would have to approve every amendment to a bill. That way you would always have at least one person who could be held personally accountable fore the whole bill (i.e. they wouldn't be able to claim they had to vote for the bill even though it contained some provisions they didn't like since they would be able to eliminate any provision they didn't like).

Re:Am I the only person...

[TFAFalcon]

Not just read out. The Congressmen/Senators should be forced to take a quiz about the contents of the bill afterward. If they are unable to pass it with 100%, they are not allowed to vote for the bill.

Re:Am I the only person...

[Dr_Barnowl]

I think the development of the law should be tracked using Git. Amendments are pull requests, and only permissible with a commit signed by the creator.

Instead of tacking amendments to the end of bills as they do now, just patch them directly - make the law simpler. And keep a full audit trail of the whole thing. No more sneaky little amendments by congressional aides like Mitch Glazier (search for "pisher" in the text..)

Re:Am I the only person...

[mrchaotica]

Then call up your congresscritter and ask them to support the "Read the Bills Act."

Re:Am I the only person...

[Bardez]

Who writes the quizzes? The lobbyists whom drafted the bill? Or do you suggest giving the bill over to watchdog groups to further slow the legislative process?

Re:Am I the only person...

[TFAFalcon]

I was going to suggest the judicial branch. Make the questions check both the exact text of the law (to see that they actually read it) and their understanding of the application of the law in strange sitations. If all the lawmakers agree what the law means, then you don't make the judges interpret it. And if they don't agree you get to make them go back and write a more specific law.

Re:Am I the only person...

[readin]

You still have the problem of who writes it. Even the judicial branch isn't free from politics. It's only in recent years that the Supreme Court has almost swung back to the center after decades of hanging out on the left. You can imagine the different questions and answers the tests would have if they were written by an precedent-focused judge like Scalia vs an original-meaning focused judge like Thomas or a whatever-I-think-is-good-policy focused judge like Breyer.

Question 1: The ACA (Obamacare) is an exercise of the federal government's constitutional power to
a. regulate interstate commerce
b. tax
c. promote the general welfare
d. none of the above

You can see how a judge could write that question and the answer would depend on which other judge is grading it. (or if House Speaker Pelosi were writing the question the answer would "ha ha ha ha ha".

I've seen a lot of suggestions about how we need quizzes or tests to make sure people are qualified to do some action in politics whether it be voting, running for office, making laws, whatever. I even made some suggestions myself when I was younger. The problem always comes down to reliably finding some neutral disinterested uncorruptible party to write the tests when few such parties exists and you can't trust the people tasked with finding them.

Gotta pay the government bills somehow

[damn_registrars]

I don't agree with this tactic, but when congress keeps cutting taxes without reducing spending by a matching amount they leave the IRS with few choices but to work harder to pursue outstanding debts.

Re:Gotta pay the government bills somehow

[MightyYar]

I have to agree. I tend to fall on the "reduce spending" side of things - but top priority should be balancing the damn books.

Re:Gotta pay the government bills somehow

[epyT-R]

So you have no problem with a bunch of criminal thugs running protection rackets deciding they need to beat innocent people over the head for choices made by their parents half a generation ago? That's basically what's going on.

Today's federal government is like a 16yo spoiled brat maxing out her parents credit cards and then beating her grandparents over the head for refusing to give her more christmas money to pay the debt. They need to work within a sane budget like everyone else.

Re:Gotta pay the government bills somehow

[Anonymous Coward]

You _assume_, incorrectly, that decreasing tax _rates_ decreases revenue to the government. That is incorrect. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L.... We are on the outside of the curve currently and no one has actually found the peak yet.

Re:Gotta pay the government bills somehow

[damn_registrars]

I'm not sure what part of

I don't agree with this tactic

Was unclear to you...

Re:Gotta pay the government bills somehow

[readin]

This is why the notion that we need more "compromise" in Washington is so overrated. The Democrats say they want higher spending and higher taxes. The Republicans say they want less spending and lower taxes.

The compromise is usually higher spending and lower taxes.

Re:Gotta pay the government bills somehow

[radarskiy]

Even Arthur Laffer doesn't think we are on the right side of the Laffer Curve.

Re:Gotta pay the government bills somehow

[Anonymous Coward]

Liberals are tax and spend, Conservatives are spend and spend until they prove that the government is broken. Mission accomplished!

Re:Gotta pay the government bills somehow

[aztracker1]

This is why I've voted Libertarian (where available) for the past decade now.

Re:Gotta pay the government bills somehow

[frank_adrian314159]

This is why I've voted Libertarian (where available) for the past decade now.

You act as if that's a good thing. Well, I guess consistency counts for something even if brains aren't a strong suit.

Re:Gotta pay the government bills somehow

[aztracker1]

It's about trying to reduce the size of government consistently... It's when a party tends to get 8-10% of the popular vote, and even 5% of seats in congress that those concepts start to influence decisions... I'm more pragmatic than a typical Libertarian, just the same I'm for creating change, and reducing the federal government in was Democrats or Republicans would oppose.

Re:Gotta pay the government bills somehow

[aztracker1]

It's about affecting the whole... when a party gains popularity, even 8-10% this tends to be seen in policy changes in the other parties... I'm not pushing for a straight/classic libertarian agenda, I'm more pragmatic than that... the point is to influence the whole a bit more.

Re:Gotta pay the government bills somehow

[_Sharp'r_]

Tax revenues are at inflation-adjusted record highs. http://cnsnews.com/news/articl...
and have been climbing overall for a while:
http://comeletusreasontogether...

What we have is a serious spending problem. Most of the "cutting taxes" over time is an illusion and doesn't amount to much.

Re:Gotta pay the government bills somehow

[MightyYar]

Again, I agree - but it doesn't make it any more moral to keep piling debt up for our children. The debt is a bigger travesty than overtaxing.

Taxation

[damicatz]

I always make sure I never have a refund and that I "owe" taxes because the thieves that run the federal government simply cannot be trusted. All it takes is some pencil-pushing bureaucrat to decide that you were "overpaid" and they can steal your refund without so much as a trial, a hearing, or a chance to defend yourself.

Re:Taxation

[Anonymous Coward]

Who said "yes you can" ?
Now we know who he was speaking to:
Steal money from the long dead poor parent?, "yes you can! If your the IRS just take it from the kids"
Trash hopes and dreams of unemployed by getting tax breaks by sending jobs off shore ? "yes you can, if you lobby with lots of cash!
Lose a few billion of hard working people's investment money to get piles of free tax cash for you and friends?, "yes you can.. if you lobby with lots of cash!
Bastards they are!

Re:Taxation

[bzipitidoo]

Yeah, I've experienced that. They owed my parents a refund, and didn't pay the full amount. No explanation was given, not even so much as a note saying that they were keeping back some money. We checked and rechecked the figures, could find nothing wrong, and thought it must be a mistake on their end.

Took several calls to figure things out. It wasn't a mistake in their math. The previous year, my parents changed banks, and had problems updating the information with EFTPS, the US govt's electronic tax payment system. They tried to take money from the wrong bank, and penalized my parents for that. The penalty wasn't $30, like a bank might charge, no, it was 2% of the amount they tried to withdraw. Makes the banks look friendly and reasonable by comparison. They waited nearly a whole year between imposing and collecting the penalty. Make it more difficult to learn what the issue was.

Re:Taxation

[aztracker1]

It definitely has me rethinking my tax contributions. I think if everyone changed their deductions to 99, so they don't have taxes taken out, it would choke the government off a bit... I'd rather 20-30% of my income go into savings for the year.. I won't make anything, but it at least would stop the interest free loan the the US Govt.

Re:Taxation

[mrchaotica]

If you tried that then the IRS would start charging you penalties and interest on the amount you "failed to pay," the same as if you were self-employed and failed to send quarterly estimated payments.

Re:Taxation

[david_thornley]

And you'd be hit by underpayment penalties. Income tax is intended to be, well, a tax on income, and you get income throughout the year. If you don't withhold enough and don't pay enough estimated tax, you're paying more.

Re:This is what Republicans...

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you have any teeth left at all after your knee impacted your chin?

I don't get it?

He had a knee-jerk reaction. GP implies it was so severe that his knee made it all the way to his chin and knocked out some teeth.

Re:This is what Republicans...

[Anonymous Coward]

You go ahead and keep believing the false choice you are given between Democrat and Republican. Hint: There is no real choice you dolt, and it should only take about 15 minutes of study and contemplation to get that correct conclusion.

Re:vote GOP and your student loans will come out o

[galabar]

Conservatives would eliminate government subsidized student loans. So, whether we agree or disagree with that policy, it would guarantee that the situation you mention would never come to pass.

Bush Vetoed this, apparently

[Phil-14]

I just checked Wikipedia, according to which Bush vetoed the linked "Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008" on May 21, 2008, and had the veto overridden the same day, by a Congress run by Nancy Pelosi and whoever was Senate leader then. (checking... oh, Harry Reid). While I am anxious to find out which Republicans did vote for that bill, it looks like Bush didn't.

If that's the wrong bill I'd like to know about it, since they seem to be linking to it in every story I see on this issue.

Re:Bush Vetoed this, apparently

[arbiter1]

Doesn't really matter what republicans voted for it, key fact is senate was DEMOCRAT controlled so they are the majority of ones that pushed it in to law so.

Re:Bush Vetoed this, apparently

[Phil-14]

The Senate and the House both were Democrat at the time. But I want to see the list of Republicans who voted for it too, because primaries are coming up.

