Slashdot Mirror


To Fight $5.2B In Identity Theft, IRS May Need To Change the Way You File Taxes

coondoggie writes: Based on preliminary analysis, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) estimates it paid $5.2 billion in fraudulent identity theft refunds in filing season 2013 while preventing an additional $24.2 billion (based on what it could detect). As a result, the IRS needs to implement changes (PDF) in a system that apparently can't begin verifying refund information until July, months after the tax deadline. Such changes could impact legitimate taxpayers by delaying refunds, extending tax season and likely adding costs to the IRS.

53 of 410 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Corporate taxes by edawstwin · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Let's fix the corporate tax evasion first please.

    Let's fix corporate taxes first, so that there is no evasion.

    --
    I don't want to achieve immortality through my work. I want to achieve it by not dying. - Woody Allen
  2. Did you find that hard drive yet? by xxxJonBoyxxx · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Sorry, it's going to be a long time before anyone believes anything the IRS says again.

    1. Re:Did you find that hard drive yet? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Blaming the IRS is a perfectly acceptable American past time.

      Not to mention that they actually violated federal law by not having the backups, and that this failure mysteriously affected only the specific people Congress wanted the data from. I'm no tin foil hat-wearing crazy, but even I have to call bullshit on this whole thing.

    2. Re:Did you find that hard drive yet? by HiThere · · Score: 2

      I have a trouble with the word "they". I grant that certain individuals violated laws and should be prosecuted. I deny that an organization is a self-willed entity. (I also don't believe that corporations are people.)

      So. People at the IRS violated laws is a reasonable statement. The IRS violated the law is nonsensical. (Note also that the second form also turns some particular laws into a general generic "the law". Another piece of fallacious reasoning...and an increasingly common usage.)

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
  3. Simplify Taxes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    How about we simplify taxes so there's no need to issue refunds in the first place?

    1. Re:Simplify Taxes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2

      "Then how will people get all their tax credits, like earned income? How would you take into account deductions that don't take place on a regular or known schedule? E.g., I gave $1000 to the Red Cross in December of last year, how does that get entered on my W4 in time to make any difference? When I see a simplification that doesn't wind up costing the middle class (me) more money, I'll support it. I've run the number for the 'fair tax' and it really ain't."

      Middle class income and tax/earned income credits? On what planet!? As per your example; if you're giving to charity then do just that, and don't expect some reward - especially at the expense of someone else. I don't think you know what the word charity means.

    2. Re:Simplify Taxes by mcswell · · Score: 4, Funny

      New simplified form: Line 1: Enter amount you earned this year: ____ Line 2: Write a check to the IRS for the amount on line 1.

    3. Re:Simplify Taxes by mjr167 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Or how about we get rid of all the stupid tax credits in exchange for a lower base rate... You are probably going to give your $1000 to the red cross anyways. If you pay a tax rate of 20% and you get a $1000 deduction, then the govt gives you back $200. You are still out $800.

      Now you say that because the government won't give you $200 back, you will only donate $800. However, if the lower base rate gives you the extra $200 as disposable income without having to file the paperwork, then why wouldn't you give it to the Red Cross like you wanted to do before? If the answer is you are going to take the extra $200 and spend it on hookers and blow, then that's on you, not the government.

      Personally I like the Fair Tax proposal. Consider this... do we really need to have an entire industry devoted solely to reducing people's tax burdens?

    4. Re:Simplify Taxes by Pop69 · · Score: 2

      Why not do charity donation like the UK ?

      You sign when donating to say that you paid tax on the money you donated and the charity gets the tax refund, increasing the value of your donation

    5. Re:Simplify Taxes by Obfuscant · · Score: 2

      You aren't going to "keep" any of your money.

      You win the pedant of the day award. Ok, here's a better way of putting it. Why should I pay taxes on money that I'm not getting to put in savings or exchange for goods or services that I get to keep and/or use? Most people would call that money which is not taken from them by the government what they get to keep, but I guess you're not one of them.

      Sooner or later. Money isn't for keeping.

      There is a natural time frame for talking about "keep", and that's a tax year. I have lots of money that I've kept a lot longer than a tax year, so yes, money is for "keeping", even if eventually I'll either spend it or it is inherited by my progeny.

  4. Or just get rid of all income taxes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    In exchange for bringing all deployed troops home, closing all foreign bases, ending all foreign aid, and ceasing all foreign military contracts. It costs about $1 trillion in annual lost revenue in exchange for saving about $1 trillion in annual expenses.