Re:Bush Vetoed this, apparently

[artor3]

A majority of Republicans voted for it as well. The real question is who added this particular provision, and are they still in office? I'm not sure how to dig up that crucial bit of info.

Re:Bush Vetoed this, apparently

[Anonymous Coward]

Here you go. House and Senate.

Re:Bush Vetoed this, apparently

[grantspassalan]

It does not really make any more difference whether a candidate is a Democrat or Republican. What is really important in the next election is to vote against whoever is in office currently and vote for their opponent most likely to throw them out. This will send the message loud and clear that the people are fed up with the status quo. Sooner or later (most likely sooner) the newcomers will also turn corrupt, but it will take them a while to establish their connections with the corrupting influences of the thousands of professional lobbyists infesting Washington DC. Meanwhile we can hope that for a while at least they will represent the people that voted them into office rather than the money bags of special interest groups.

Re:Bush Vetoed this, apparently

[aardvarkjoe]

All the provision does is lift the statute of limitations on collecting an unpaid debt. I really don't see the problem with that. The actual problem seems to be that they're going after the wrong people to get their money -- and that seems to be based on a policy that allows the government to go after children who may have benefited from overpayments. Seems to me that the person you really should be going after is the one who implemented that policy -- or passed the laws that allow that policy.

Re:Bush Vetoed this, apparently

[AthanasiusKircher]

The real question is who added this particular provision, and are they still in office? I'm not sure how to dig up that crucial bit of info.

This takes a bit of digging. I believe the provision in question is H.R. 2419, Sec. 14219. "Elimination of statute of limitations applicable to collection of debt by administrative offset."

It was added as part of a list of amendments suggested by a committee report (House Report 110-261). The specific amendment regarding the statute of limitations was entered into the Congressional Record at H9049.

The slate of amendments (H.Amdt.714) from the report were introduced to a full house vote (see Congressional Record H8763) by Rep. Collin Peterson (Minnesota 7th), then chairman of the House Agricultural Committee. Rep. Peterson should probably not be taken to be the main proponent of this measure, since this was part of a slate of amendments introduced in the committee report, which were then offered up to the full house for approval. (A number of members of the Agricultural Committee spoke for this slate of amendments, though it doesn't seem anyone spoke in support of the specific provision for eliminating this statute of limitations -- this provision was included among a whole bunch of other random things in the bill.)

The specific amendment (the 29th on the slate to be considered) did not actually name the elimination of statute of limitations sections as its primary purpose (listed as Sec. 3005, the "Reauthorization of McGovern-Dole International Food for Education and Child Nutrition Program"), so one might argue that this section was buried as an added clause within an amendment which was buried within a slate of amendments.

In any case, the house agreed to these amendments offered en bloc by voice vote on July 27, 2007, so there's no record of who voted for or against (though the assumption is it was more-or-less unanimous, since it was approving something recommended from the committee who was trying to produce a bill which could be passed by the full house).

(Of course, as is typical, the amendment was not actually read in full to the house, and only entered later into the Congressional record as an "omission" for the day, which is why the page number for the amendment is later than the page on which it is approved.)

It's possible you might find something about who actually wanted this provision by digging into records of committee meetings, but I somewhat doubt it. This slate of amendments was part of an ENORMOUS bill, and it looks like this list of amendments was a compiled list of crap the committee needed to put in just to get it to the next stage of legislation.

Re:Bush Vetoed this, apparently

[nbauman]

All the provision does is lift the statute of limitations on collecting an unpaid debt. I really don't see the problem with that. The actual problem seems to be that they're going after the wrong people to get their money -- and that seems to be based on a policy that allows the government to go after children who may have benefited from overpayments.

The problem is that we have statutes of limitations for a reason. (There's also a related principle called laches http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L...

The reason is that it's not fair to bring a legal action against someone after an unreasonable amount of time has passed. The person can't defend himself. He may not remember what happened. Records may have been lost, destroyed or missing. People, including witnesses, who could have given information may be unavailable or dead.

Re:Bush Vetoed this, apparently

[grep -v '.*' *]

The real question is who added this particular provision,

Oh, I'm sure that the statute of limitations for that has run out for them....

That being said: it's a law. It's written in the books, and has been. ENFORCE IT, PERIOD;THAT'S THE IRS'S JOB in this case.

It really isn't their fault they've been given offensive and annoying rules. The only thing that should be under review is to make sure they're asking the larger debt owners first.

Now, for the legislators who enacted this fine piece? Let's (all!) have a discussion and a vote.

And really, I can see the overall CongressCritters being told "here's what that does", while the sponsor hashes out all of those nagging details for an actual vote. And after all, the general policy from one of the leaders is "We'll have to pass it to find out what's in it" -- I don't suppose this concept is anything new for them.

It's just like when I do a final code test and review to make sure things are in order, and then fix something while it goes into production. It's only a wafer thin mint.

Re:Bush Vetoed this, apparently

[BitZtream]

You sir, are an idiot.

Voting in Hitler would not be a good thing, even if he is the most likely person to replace a democrat OR republican incumbent.

If you're too stupid to properly analyze who you are voting for DON'T VOTE.

I want everyone with a brain to vote ... I do not want morons who vote based on something stupid like a single line item on a bill that just makes people responsible for debts they were responsible for already, even if I think its ridiculous to try and claim it 50 years later.

Everyone who can vote SHOULD VOTE, but ONLY IF they are going to actually put effort into investigating who they are voting for. If all you do is listen to whats spewed at you on the TV, Radio and various billboards and signs ... you aren't a qualified voter, you are a problem.

Re:Bush Vetoed this, apparently

[dkf]

And that's why having bills cover lots of things at once (rather than being automatically restricted to the principal subject area of the bill) is a truly awful practice. It's beyond corrupt as it specifically enables effectively sidestepping oversight of the legislative process. The pork-barrel politics the practice enables are merely the most visible and least harmful parts of this.

Re:Bush Vetoed this, apparently

[phishen]

And yet these are exactly the kinds of bills that have been applauded in recent time. Even when anyone agrees that a great portion of a bill like this is beneficial, when they question even the smallest part of it or whether the entire bill was considered by everyone who voted for it, they are labeled a hater.

Re:Bush Vetoed this, apparently

[slapout]

Can't blame this one on Bush :-)

Re:Bush Vetoed this, apparently

[Curunir_wolf]

It does not really make any more difference whether a candidate is a Democrat or Republican. What is really important in the next election is to vote against whoever is in office currently and vote for their opponent most likely to throw them out.

Hear, hear! This is always my default position - vote for the non-incumbent. There are over a dozen senators and more congressmen that have held office for at least 30 years! Way past time for a clean up.

Re:Bush Vetoed this, apparently

[david_thornley]

Moreover, I don't remember the Democrats having 2/3 of both chambers, and that's what it takes to override a veto.

Refunds indicate bad tax planning

[eric31415927]

A large refund is a sign of poor tax planning. You are getting your own money back without interest. In light of this story, you may not even get your own money back if the feds take it.

Arrange your source deductions and installment payments so that you don't get a refund.

It would be better to owe $2K each year than to expect refunds.

Re:Refunds indicate bad tax planning

[Lehk228]

I usually get 40-80 bucks back, total, between feds and state.

Re:Refunds indicate bad tax planning

[dbIII]

Sometimes they just indicate bad tax laws. Part timers or seasonal workers getting taxed as if they are full time get large refunds in some places and there's no way they can plan around it - they just have to wait while the government holds their money at zero interest.

Re:Refunds indicate bad tax planning

[readin]

A large refund is a sign of poor tax planning.

Or a recognition that if the money goes in the bank your spouse will expand your expenses to match the income. The interest on the refund isn't nearly as much as I save by not letting my wife spend it for a year. It gives us a chance to buy something nice once in a while.

Re:Refunds indicate bad tax planning

[EvanED]

Arrange your source deductions and installment payments so that you don't get a refund.

Here are a couple reasons why I don't worry too much about this:

1) Especially right now, that money wouldn't earn much elsewhere, especially if you put it into a safe investment. If you just keep it in a bank account, for most people it's probably barely worth it. (The average refund is about $3000 in 2011, the date I happened to see. Put in an online savings account with 0.95% interest (the highest MMA/savings on bankrate.com) and you'd make a whopping $15.48 over the course of the year. I guess that'd buy one person a decent dinner or so.)

If this was in 2007 or something when you could get a 5% account, things would be different. (That'd be $387.)

(I guess that is the federal-only figure. Would be slightly higher with state refunds, though at least for me those have always been much less.)

2) Fewer things to worry about come tax time. There are penalties for under-withholding, at least in some conditions. Overwithholding a little protects you from these.

3) I am not even sure if it's legal to decrease my withholding, for example. I've claimed the exemption that the W-4 instruction allows, and I don't even know if it is legal for me to claim more, or if there is another way to reduce withholding. I've looked into it a little bit, but it's not worth my time to look into the various IRS pubs.

Re:Refunds indicate bad tax planning

[Malc]

How much interest are the banks currently paying on $2K? If you got a lump sum locked away for a year: lucky you. How about the interest on $170 saved on a monthly basis?

Probably the interest is so small it's barely worth the effort spent planning and budgeting. Getting $2K back is a nice bonus if you've already been ok with your pay cheque.

Every person in the US owes a huge amount of money anyway. How significant is the interest on $2K compared with that? Think of the amount of taxes you pay each year just to pay for the interest payments on the national debt. You would do better to vote for politicians who will both cut spending and increase taxes and try to reduce the debt.

Re:Refunds indicate bad tax planning

[drkstr1]

Story of my life friend, story of my life.

Re:Refunds indicate bad tax planning

[CodeBuster]

It would be better to owe $2K each year than to expect refunds.

I don't have the formulas in front of me just now, but a $2K underpayment of taxes would probably result in some kind of penalty. If you have under paid your tax bill by more than about $1K by the time that the IRS is accepting your 1040 for the year, penalties are likely. The penalties for underpayment can be quite severe, easily over 30 percent APR last time I checked, so it behooves you to try and be as accurate as possible when estimating your quarterly tax payments. Overestimating is not good, but underestimating can be just as bad or even worse. As you said, good planning is key.

Re:Refunds indicate bad tax planning

[CodeBuster]

I think that you're right about the W-4. Claiming more allowances than you're entitled to, even if the tax works out to be correct at the end of the year, is against the rules. Whether or not that results in a penalty, I don't know. The over/under payment thing matters more if you have 1099 income from which taxes are not withheld or self employment income and file quarterly estimated tax payments with the IRS.

Re:Refunds indicate bad tax planning

[AthanasiusKircher]

You are getting your own money back without interest.

Actually, for the past couple years, you can actually earn a sort of "interest" on your refund, for example in TurboTax's partnership with Amazon, which will give you a 10% bonus on your federal refund in the form of an Amazon gift card. Granted, for this privilege you'd have to pay for TurboTax, but even so, if you actually buy a lot from Amazon, you're getting a much better guaranteed return than a bank account or CD.

It would be better to owe $2K each year than to expect refunds.

Or you could turn a $2K refund into $2200 of buying power... assuming you buy from Amazon. Amazon is the only place I've heard of this kind of benefit, but I assume others will try to do this sort of thing.

Re:Refunds indicate bad tax planning

[aztracker1]

I have a bank account that I can (and do) have a portion of my income go into that I can't touch without going into the bank... set such an account up, only in your name, and have that amount go there.

Re:Refunds indicate bad tax planning

[StormReaver]

It would be better to owe $2K each year than to expect refunds.

As part of a reasonably complete tax plan, yes. But the people who depend on refunds at the end of the year don't have the knowledge or ability to plan for a large (or even small) tax debt, and so won't have the $2000 available to pay those taxes. For the vast, vast number of people, overpaying their taxes is the only thing keeping them from ruin.

Re:Refunds indicate bad tax planning

[bingoUV]

That's good. But generally if you can't spend it without travelling to the bank, you can't even have money go there without travelling to the bank. How do you accomplish that?

Re:Refunds indicate bad tax planning

[fuzznutz]

A large refund is a sign of poor tax planning.

Or a recognition that if the money goes in the bank your spouse will expand your expenses to match the income. The interest on the refund isn't nearly as much as I save by not letting my wife spend it for a year. It gives us a chance to buy something nice once in a while.

Amen brother. Or the alternative is she occasionally works part time for part of the year and claims the maximum exemptions, so she can max out her paycheck. My withholdings have to cover the both of us no matter the circumstances. I got burned on that one year too. Amazingly, at tax time the hand comes out expecting her "half" of the refund despite the fact she paid none or almost no taxes. And if I want to bank it to cover emergencies, the waterworks begin because she had busied herself planning how to spend her "half" months ago.

Damn I am so glad she is someone else's problem now. She and her new boyfriend are on the edge of bankruptcy and he had plenty of money when they met.

Re:Refunds indicate bad tax planning

[readin]

As a man married to a woman from a foreign country, this is exactly why I have come to oppose intergender marriages.

Re:Refunds indicate bad tax planning

[aztracker1]

You can do direct deposit into a savings account, just get an account slip (routing and account number) from the bank. You can also do a checking account and simply shred the debit card and checks, or simply request not to have them. All you need is a routable account. You don't need "easy access"

Re:Refunds indicate bad tax planning

[CodeBuster]

BUZZ, BUZZ, BUZZ. Wrong, wrong, wrong.

Claiming more allowances than you're entitled to is against the rules. How many an individual is entitled to depends upon work situation, certain life events, whether deductions are itemized or not, household status and other factors. The IRS provides a calculator or you can use publication 505 and the worksheets to figure it out for your specific case. Knowingly providing false information on IRS forms is a crime, but then again you know that because you're a smart ass.

Re:Refunds indicate bad tax planning

[lewiscr]

1) Especially right now, that money wouldn't earn much elsewhere

Agreed, I'm not worrying about it, but I will in a couple years.

2) Fewer things to worry about come tax time. There are penalties for under-withholding, at least in some conditions. Overwithholding a little protects you from these.

If you owe more than $1,000, you owe a penalty. Unless you got a refund last year, or you owe less than you did the previous year. The wording is awkward there. Basically the first underpayment is free, and you get a pass while you're trying to fix the problem. I'm pretty sure TurboTax told me this.

3) I am not even sure if it's legal to decrease my withholding, for example.

It is legal, and the IRS has a calculator for you. Intuit has one online somewhere. TurboTax will generate a W4 for you after you do your taxes. However, I hate all of them. They all try to take into account what's been withheld year-to-date, and figure out the magic number to get a $0 refund at the end of the year. And every single one gives me a wildly different number, without showing their work. Which means they're all wrong, and I'll have to try again next year. I finally sat down and figured it out, because fixing it was a couple hundred bucks a paycheck. I hate myself, but I made the largest spreadsheet of my life using the IRS Employer's Withholding publication. I started coding it, but the publication tables mentally mapped better to a spreadsheet. My HR department wasn't willing to help me, and I can't blame them once I finished. Now I just tweak the W4 number up or down by 1, based on if my refund was larger or smaller than last year.

Re:Refunds indicate bad tax planning

[lewiscr]

See my other post in this thread.

The US needs a constitution

[jrumney]

the result of a single sentence tucked into the farm bill lifting the 10-year statute of limitations on old debts

Why do you let your politicians get away with such bullshit?

Re:The US needs a constitution

[Frobnicator]

Why do you let your politicians get away with such bullshit?

You are mistaken if you think the people still (if ever) control the government.

Re:The US needs a constitution

[MikeBabcock]

Because nobody's going to pass the law that makes politicians liable for their actions.

Re:The US needs a constitution

[readin]

Because too many Americans want their government doing everything for them, and it nearly does. But we only get a few votes each year. This gives the politicians the opportunity to do a lot of things wrong so long as they do more things right than their opposition likely would.

Let me put it this way. I can about the national debt, generally following the Constitution, specifically allowing freedom of religion, illegal immigration, lowering spending, global warming, racism, NASA, good treatment of America's allies, treatment of America's enemies, free trade.

Every year I get just over one chance to choose Democrat or Republican on all these issues. I don't get to say "I'll have a Republican on following the Constitution, a Democrat on global warming, a Republican on illegal immigration, a Democrat on NASA..." Nor can I choose specific models "I'll have a far right republican on freedom of religion and a moderate republican on free trade..." I get to choose 1.1 person a year.


On the other hand in electronics I get to choose an Apple laptop, a Samsung handheld computer, a philips stereo, a Sony TV,... And when I choose that Sony TV I get to choose from so many models. And if I find I don't like one of these items after getting it home I can return it.


We need to have less control by the government and more control by the market because market control generally means freedom and excellent service.

Re:The US needs a constitution

[slew]

Yet, you don't get to choose a Apple laptop with an AMD instead of and Intel processor, a Samsung handheld computer with an A7 processor instead of a Exanos or Qualcomm. In life, things come in sub-optimal bundles and you pick your poison.

The problem is that we often only have a few choices even in a commodity market because of economies of scale. The economics of spending billions of dollars to develop high performances CPUs have dwindled the field to a majority player and a consolation player. Likewise, in the US, there aren't an excess political resources to fund billion dollar campaigns where only 1 person wins, so there is only about 1.1 political parties. When you scale things back you get more diversity, (e.g., local politics or SoC chips), but at the top of the food chain, it's not much freedom and not much service...

Re:The US needs a constitution

[Lucky_Norseman]

Why is there no public Version Control System in Congress?
Then it would be trivial to spot all changes in a bill and see who added or removed what.

Re:The US needs a constitution

[luther349]

wile it is written that way aka if you blow some -polatations head off to overthrow the bastard be ready to be killed or tossed in some 4x4 cell forever.

Re:The US needs a constitution

[wvmarle]

The main thing of your political system that needs to be fixed is the lack of choice, i.e. you need more political parties. Like all real democracies in this world have.

Re:The US needs a constitution

[Bob the Super Hamste]

We have a large number of political parties the problem is we have a winner take all system.

For example there are 3 viable parties in the state of Minnesota, the Republicans, the Democrats, and the Independence party. The Independence party really hasn't won anything since Jessie Ventura was governor starting back in 98, but are a large enough party that no side gets close to 50% and our last governor was elected narrowly with a 43.6% (Democrat) vs 43.2% (Republican) vs 11.9% (Independence) split. Our previous govenor didn't win either time with more than 50% of the vote either. Something like IRV or proportional representation would do wonders to increase the viability of lesser parties like in other modern democracies, but that requires those currently in power to change how things are done.

Re:The US needs a constitution

[readin]

Yet, you don't get to choose a Apple laptop with an AMD instead of and Intel processor, a Samsung handheld computer with an A7 processor instead of a Exanos or Qualcomm. In life, things come in sub-optimal bundles and you pick your poison.

So there are some limitations. But I still get to make a choice for every single purchase. I don't have to select just one company and then have that company provide every single piece of computer equipment that I get all year.