  5. Solution by Charliemopps · · Score: 5, Insightful

    End income tax.

    No more tax returns. Only tax based on use (i.e. Sales Tax) Problem solved in one fell swoop.
    Tax evasions now impossible and you encourage people to invest rather than spend.
    Oh wait, that's right, we have an entire industry run by blood sucking vampires that need the current system to remain as confusing as possible.

    1. Re:Solution by hondo77 · · Score: 2

      You actually think sales tax evasion is impossible? Really?

      --
      I live ze unknown. I love ze unknown. I am ze unknown.
    2. Re:Solution by KamikazeSquid · · Score: 3, Informative

      No, that's a terrible idea. With income tax, you can lighten the tax burden on those most affected by using tax rates that scale with your income. If everyone just pays a flat sales tax rate, the poor bear most of the economic burden. Plus, if we eliminate income tax, we have to raise sales tax to cover the deficit, so pretty soon we'll all be paying 20% (or higher) sales tax.

      Think of it this way; if you make $24,000 a year, a 20% tax that reduces your income to $18,000 a year is a much greater burden than it is to someone who makes $200,000 a year and has their income reduced to $150,000 a year.

    3. Re:Solution by stoploss · · Score: 3, Informative

      Tax evasions now impossible

      You really undermine your own position when you make farcical statements like that. I would say the overwhelming preponderance of Americans on this site are already evading their state's use tax. Did you remit your sales/use tax due for all your online and other purchases across state lines last year?

      As for sales tax evasion, well, it already happens today. The IRS would just use it as an excuse to further demand all of our financial transactions. The feds already got 80% of the whole country's personally identifiable credit card transactions last year (for the purposes of protecting us from fraud, of course, *cough*). Next up in your scheme: "friendly visits" from IRS agents who will graciously allow you to prove your innocence if you like to use cash more than they believe you should!

      Despite all that, tax evasion will thrive via black markets.

      You either had a failure of imagination or you are just too excited about your proposal.

    4. Re:Solution by PRMan · · Score: 3, Funny

      Don't tax food or medicine. OK, the discrepancy just halved. Wow. I'm a wizard. Look at how fast I fixed that.

      --
      Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
    5. Re:Solution by TWX · · Score: 2

      Tax evasion is never impossible. Have you ever shopped in a pawn shop? Has the proprietor offered you a discount if you pay cash? That's probably because he's not recording the transaction or is recording it at a much lower amount.

      I only single-out pawn shops because everything in the store is used and usually one negotiates a price. This could happen just as easily in a small shop with an owner-operator, with new merchandise, so long as he can cook the books enough to be beneficial for himself without standing out, claiming that his margin on his merchandise is lower than what the transaction actually was.

      --
      Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
    6. Re:Solution by sycodon · · Score: 4, Informative

      If you make $24k a year, you don't pay income tax and most likely get a nice wad a cash courtesy of the U.S. Tax payers.

      --
      When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
    7. Re:Solution by CanHasDIY · · Score: 4, Interesting

      End income tax.

      Better idea: revert the legal definition of "income" to what it meant pre-1913.

      Interestingly, before the oft-questioned "passage" of the 16th Amendment, "labor given in exchange for payment" was just that; income was what a business earned as a result of selling a product or service.

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    8. Re:Solution by ArcherB · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Think of it this way; if you make $24,000 a year, a 20% tax that reduces your income to $18,000 a year is a much greater burden than it is to someone who makes $200,000 a year and has their income reduced to $150,000 a year.

      Good! Those making $24,000/yr will finally understand that government money is not free. Then you won't have the problem of people who don't pay taxes voting to raise the tax rate on those that do. Also, if you make $24,000/yr, most of your money is going to food and rent, both of which can be made to be non-taxable.

      A sales tax is still going to a progressive tax since things like food, school supplies, and other absolute necessities won't be taxed at all. See, people only spend so much money on necessities, no matter how much they make. Sure, a billionaire might spend $5 million on a house, but his grocery budget is not going to be 50x more than the guy who spent $100K on a house. So low income people will spend a larger percentage of their income on non-taxed products, meaning they will pay a lower tax rate than the guy who eats out twice a day.

      --
      There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
    9. Re:Solution by mythosaz · · Score: 2

      Not for nothing, but many small merchants dodge sales tax regularly.

      There are also numerous merchant cooperatives that swap goods and services already.

      By the time you hit multi-store or regional, this largely ceases to be possible (or worth the time compared to managing a multi-site business), but it certainly happens with businesses still on the Quickbooks level.