The problem is that we often only have a few choices even in a commodity market because of economies of scale. The economics of spending billions of dollars to develop high performances CPUs have dwindled the field to a majority player and a consolation player. Likewise, in the US, there aren't an excess political resources to fund billion dollar campaigns where only 1 person wins, so there is only about 1.1 political parties. When you scale things back you get more diversity, (e.g., local politics or SoC chips), but at the top of the food chain, it's not much freedom and not much service...

I think you misunderstood the 1.1. In America we get to choose 1 president for 4 years, 2 senators for 6 years each, and 1 representative for 2 years. That gives us 11 votes over 12 years. Yikes, my math was wrong and it's worse than I said. We get less than one vote per year.

I care about more than 11 issues, but I don't get to choose 11 different politicians to address them - or even 3 different politicians to address them.

I own more than 11 different electronic devices, and I can choose a different company to provide each device.

Re:The US needs a constitution

[readin]

Changing the winner-take-all voting system to a first-past-the-post system would be a huge improvement. But even better would be having the government go back to doing only those things a government should. I wouldn't mind only getting to vote 11 times in 12 years if the government were only making 11 important decisions about my life in 12 years. But when it is running nearly everything it becomes very hard to register my disapproval about anything in particular, and especially about a number of things. So I vote Republican this year - is that because I like their immigration policy, or was it their tax policy, or was it their spending promises, or was it their Supreme Court picks, or was it their freedom of religion stand, or was it in spite of some or many of those? Nobody but me knows, and I get to hear a lot of nonsense from political pundits who want to spin my vote into something I never intended.

Having a lot of political parties so I could vote for one on a particular single issue would help, but there would still be a lot of issues where I don't think my voice can be heard.

Better to leave more issues to the free market and civil society.

Re:Good

[Jarik C-Bol]

Well fuck you to. No one should be able to be held accountable for crimes that precede their birth.

No time limit != liability for debt

[Todd Knarr]

Just because the time limit has been raised, that doesn't incur a liability for the debt on the part of anyone who isn't already liable for it. And generally children aren't liable for their parent's debts unless their signature's on the contract. The parent's estate might be liable, but good luck collecting from that once the estate's finalized and closed out. I suspect this'll be what any competent attorney will raise as an issue if the victims get one: "Regardless of anything else, this is not my client's debt and the debt being collectible doesn't on it's own make my client liable for it.".

Re:No time limit != liability for debt

[the eric conspiracy]

These debts are mostly from SSI aid to dependent children. The money is sent to the parents, but strictly speaking the children are the beneficiaries.

Re:No time limit != liability for debt

[j-beda]

Just because the time limit has been raised, that doesn't incur a liability for the debt on the part of anyone who isn't already liable for it. And generally children aren't liable for their parent's debts unless their signature's on the contract. The parent's estate might be liable, but good luck collecting from that once the estate's finalized and closed out. I suspect this'll be what any competent attorney will raise as an issue if the victims get one: "Regardless of anything else, this is not my client's debt and the debt being collectible doesn't on it's own make my client liable for it.".

It is possible that if this was social security benefits paid to surviving children, then even if it was paid to the child's guardian, it could still be the child's debt. But what do I know?

Re:No time limit != liability for debt

[jopsen]

These debts are mostly from SSI aid to dependent children. The money is sent to the parents, but strictly speaking the children are the beneficiaries.

Interesting logic, so as a parent you could take out a loan with your child as liable for the debt... What could possibly go wrong :)

Re:No time limit != liability for debt

[Agent0013]

These debts are mostly from SSI aid to dependent children. The money is sent to the parents, but strictly speaking the children are the beneficiaries.

Interesting logic, so as a parent you could take out a loan with your child as liable for the debt... What could possibly go wrong :)

Ohh, ohh! I want to take out a loan with the IRS as liable for the debt. Turn about is fair play an all!

Re:And they've already stopped TODAY

[cirby]

Yeah, those darned conspiracy theorists, all crazy and stuff - complaining about a policy that was stupid and evil.

But now that it hit the news and EVERYONE said it was stupid and evil, the government has stopped doing the stupid, evil thing.

So those people are now wrong and crazy.

Until the government starts doing it again.

Re:Good

[lister king of smeg]

As a taxpayer, I don't want people getting free money for the government at my expense. They need to pay it up in today's dollars - with interest. If your parent or grandparent abused the system, I'm sorry but it's time for you to pay up.

This is about taking money "back" when the government made an accounting error (not people that cheated or lied mind you) but not taking it back from the people they gave it to but rather taking it out of another persons return. If the government accidentally gave me $500 thirty years ago and I died after five years ago long after I spent it, would you be OK with them deducting $500 (plus interest and adjusted for inflation) from your return, simply because you happen to be a relative?

Re:Good

[dbIII]

Refugees get held accountable. Get born to the wrong parents and you get deported with them instead of citizenship in the place where you were born :(

Re:vote GOP and your student loans will come out o

[Anonymous Coward]

Who controlled the House when this bill passed into law? Rep. Nancy Pelosi - at best you could call this one of the last examples of the two parties working together...

Re:Good

[the eric conspiracy]

Pretty much. Even forbids it in it's definition of treason.

This isn't a crime though. It's mistakes that were made in calculation of benefits for dependent children, The IRS is trying to collect it from the people whom the benefits were intended.

The problem is lack of due process. Their procedures are very shoddy.

Re:This is what Republicans...

[epyT-R]

The democrats wrote the bill yet they're not responsible? How about getting off your high horse and realizing that both parties are to blame?

Re:Good

[jargonburn]

If your parent or grandparent abused the system, I'm sorry but it's time for you to pay up.

I've never been a big fan of the "sins of the fathers" approach to punishment.
I have enough to do dealing with things I'm actually personally responsible for...I don't need to catch flak for shit I ain't done.

Re:why on earth

[Anonymous Coward]

Why on earth do people pay taxes in advance?

The same reason people are happy to get a "refund" after having let the government effectively borrow money from them at no interest for the last year: Withholding tax.

Since taxes in the US are taken out of people's paychecks, they never really see the money. It's just numbers printed on a pay stub. People get used to and budget around their after tax net pay. So, since they never see their tax money in their bank account in the first place, it's easy for them to be happy at a refund as unexpected/unplanned/extra income.

If we did not have withholding tax- if the gross of your payment went into your back account and then you had to write a check (regardless of once a year, once a quarter, once a month or even weekly when you get your check) to pay for your taxes, then people would probably care a LOT more.

Re:vote GOP and your student loans will come out o

[epyT-R]

How about getting rid of the loans so that market forces force the colleges to drop their tuition rates? It should not cost $100,000 to go to college, but with the government 'guaranteeing' the loans, the schools just keep upping the rates every year.

No it does not.

[mha]

You misunderstand this move. This isn't about the money. A drop in the bucket, utter symbolism.

This is just one small story in many decades of more and more changes to the lender-debtor relationship. In economics I learned that one of the most important reasons for US capitalism's success was that, unlike in other parts of the world until that time where debtor prison and other nasty things awaited anyone who didn't, most often couldn't pay their debts in the US you'd be freed from your debt and then could start over and try again. The invention of the corporation (16th century) was when that movement started that debts are not eternal and that one should be able to try again. It still is true for corporations, but for individuals the noose has been tightening more and more not just in the US. There have been (economic) articles about a growing disparity between economic teaching and reality in the area of lendor-debtor relationship and power for a long time. The power has slowly shifted ever more towards the lender. This story is just one tiny brick in a big wall that was started being built decades ago.

This

[Anonymous Coward]

Same problem over a couple of dollars; turns out you can donate money to wildlife funds so I did that after they sent me the paperwork for it...I was then able to write that off the next year.... /I really with they would clear up tax law; it really needs it, 30 years of adding to it since the last overhaul

Re:vote GOP and your student loans will come out o

[arth1]

at best you could call this one of the last examples of the two parties working together...

What two parties?
Here in the US, we have one ultra-conservative party owned by corporations, with two wings who are badmouthing each other like two football teams. It's posturing and arguing over trifles - the closer they get, the more they posture and badmouth each other, to make the masses believe there is a real difference.
And the astonishing thing is that the American public buys it, wholesale, apart from some even scarier people on the extreme right wing.

Fix the security holes

[phantomfive]

The IRS loses billions every year to fraudulent returns. All you have to do is get a pre-paid debit card, find someone's social security number and name, and have the IRS deposit the money to the pre-paid card. Since it's anonymous, catching them is hard.

Re:Good

[MikeBabcock]

Exactly -- also, this is why statutes of limitations exist; eventually its the states' fault for not noticing.

Re:vote GOP and your student loans will come out o

[readin]

Stop exploding liberal fantasies with your ridiculous facts.

Re:Joke's on you feds

[flyingfsck]

Don't worry, the Blues Brothers are on a mission from god and will pay the debt of the orphanage.

Flat tax - IRS severely downsized

[Anonymous Coward]

They cancelled this policy almost immediately after it was brought to light.

Irrelevant. The fact that this started at all is yet more evidence that the "kinder gentler" IRS that 1990 era reforms were supposed to bring about failed and/or didn't stick. The IRS demonstrates, decade after decade, that it is a rogue agency.

Seriously folks - its time for a flat tax. Figure out what percentages are necessary for individuals and corporations to get the desired revenue and go with those and have no deductions at all.

Tax deductions are just the mechanism for political corruption.

With a simple flat tax the IRS can be downsized to a very very small fraction of what it is today. Its enforcement activities negligible. They take the % out of your paycheck, done, fully paid, no extra payments, no refunds, no system to game.

Posting anonymously to avoid IRS retaliation. :-)

Re:Flat tax - IRS severely downsized

[whistlingtony]

and the poor pay the bulk of taxes. Flat taxes sound good when you don't look at the details.... Or we could just redo the tax code. The problem is that it's bloated as shit with loopholes. A nice simple progressive tax code works and is quite easy.

Re:Flat tax - IRS severely downsized

[Anonymous Coward]

and the poor pay the bulk of taxes. Flat taxes sound good when you don't look at the details....

You have been misinformed, or have not actually looked at the details. Flat tax proposals generally phase in at the poverty line, they are progressive-like for the poor. For the non-poor no one is paying the bulk, all are paying the same percentage on all income (wages, interest, dividends, long term capital gain, short term capital gain, etc).

Or we could just redo the tax code. The problem is that it's bloated as shit with loopholes. A nice simple progressive tax code works and is quite easy.

One man's incentive is another's loophole. If you have deductions or credits then you will have corruption. The "flat" in "flat tax" is actually referring to this absence of deductions or credits, not to a complete absence of any progressive implementation details for the poor as you have assumed or been misinformed.

Re:Flat tax - IRS severely downsized

[dcw3]

Unless you're talking about taxes that are not income tax, your comment is blatantly incorrect. In fact, there's a large portion of our population that pays no income tax, and I'm not talking about the 1%ers. You'll hear crap in the media where someone who's wealthy paid less, and it's typically misleading because it was the percentage they paid that was less, not the amount. This works great for getting people riled up, just like most everything the media "reports" these days.

Re:Flat tax - IRS severely downsized

[Rakarra]

Irrelevant. The fact that this started at all is yet more evidence that the "kinder gentler" IRS that 1990 era reforms were supposed to bring about failed and/or didn't stick. The IRS demonstrates, decade after decade, that it is a rogue agency.

IRS enforces law passed by Congress == IRS is a rogue agency?
You may not like the IRS, but in this case I think the blame should go to our lawmakers.

Re:Flat tax - IRS severely downsized

[david_thornley]

The other nice thing about a flat tax is that the rich get to pay it. Right now, my wife and I are in the highest bracket for Federal taxes, with our individual incomes near but not over the FICA cap, and negligible income from anything other than working for a living.

Guilty! Til proven innocent

[p51d007]

and the government has UNLIMITED taxpayer resources, power of the courts (if they even bother) to take anything. Under the "old outdated and needs to be redone" Constitution, innocent until proven guilty, the ability to face those accusing you of anything, are being unconstitutionally done away with. And how is this possible? Just watch any "man on the street" interview where people mostly below the age of 45 can't tell you who their representative, vice president, ANY member of the supreme court, how a bill becomes law, the number of amendments called the bill of rights there is and so on and so on. Our (lack of) REAL education in this country, coupled with the sports/celebrity culture that puts that as the #1 topic around the water cooler, and you will see how easy it is to distract the "HEY LOOK! SQUIRREL!!!" ldiots in this country!

Re:What's next, Debtor's Prison?

[Amouth]

hummm,, that is one way of getting a day off...

"the agency uses a private contractor"

[radarskiy]

The SSA used a private contractor to make sure all parties were correctly notified about the debt before seizure proceedings were started, which would have allowed incorrect claims to be dropped. Of course, the private contractor screwed that up.

Re:"the agency uses a private contractor"

[asylumx]

Of course, the private contractor screwed that up.

That can't be right, the private sector does everything better!

</sarcasm>

Re:hahahahaha

[sHr0oMaN]

Move to NZ, a more stable, saner version of a first world country. With cows.

Re:Sigh...

[Z00L00K]

And still not posting as an AC.

False?

[Akvum]

Says you. Try having the IRS owe you a few grand. Still waiting on that check from several years back. In the IRS' defense, the mailman could have cashed it, since banks rarely do pesky stuff like read anymore. I've also had them unilateraly apply tax credits that I wasn't legally eligible for (thank heaven I can't be held liable for their mistakes... yet). That said, it was a big tax giveaway (making work pay act) in an election year so I can't say I'm too surprised. Their behavior can appear quite baffling unless you have looked deeply at the history of their actions.

Seriously, read a few Inspector General's reports before you defend an organization that you know little about. They regularly violate their own rules; especially the ones about not keeping an "enemies list" of tax protestors and not auditing because of RO's personal vendettas. Practically every administration since (and including) FDR have used them as a political weapon against their opponents. Judges and Jurors who decide against them get singled out for audit. Repeated studies by lawyers have shown the Revenue Code to be so self-contradictory that prosecution is effectively discretionary. As such "following the law" is basically whatever they feel like at the moment. Oh, and there's a special tax court that is exempt from due process if they so choose to subject you to it (usually reserved for aformentioned protestors).

But, you are right in saying it's not about the money. It's mostly about Revenue Officers and their self-aggrandizement. The way to get promoted is to maximize seizures, and that has been the case from the beginning. The money comes naturally with those incentives. The frequent strong-arm tactics they use to achieve said siezures (and the above bending of rules) is why they are considered little different from a private criminal organization running a protection racket. The things the tax money is spent on (international murder, political blackmail, crony arrangements) is also little different in practice, so you can forgive why a person could mistake the IRS for a mafia organization. Duck rule and all that.

Now I know some 'a youse are thinking -- "but the government does X charitable thing! They're not all bad, they're compartmentalized, blah blah..." Well, the Mafia runs charities too. Both organizations rely on the forebearance of their victims, so they gotta have some way to paint a positive image over the majority of their activities being rotten. And there will always be fools that believe they can join the Mafia to do good -- however, they will not achieve influence because of the incentive structure (the most rapacious get promoted).

Get over yourselves, people. It's a tough world out there, and a government funded by invoulntary contribution doesn't make any of that go away. Doing Evil that Good May Come (TM) doesn't work out in the long run, so either get used to doing things the hard way, or living in a world dominated by evil. By and large, we've chosen the latter, and we need to accept that rather than getting Stockholm Syndrome about the whole affair. Quit defending people who would kill you with your own money without thinking twice about it.

So, I hope you guys reading TFA realize what this is really about: A bunch of ROs got together and figured out a plausible enough justification to pull in more siezures (and hence more promotions/$$$). They win, the taxpayer loses, the Bureacracies doesn't really care because at the end of the day they have a printing press and whole lots of trigger-pullers. The politicians will continue to try and avoid the subject of the IRS altogether, as that makes people think too much about how the sausage is made rather than the delicious *free* sausage they want to offer up. The courts can be relied upon not to rein in the IRS, as they would prefer not to bite the hand that feeds them. The people (in general) cannot be relied upon because they are widely bamboozled that voting can somehow dislodge such ingrained corruption of incentives. The only person you can rely on is yourself -- If you want this to change, you have to be the change you want to see in others.

Re:False?

[operagost]

I've also had them unilateraly apply tax credits that I wasn't legally eligible for (thank heaven I can't be held liable for their mistakes... yet).

Are you sure? If you call their help line, and they give you incorrect advice, you are still liable for any underpayment, including penalties.

Re:This is what Republicans...

[kwbauer]

Nope. Dem congress passes and Rep pres signs it, Reps at fault.
Dem congress passes with veto-proof majority and Rep pres does not sign, Reps at fault.
Rep congress, Dem pres, Reps at fault.
Dem congress, Dem pres, Reps at fault.

Libs go on and on about how a certain amendment only applies to things invented at the time of its writing then complain about other amendments not automatically applying to modern things. Reps at fault.

See the pattern there.

Due Process

[the_Bionic_lemming]

If the person paying the penalty has not been audited over the issue, how can the debt be arbitrarily assigned?

Sounds like the ACLU can suck up a crapload of public funds over this fiasco.

IRS is above the law

[ne0n]

Seeing as the US govt has spent itself into an event horizon of the current magnitude while trying to prosecute 64 simultaneous, one-sided "wars" against brown folk the world over, all you Americans have just got to tighten your belts a little bit. Priorities like fattening the Republicrat fatcats and sponsoring automated killing machines to further the War on Drugs/Terror/Arabs/Commies/Mexicans are there for a reason. Of course the IRS needs your money more than you do! That's why they're above the law. If you don't like it file suit in a secret court.

Network Neutrality

[rho]

This obviously isn't ideal, but let's not lose sight of the important things, like Network Neutrality. We need a strong and powerful government to make sure the Internet is not metered by corporate interests. Only the FCC can prevent AT&T and Comcast from abusing their power.

Re:This is what Republicans...

[Electricity Likes Me]

Also then vote republican!

Re:Good

[Electricity Likes Me]

Well newsflash, just because you get some money doesn't mean you can claim ownership of it if it wasn't legally owed to you.

If the government gives you a $1 million USD tomorrow, you don't get to spend it and claim you thought there was nothing wrong with that. Same story however with private transactions: if you accidentally EFT the money for a house to the wrong account number, the owner of that account equally cannot spend it and claim it must be there's because they received it.

Fiscal law is pretty clear: you don't get to exploit the mistakes of others. That you can in practice is a function of when the amounts are small enough not to matter, but if we're very concerned about government efficiency then we should be very concerned about the correction of mistakes like this.

So long as you claim inheritance from your parents or grandparents, or other relatives, then you're also claiming any debts owed against that inheritance.

Re:Good

[Electricity Likes Me]

Don't claim inheritance you're not aware of the debts owing against.

Re:This is what Republicans...

[AlphaWolf_HK]

You mean the same IRS that would automatically audit tea party groups even if they weren't suspected of doing anything wrong?