    10. Re:Solution by mythosaz · · Score: 2

      The simple answer is to exclude necessity items from the flat tax.

      Any WEC-eligible food item, for example, could easily be tax exempt with minimal reworking of the system, as could, say, any traditionally medicare covered medical or dental service, uniform sales, etc.

      I recognize this opens the door to loophole items into tax exemption, but while we're spitballing utopian tax systems, might as well start somewhere.

    11. Re:Solution by Obfuscant · · Score: 5, Interesting

      It is impossible. I am not aware of any merchants that dodge sales tax,

      It is quite possible, and if you raise (or create) a sales tax in the amount you'll need to replace the income tax you'll see a lot of them doing it -- because the customers will want it.

      If the sales tax is 4%, it's not worth it. When the sales tax goes to 20% or more, look out. Why do you think there is illegal cigarette traffic, because you can't get the smokes that taste right? Or is it tax-stamp created?

      You'll also immediately get calls for the return of a tax on those awful rich people who are now avoiding taxation on their luxurious incomes because they don't spend most of it, while the poor folks are stuck paying taxes on every penny they earn because they have to spend it all to get by. Then you'll get a demand for some kind of tax credit for the poor, which will require an IRS and that awful paperwork you're trying to get rid of.

      You'll see charity as we know it drying up because there will be no tax benefit to it, and people who could afford to buy a house because the mortgage interest was deductable won't be buying houses.

      In fact, all of those social engineering projects that our tax code has been used to promote will go away. At least until you create a paperwork nightmare just as large as the existing one to bring them all back.

    12. Re:Solution by CanHasDIY · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Except that the government will just increase taxes on other common goods to make up for the shortfall.
      So? Low income people still spend a lower percentage on their income on those "common goods" than the wealthy.

      Actually, the opposite - low income people spend less dollars, but a larger portion of income, on those items than rich people. Plus, you really can't limit spending on "must-have" items like food, shelter, utilities, etc.

      As OP stated, and I already repeated, a 20% tax on a $20,000/yr income is a much larger chunk of income than a 20% tax hit on a $200,000 income.

      With a "flat tax," there isn't any way around that issue.
      There are lots of ways around the issue.
      You could tweak the system further.

      Then it's not a "flat tax," it's a graduated tax system, like the one we already have.

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    13. Re:Solution by ArcherB · · Score: 4, Insightful

      gas is taxed.
      repairs are taxed
      registration is taxed.

      Why wouldn't the sale of a car be taxed?

      How about clothing? Need clothes to live, right?
      Nope. If it makes you feel better, you could make school kids clothing tax free, or only make new clothing taxable. If you don't want to pay the tax, buy second hand.

      Now Paris Hilton can buy 400 pairs of shoe tax-free!
      So? Why do you care what Paris Hilton does? See, that's the problem. You are so damn worried that a rich person might save $80 on a pair of shoes that you want EVERYONE else to go through hell so a rich bitch won't save a buck.

      Watch out for that slippery slope you're on.
      Odd. Nearly everyone of the 50 states has programs like this and they don't have a problem. Were you referring to the "slippery slope" fallacy?

      --
      There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
    14. Re:Solution by Obfuscant · · Score: 2

      And yet somehow the state of Minnesota (and many other states) manage to define "food" and "clothing" in such a way as to result in zero sales tax being applied to those purchases day after day.

      Well, yes, by their definition of "food", "food" is not taxed. It is a tautology. They define food this way:

      Food. Groceries for human consumption. Candy, soft drinks, dietary supplements and prepared food are taxable.

      So, if your dinner consists of what the common man calls "food", and you run through the drive-through on your way from one minimum-wage job to the next and pick up a Big Mac and a soda, you pay sales tax. That's a swell definition of "food" for someone who doesn't have time to cook his own, and if you need a dietary supplement as part of your diet, you pay taxes on it, too. Grab a candy bar and a bag of chips to go with that can of Coke during a rushed lunch -- sales tax.

    15. Re:Solution by CaptainLard · · Score: 2

      Then you won't have the problem of people who don't pay taxes voting to raise the tax rate on those that do.

      Sweet. Now how about the problem of rich people paying for congressmen to lower their taxes? The super rich already got their effective income tax lowered to ~15% as is, whats going to stop them from finagling a $5M house exemption?

    16. Re:Solution by rogoshen1 · · Score: 2

      This is kind of a corollary to something that's always bothered me.. people tend to get so uptight over an individual bilking the system for 80 bucks or a couple packs of smokes/booze -- but do not seem to have the same level disdain for the amount of bilking that raytheon or boeing engage in.