Re:Joke's on you feds

[Opportunist]

In this time and age the money they collected for the orphanage would probably be confiscated to repay the damage done. And if it ain't enough, the orphanage would get to foot the bill simply because they're kinda related.

Re:Good

[lister king of smeg]

But you are not responsible for crimes committed by your parents, we for example do not require children of convicts to finish out their parents sentence if their parents die in prison. That however is exactly the principle that is applied here.

Social Security Stopped This Today

[linearz69]

This is not IRS directly. Only the Social Security Administration is doing this, through the Treasury, whose collection arm is the IRS.

It turns out this practice is illegal. I'm surprised it took so long for this to come out - my bet is that most of the people the SSA targeted were quite poor to begin with (hence they were getting SS benefits), and they couldn't really fight back.

This was put into the 2008 Farm Bill, but a relic from the 2005 Farm Bill, which was tabled for three years. The guy who wrote it in was congressman Todd Platts: http://books.google.com/books?...

Going after 6 Mill the first year, and 11 Mill subsequent years. At that rate, they'd sure piss off a lot of people before they paid off the Iraq war...

FBAR (FinCEN Form 114)

[Anonymous Coward]

That law sucks, but it's nothing compared to this crazy IRS law. "FBAR" otherwise known as "FinCEN Form 114". “Cruel and Unusual” Is the Only Way to Describe It

"It's particularly alarming for those who are dual citizens living in other countries and don't have any ties to the US. Let's say for example John is a successful doctor who lives and works in Canada. John was born in the US, but permanently moved to Canada when he was 3 years old. John has never moved or even come back to the US since then. Due to a system of citizenship-based taxation (Americans Are on a Tight Leash) John still is required to file and pay taxes like any US citizen, even though he hasn't been in the US since he was a toddler. Since Canadian taxes are often higher than American taxes, John does not owe any US taxes; however, this does not absolve John from filing an FBAR. John is required to report all of his Canadian financial accounts, including his retirement savings, every year on the FBAR. With the penalties described above, there is a serious possibility that John's entire life savings (and much more) could be wiped and that he could spend years in jail simply from not filing the FBAR form—even if he owed no US taxes in the first place.

There are many thousands or millions of people just like John around the world, the vast majority of whom probably have no idea that they even have any such an obligation to report their day-to-day savings, checking, retirement, or other financial accounts on an FBAR or the extreme penalties that hang over their head like the sword of Damocles for noncompliance."

Shit like this is why I think people more and more are looking to renounce their American citizenship. The USA is the only country in the world that does this!!

Re:FBAR (FinCEN Form 114)

[TechyImmigrant]

In comparison, I'm a Brit living in the US, with a green card.

The UK government wanted tax filings for a couple of years after I moved. The first year because I still has prorated taxes in the UK, the second because they didn't understand I was gone, I filled in the "I don't live here any more" excuse section. After the second year I had a call with a tax inspector in the UK to explain. They didn't want any more tax filings from me.
 

Re:hahahahaha

[ButchDeLoria]

Because no other country wants American citizens, you can't renounce citizenship without alternative citizenship, and if you're still a citizen, you can be taxed for any income earned abroad.

Nail My Kids?

[AndyCanfield]

In 1990 I moved to Asia and, being overseas, did not owe U.S. any tax money. For a few years I filled out the income tax returns. Twenty years ago I attached a letter saying that if I ever think I owe money to the IRS I will contact them; until then the IRS can just photocopy that return every year. I haven't fill out one of those forms since.

This story makes me concerned that the IRS will make a delusion of that they think I owe, and then nail my two eldest children (who are still in Amerika) for the money. If that happens I'll tell them to get the H* out of there. The five Asian children are unreachable.

Re:Nail My Kids?

[killhour]

You might be screwed. It's quite a bit more complicated than this. You ARE required to file every year with the IRS as an American citizen, even living overseas. Just because you live in Asia does not automatically remove your tax liability. In fact, not filing specifically makes you ineligible for the FEIE. http://americansabroad.org/iss...

Re:Nail My Kids?

[AndyCanfield]

You're right. I've basically given the finger to Uncle Sam. I figure that if I ever set foot in the United States again I will be locked up until I, or Uncle Sam, dies.

Re:Nail My Kids?

[airdweller]

"I moved to Asia and, being overseas, did not owe U.S. any tax money"

Wrong. You don't owe the US anything only if you renounced your US citizenship.

Re:Nail My Kids?

[AndyCanfield]

"I moved to Asia and, being overseas, did not owe U.S. any tax money"

Being imployed for a salary by a foreign company in a foreign location, one gets a Foreign Earned Income deduction, which was about double what I was geting paid. And I carefully did not maintain any legal residence in the United States so I did not owe any state or county or city or property taxes.

Wrong. You don't owe the US anything only if you renounced your US citizenship.

The only reason I carry a U.S. Passport is that the government of Thailand wants me to have a passport. If they offered me Thai citizenship I would take it. But I figure it's not polite to pursue it. And in Thailand, "polite" is the key word.

Talking of unpaid taxes ...

[Alain Williams]

Now that the government of the USA has decided to remove the statue of limitations as regards taxation, might I remind Barack Obama of the little matter of unpaid taxes to King George III of England. These date back to your protest against the 1773 Tea Act. Can I tell her Magesty's government that payment will soon be made ?

Re:Talking of unpaid taxes ...

[luther349]

haha are government pay a debt.

Re:Talking of unpaid taxes ...

[Bardez]

You can have your $1000, not adjusted for inflation.

Re:Talking of unpaid taxes ...

[Triklyn]

well, those taxes were owed by individuals, not the gubermint... so, maybe, maybe, all those wasps in new england can pay a pittance on their ancestor's accounts. Also, the taxes weren't really that heavy, the revolution was more the principle of self-governance/having a voice in governance than the actual taxes.

Re:Talking of unpaid taxes ...

[Actually, I do RTFA]

You can tell her Majesty that we will gladly pay our Tea Taxes once restitution has been made for the Revolutionary War, impressment of our sailors, War of 1812 (including burning D.C.), and the money we loaned during the world wars.

Re:Good

[Electricity Likes Me]

No we don't, but the law regarding the use of stolen property is quite different which is what this is more akin too. If you buy a stolen boat, then it can be returned to the rightful owner less costs for improvements you may have made to it (this is something of a classic law school case study since it turns up a lot).

Same story if you inherited stolen money: you'd be able to have the principle plus nominal interest seized, though probably not returns on more complicated investments (I am not a business lawyer).

Where this rightly gets foggier is the use of money which was to support a person: parents collecting social security which was used to support children, who can't realistically be expected to necessarily hold assets equal to the principle. In that case I'd say the correct option is to collect the money out of the estate of the parents but not in excess of the estate's value at time of death.

Of course other posters have it right as well - this isn't anything to do with the IRS other then that they must follow the letter of the law. It's a congressional issue where they need to provide clarifying direction. But I'd wager that a lot of the issue for some people falls more nebulously into "but I inherited that money and it's mine now!"

Next up, prison for crimes of relatives as well

[erroneus]

How much tyranny before it's too much? I expect this one to be the last straw and yet some will suck this one up too and start blaming their relatives.

Re:Obama Care Gotta Problem !

[erroneus]

Ever notice it's always anonymous coward who respond to people who oppose obamacare? It has already been widely established there is an army of people hired by government and political agencies to troll the internet forums. Here on slashdot, we are seeing them here and now.

The slashdot demographic is not generally of the opinion expressed by these leftists. It's very out of control.

source needed

[globaljustin]

I'm going to second the request for a source...this sounds like something a redneck says at a dive bar in Charleston

your plan is stupid

[globaljustin]

vote against whoever is in office currently and vote for their opponent most likely to throw them out

I can't imagine a more stupid, reductive way to vote.

If you see on TV that Tyson's brand chicken strips are being recalled, you don't go throw out all your bacon and ham cold cuts.

Republicans are the source of **every bad policy** in government now

Republicans are the source of **every reason why we can't change**

Vote them out.

Re:your plan is stupid

[_Sharp'r_]

So the fact that this particular bad law was written and passed by Democrats over the veto of a Republican, including the specific provision being added by a Democrat, makes Republicans solely responsible for it?

I think you're missing something in your logic there.....

Not any longer

[jamesl]

Victory! Social Security Suspends Stale-Debt Collection Program
http://overlawyered.com/2014/0...

Re:Not any longer

[s4ltyd0g]

Victory? You must be using a meaning of the word suspend, that I was not aware of.

They'll be shot

[jafiwam]

IRS workers will be killed over this.

Inheritance...

[bwcbwc]

This isn't just randomly going after relatives to pay a debt. The chain is
1) person A (allegedly) receives an overpayment
2) person A dies. The overpayment is a liability of the estate of person A.
3) Persons B and C inherit from person A. If no reserve is left in the estate, the IRS will come after the heirs for recovery.

Well, *clearly*...

[argStyopa]

...you need to choose your relatives more carefully.

Re:Not lawful

[luther349]

yes maybe in pretty sure children cant even be under any sort of contract meaning there unable to incur the debt.but the fact is they will drgethis shit out until shes bankrupt and owe more legile fees then taxes.but she got lucky it was ended

Re:Blatantly unconstitutional.

[luther349]

this was put in so those shady ass debt company's can harass you forever. then the irs saw it and started using it but seems they forgot they cant make void debts valid again.

They're required to give notice

[dgun]

"They gave me no notice, they can't prove that I received any overpayment"

From here

(a)After trying to collect a claim from a person under section 3711(a) of this title, the head of an executive, judicial, or legislative agency may collect the claim by administrative offset. The head of the agency may collect by administrative offset only after giving the debtor-

(1)written notice of the type and amount of the claim, the intention of the head of the agency to collect the claim by administrative offset, and an explanation of the rights of the debtor under this section;

(2)an opportunity to inspect and copy the records of the agency related to the claim;

(3)an opportunity for a review within the agency of the decision of the agency related to the claim; and

(4)an opportunity to make a written agreement with the head of the agency to repay the amount of the claim.

So we are going to let the banksters off the hook.

[140Mandak262Jamuna]

It is really sad that IRS, in its bumbling bureaucratic wisdom, enforces the law passed by congress critters to the letter and gets all the bad rap. Most of it, richly deserved. But it is also prone to be gamed. All those banksters and hedge fund managers who caused the financial collapse argued, "contract is a contract and my promised bonus must be paid" and got paid for their misdeeds on top of that. They all know what shenanigans they had pulled. They would jump at any opportunity to mess with the statuette of limitations and shorten it. I am sure, when it is all said and done, the time period will be shortened to six or seven years and these billionaire cheaters will get off the hook, again.

The Blame?

[hduff]

So who added that little sentence to the farm bill?

beware those glittering generalities

[Anonymous Coward]

Doing Evil that Good May Come (TM) doesn't work out in the long run

I think that's a pretty major oversimplification - my grandfather murdered a whole bunch of relatively innocent German draftees who thought they were fighting for freedom in WWII, and it worked out pretty well, in the long run, for him. Slaughtering people you've never met because somebody told you it was for a good cause is pretty Evil, you know, but it was the best choice at the time.

I liked the rest of your post, though - especially these bits:

Quit defending people who would kill you with your own money without thinking twice about it.

and

If you want this to change, you have to be the change you want to see in others.

What about child support?

[plebeian]

If I have to pay my fathers child support debts (that he refused to pay to my mom for care of me) I will seriously go postal...

Fly your plane into the IRS bldg?

[tekrat]

And then we wondered a few years back why that dude flew his airplane right into the IRS building after having an argument with them over taxes.

Seriously, if a lot more people were willing to do that, we might have some change for the better in this country -- except that the usual response is to clamp down even harder on the people.

Same old same old, the banksters get away with stealing billions on a daily basis, Occupy Wall Street did zero to change things, even the outrage after the financial crisis did zero to change things -- wall street is back to the same old tricks with no oversight that caused the last collapse, and we are swiftly headed for another.

Meanwhile our rights are stripped away bit by bit, and we're too sheeple to care. But hey, as long as Kim Kardashian gets in a tabloid this week, we're fine with whatever happens. Americans get what they deserve.

Re:Fly your plane into the IRS bldg?

[PortHaven]

By the way, that incident was over a $14,000 discrepancy and question of whether it was even correct. But the IRS tacked on so many penalties when they flip flopped years later, that it ballooned to over $200,000.

So imagine if you were audited, and questioned on a $140 charge. At first they think you're wrong. Then review, decide no your interpretation is right. Then a few years, they reconsider and decide your interpretation is wrong. So they want your $140 + interest + late fees and penalties + interest on the late fees and penalties. And suddenly you owe $2,000. Now increase the order of magnitude a couple of times.

Then you understand why the man crashed his plane. His mistake was to not do it after hours so no one was hurt.

Re:Fly your plane into the IRS bldg?

[tekrat]

That *did* happen to me. I owed the IRS $40,000 on taxes where I hadn't even made $40k in my life thus far. It was for taxes when I was working as a freelancer right out of college and was making less than $16,000 per year, and living out of my parents house.

I could not get it settled with them until I refinanced my mortgage 10 years later and added what I owed on my mortgage to what I owed the IRS and essentially folded that debt into the mortgage. While it worked out for me in the end because I was able to sell my condo at the height of the real-estate boom, it still smarts that I owed the IRS more than I ever made during that period.

Re:Fly your plane into the IRS bldg?

[PortHaven]

How did they justify the tax bill exceeding your income?

Simple to Correct

[LaughingVulcan]

If it is one sentence that was added. Write one sentence into whatever bill reinstating it. Easy, right politicians? Right? Hello? And also, force every bill to be created/amended in a Wiki system where edit histories are visible, so that we can clearly understood who it was that slipped the one sentence in.

Very simple fix

[Aaden42]

There’s a very simple fix for this and other “seize your refund” enforcement issues like Obamacare fines.

Ensure your withholding amounts are set as low as statutorily permissible. Squirrel away sufficient cash to be able to pay any additional amounts owed. On April 15th, you send the government a check for the difference, having kept any interest earned throughout the year. Much better than having let the government keep your money interest free all year, then maybe not even give it back to you because they decide they don’t have to.

Incredible Revenue Suction

[carrier lost]

This seems appropriate:

http://botaday.com/node/1755

Re:hahahahaha

[Hartree]

Be careful what you ask for. If everyone in less well off conditions moves to New Zealand, it won't be stable, sane, or a first world country.

Then again, maybe you're really a Silicon Valley resident hoping that if someone there takes your advice, housing costs will drop.

Who is the devil here?

[AnalogDiehard]

Just who is the devil here?

Hate to be playing devil's advocate but a common tactic to shield assets from the taxman has been to transfer them to children.

While this may be a good tool to combat such tactics, it does have unintended consequences in harming those who can least afford it.

It's a well known fact that the IRS doesn't have the resources to resolve debts against the rich armed with a loaded legal and financial warchest. So they go after those who are least able to resist. This isn't a fair law at all.

Re:Good

[Jarik C-Bol]

No they don't. You've never heard the rearm "Anchor Baby"? if you are born on American soil, you are a citizen, and its a major problem because many women try to enter the US illegally just in time to give birth here, because the government won't deport them if their child is a citizen. Some estimates run as high as 40,000 births per year are attributed to this. Of course, other nations have differing policies, but I'm speaking about the US, which is in following the context of this article.

"magic of data mining"

[peter303]

I suspect some clever system analyst did a 'join" on survivor benefit recipients and IRS joint (marriage) filings to discover remarried widow[ers] in old records. Otherwise pure SS records would not have detected this situation. And tape-based computers before 1990 were too slow to attempt an inter-agency join like this.

So we have the means to detect financial crimes buried in records decades ago. But it feels unfair to be pursed so many years later, espcially for the actions of a dead relative. There so many financial crimes being commited on current returns like SSDI overpayments, fake EICs, etc., that data-mining effort would be better spent on current crimes.

Credit Companies must want this too

[Squidlips]

They must be salivating at this prospect....

Re:Good

[jargonburn]

The problem is, as in some of the cases above, NO ONE KNEW OF THE DEBT. Except maybe the government; and then, only when they looked hard enough.

Re:Wrong

[PortHaven]

What's that matter if

a) they take your money first
b) provide no means of recourse
c) judiciary pursuit costs more than the value you're seeking to recoup

Yes....

[PortHaven]

Google Bundy, you'll find a hundred if not a 1,000 sources on google you lazy net bum.

Yes...

[PortHaven]

But you don't think the government noticed

a) all the people who didn't
b) all the people whose shirts bulged from concealed carry weapons.
c) the fact that they knew they were outgunned

Might makes right...in this case the government was in the unusual position of being on the opposite side.

You're unread on the matter

[PortHaven]

To summarize:

a) Mr. Bundy has purchased the land, grazing and water rights of the areas in question.
b) He's paid the appropriate county, state fees.
c) The issue is not that he was unwilling to pay BLM, but that the agency basically told all the ranchers they had to reduce their herds by 90% (why, I think this is really about "water", and reducing water usage so more can be routed to Southern California).
d) Mr. Bundy refused to capitulate, lose hundreds of thousands of dollars in investments and basically shut down his business on a stroke of an administrator's pen, for a totally unjustified reason.

Re:You're unread on the matter

[msmonroe]

To summarize:

a) Mr. Bundy has purchased the land, grazing and water rights of the areas in question. b) He's paid the appropriate county, state fees. c) The issue is not that he was unwilling to pay BLM, but that the agency basically told all the ranchers they had to reduce their herds by 90% (why, I think this is really about "water", and reducing water usage so more can be routed to Southern California). d) Mr. Bundy refused to capitulate, lose hundreds of thousands of dollars in investments and basically shut down his business on a stroke of an administrator's pen, for a totally unjustified reason.

OK I'll do my research. Do you have any links?

Re:You're unread on the matter

[msmonroe]

This guy said on radio ...

I believe this is a sovereign state of Nevada and I abide by all of Nevada state laws. But I don’t recognize the United States government as even existing.

I think he's just a deadbeat that's trying to make up stuff to avoid paying his debt. Not sure why he thinks he has the right to the land. It was all the land of the native peoples in that area. If we get nitpicking shouldn't we give the land back to them? Don't they have more of a right to it then this guy? Just saying!

Article 1, Section 2 of the Nevada Constitution says...
All political power is inherent in the people. Government is instituted for the protection, security and benefit of the people; and they have the right to alter or reform the same whenever the public good may require it. But the Paramount Allegiance of every citizen is due to the Federal Government in the exercise of all its Constitutional powers as the same have been or may be defined by the Supreme Court of the United States; and no power exists in the people of this or any other State of the Federal Union to dissolve their connection therewith or perform any act tending to impair, subvert, or resist the Supreme Authority of the government of the United States. The Constitution of the United States confers full power on the Federal Government to maintain and Perpetuate its existence, and whensoever any portion of the States, or people thereof attempt to secede from the Federal Union, or forcibly resist the Execution of its laws, the Federal Government may, by warrant of the Constitution, employ armed force in compelling obedience to its Authority.

Yup....

[PortHaven]

If you're still pointing fingers at either the Republicans or the Democrats and not BOTH!!!

You are part of the problem!!!!!

Except...

[PortHaven]

They're minors....

And if you engage in a contract with a minor, it is non-binding. And that should be the case for at least all of these under 18 ones.

So what....they stopped today.

[PortHaven]

And you think we should stop talking about it? It's only cause we were that it stopped. And do not suppose that similar dastardly deeds are not being done.

Why wait...

[PortHaven]

Seriously?

Why wait to beat the Congressmen for voting on a bill without fully understanding it. We need to beat the Congressmen now, and then decide later if they understood what they voted on. Nancy Pelosi said so...

Re:Sadly...

[PortHaven]

Somebody above stated President Bush vetoed it and Congress overrid the veto.

What are you talking about?

[PortHaven]

a) very few banks give interest any more. And even interest on $10 grand is nothing.
b) many banks now charge fees just for having an account.

Thus...

c) overpaying taxes, is often a free savings account.

&

d) since even the IRS doesn't understand their own laws, it is impossible to always know your final payment. I'd rather be safe than sorry.

Re:vote GOP and your student loans will come out o

[dcw3]

Yes, it's a vast right (and left) wing conspiracy. *cough* *cough* *BULLSHIT* *cough*

Disclaimer: I don't like corporate money or lobbying in politics, and the concept that companies are people is pure BS as well.

Re:Good

[dcw3]

So, every time someone dies, the estate should check with the IRS? Get a grip.

The Farm bill quote

[DanielEllenwood]

"SEC. 14218. NOTE: 7 USC 6941a. (d) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary such sums as necessary to carry out this section for fiscal years 2008 through 2012. SEC. 14219. ELIMINATION OF STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS APPLICABLE TO COLLECTION OF DEBT BY ADMINISTRATIVE OFFSET." (a) Elimination.--Section 3716(e) of title 31, United States Code, is amended to read as follows: ``(e)(1) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, regulation, or administrative limitation, no limitation on the period within which an offset may be initiated or taken pursuant to this section shall be effective.

Re:Good

[ImprovOmega]

No, the government won't deport the child because the child is a U.S. citizen. They can and do deport the parents all the damn time.

And that "policy" is enshrined in a constitutional amendment. Good luck getting that changed.

Re:vote GOP and your student loans will come out o

[arth1]

Who said anything about a conspiracy?

The two "parties" grow close in an effort to please their funders and voters (in that order), and their grandstanding and partisanship is because the need to differentiate themselves is stronger the closer they get.
No conspiracy, just idiocy.

Re:Haters gonna hate.

[pitchpipe]

You're so fucking delusional if you believe that the ultra-rich aren't pulling the levers of power that you're hopeless.

Re:wrong...this is definitely the GOP

[lgw]

Wow, do you do stretches and warm-ups before such mental contortionism, or are you just naturally limber.

BTW, you might consider how negotiations work: each side must have something the other finds valuable, and must be willing to withhold that thing until compromise is reached.

Now if you just said "The congress is wrong on virtually all the issues b/c they operate for funding from donors, not to be competent legislators" you'd be onto something, rather than a partisan hack.

name the issue and be shown otherwise

[globaljustin]

look at policy votes...on a specific issue, not your troll rhetoric...issues like:

abortion
taxation (who gets tax breaks)
creationism in textbooks
women's rights
free speech
net neutrality

on and on...you name the issue and Republicans are on the wrong side of it

if you want to continue, name a policy that is actively being voted upon right now and let's look together at it...

while democrats are a big tent, containing progressives, Clinton-era liberals, centrists/moderates and others...all of whom form a lose coalition...conversely, Republicans speak the same talking points (dictated from their financiers) and vote in lockstep

you make the logical fallacy of false equivalence

Re:name the issue and be shown otherwise

[lgw]

Abortion is a difficult moral issue, and it's fine that we're divided as a nation on it. I don't have a problem with the parties on this one.

No one is against women's rights (though I could name a president that pays the women working for him 78% of what he pays the men).

Is anyone advocating creationism at the federal level? For sure both parties are to blame for the crazy common core math nonsense now spreading (it's the new new math, the same "whole word reading" mistake all over again).

Both parties advocate tax breaks for their supporters.

The Left seems to strongly oppose free speech these days. Justice Breyer was just joined by 3 more in a dissenting opinion that free speech was not an individual right. That right - a left-leaning bloc in the SCOTUS is anti-free-speech now.

No one on either side is serious about reducing spending, because soon all that will be left to cut are social programs, and no one has the courage to go there. This will end in tears.

Re:name the issue and be shown otherwise

[kwbauer]

I agree with you on everything except the CommonCore math thing. Absolutely nothing in the standards documents nor any appendices mention specific teaching techniques or anything similar. I've read them many times. Have you? corestandards.org

I've seen some examples where textbook publishers seem to be pushing a hidden agenda with the wording of problems while marketing the new textbook to be "in alignment" with the CommonCore but textbook publishers have been doing that since textbook publishers came into existence.

What exactly is wrong with suggesting that students should be able to do something like this: "Multiply one-digit whole numbers by multiples of 10 in the range 10-90 (e.g., 9 × 80, 5 × 60) using strategies based on place value and properties of operations." What is so damn new about that?

Re:Coward Running

[Skreems]

Uh... bullshit? Unless there's a glossary on the constitution that I don't know about, the distinction between "wage" and "income" is pedantic. Also, the constitution says what the courts interpret it to say, and I'm damn sure they don't agree with this.

you are a Republican

[globaljustin]

you are, by policy position, a Republican.

just the way you answer the "women's rights" issue...

The Lilly Leadbetter Fair Pay Act was killed by the GOP

you're trolling not having an honest discussion

Re:you are a Republican

[lgw]

Huh, what? You're talking about the first bill Obama signed into law? The GOP is reliably management-vs-labor, to be sure (after all, organized labor is a key element of the Dem constituency, so at least the parties are representing their constituents by their sides there), but how did they kill it?

I did think you were trying to construe the "people can pay for their own birth control" as a women's rights issue, since that's recently in the news - OK, I guessed wrong. So what are you on about?

(BTW, I do wish there was a party I was aligned with, but I just want a small government party, and there's no such animal any more).

NY Times Disagrees, says collections halted

[LandGator]

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04... explains in their 14 Apr edition that the Feds have Seen the Light and discontinued said policy because of the feedback from the Washington Post story. Every once in a while, we win one.

Re:Good

[dbIII]

I'm not speaking of the US but instead providing an example from anther country of a child "held accountable for crimes that precede their birth". In Australia, due to odd wording of a law, babies born to refugees are classified as "maritime arrivals" and denied citizenship. If their parents are not refugees that "Anchor Baby" situation applies. I'm not going to argue if it's right/wrong or doesn't matter, I'm just using it as an example.

you are **still** a Republican

[globaljustin]

I do wish there was a party I was aligned with, but I just want a small government party, and there's no such animal any more).

stop bullshitting me, yourself, and all of /.

YOU ARE A REPUBLICAN

your policy positions are virtually identical

just accept it and move on...this discussion certainly cannot continue with your rhetorical nonsense

Re:you are **still** a Republican

[lgw]

You know, I've argued in the past that modern politics has become about "tribal identification" and not about what's best for the nation. But wow; just wow.

Re:This is what Republicans...

[Rakarra]

I know "liberal" leaves a bad taste in your mouth, but they don't deserve that label. Call them by their name: Democrats, as in the people who created Jim Crowe laws and voted against the Civil Rights Act. Don't call them liberal.

You mean people who are all dead now? Those democrats? What do they have to do with the current democrats/liberals/whatever?

Re:Obama Care Gotta Problem !

[Rakarra]

as a 30 year old health male that hasn't needed to see a doctor in 10+ years, WHY THE F should i be paying more cause obama care cause i am naturally healthy?

That's the funny thing about healthy people -- they don't stay that way forever.

Re:Good

[david_thornley]

Not necessarily. The government might pay money to a minor child by sending it to the parent or guardian, and might make an overpayment. Apparently, that's the principle here. It sucks to have money taken from you because of something you never actually saw that happened 40 years ago, but it still can be your debt.

This is completely fair in principle

[rkinch]

This policy comes from the fact that Social Security recipients die but often their next of kin do not report the event to the SSA, and a month or more of ineligible benefits wind up in the hands of some survivor in the family. This is not quite theft, but the fact is: Some family member fraudulently cashed a DEAD person's check that was legally void once the beneficiary was DEAD. This can only work due to the family's failure to notify the SSA promptly that the beneficiary was DEAD, which is the duty of the family. Now maybe everyone is too bereaved to be telling the government that grandma has passed, but in that case you ought not to be cashing a DEAD guy's checks. It is not reasonable to expect the government to make a federal investigation of who in the family wrongly took this money, whether it was deliberately or somewhat innocently taken. They take it back from the next of kin, and if the fault was with somebody else, well, you sort that out within the family. Sure that is messy, but it is a family mess and not a government mess. That the government takes it back from a refund, and doesn't affirmatively prosecute you, seems quite kind and gentle.

aaaargh

[doccus]

I just vomited... I simply can't grasp the sick machinations of the US government. It really *is* "worse than has ever occurred since the beginning of the world until now, nor ever will."

Re:Good

[Electricity Likes Me]

Yeah. I mean people die so frequently, I guess it's not at all significant event in the course of many people's lives.