      Similarly, if someone is worried about the small potatoes tax evasion that someone like ms hilton is able to do -- shouldn't you be rioting in the streets over what MS, Apple, Cisco etc are pulling?

    17. Re:Solution by Microlith · · Score: 2

      Those making $24,000/yr will finally understand that government money is not free.

      Finally! Because you know your income level obviously proves that you're horribly ignorant! You tell 'em, bub!

      Then you won't have the problem of people who don't pay taxes voting to raise the tax rate on those that do.

      Because that's what's happening, right. The greedy, selfish... how have I heard it put... "parasite" poor bastards! You gotta make 'em SUFFER what it means to be poor!

      A sales tax is still going to a progressive tax since things like food, school supplies, and other absolute necessities won't be taxed at all.

      It's still regressive. It just means someone making millions will continue to pay a relatively trivial amount, while the poor take it in the shorts.

      Sure, a billionaire might spend $5 million on a house, but his grocery budget is not going to be 50x more than the guy who spent $100K on a house.

      Indeed, so in the end the billionaire will make out like a bandit (no longer having to pay out on his income) and the guy making 100k will happily save a few k$ per year, and the poor likely won't benefit at all.

      So low income people will spend a larger percentage of their income on non-taxed products, meaning they will pay a lower tax rate than the guy who eats out twice a day.

      Or they'll probably continue paying that tax, because they don't have the time or energy to visit the store and prepare the untaxed food because they're still struggling to keep their head above water.

  6. Re:Corporate taxes by Karmashock · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The IRS is raking in record income to the US federal government.

    You aren't out of money because the IRS isn't taking it in... you're out of money because you're spending too much of it.

    By all means... fix corruption... but while you're at it... balance the fucking budget.

    --
    I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
  7. Re:Corporate taxes by TechyImmigrant · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Let's fix the corporate tax evasion first please.

    Let's fix corporate taxes first, so that there is no evasion.

    Both. The US has very high corporate taxes (relative to other countries) but also has the most advanced system of tax loopholes ever developed by a corrupt legislature. States frequently offer tax incentives to big companies to move or stay in a state, while leaving the same unpalatable taxes (like business property taxes on machines and furniture) on everyone else.

    Tax corps uniformly and quit with the loopholes and the same same income would come in at a lower tax rate, thus addressing both evasion and avoidance.

    --
    I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
  8. Apt Tax by rolfwind · · Score: 4, Insightful

    We don't need more rules, more laws, more agents (that cost a shit ton of money at work and in retirement), more jails.

    Just banish most taxes, simplify the system to a low rate transaction tax, don't deal with deductions or deciding which charities or legit or not (tax would be too low to matter in individual cases), stop caring if business are on shore or offshore or if couples are married:
    http://www.apttax.com/

    Of course, by nature, bureacracy always has to build itself up, never deconstruct itself, so don't expect to see it short of in the face of a revolution.

  9. Stop requiring people to overpay by swillden · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The current IRS regulations effectively require people to overpay their income taxes, which results in nearly everyone getting a refund, which they want processed quickly, because somehow it's okay if the government is holding money you didn't actually owe, until you actually know how much they're holding. If, on the other hand, people have to mail in a check they don't care if it takes the IRS a few months to verify everything.

    Simple solution: Eliminate the regulations that require overpayment, such as the regulation that penalizes you for underpaying if your withholdings are inadequate to cover your liabilities and aren't at lease as large as the prior year's withholdings. Some, perhaps many, people will still choose to overpay, as a sort of brain-dead savings plan, but many will reduce their withholdings, and those that still overpay will have no basis for complaint about a slower refund, since it was their choice.

    But, then, I think the whole concept of mandatory withholdings is evil and wrong. It's just one of many ways that taxpayers are misled about how much they're paying. It's not the worst of such deceptions, but it's a significant one.

    --
    Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    1. Re:Stop requiring people to overpay by mjwalshe · · Score: 2

      Just switch to a PAYE system like we have in the Uk most people don't have to bother with a tax return

  10. Thanks for the fraud, Turbotax by nbauman · · Score: 5, Informative

    We wouldn't have this problem if we filed our taxes online. Turbotax has prevented that, because they want to charge us for doing what the government could do free, as it does in less corrupt countries.

    We've discussed this on Slashdot before. It's like keeping marijuana illegal because the prison guards' unions want to keep their jobs.

    http://www.slate.com/blogs/mon...
    The Sleazy PR Campaign to Prevent the IRS From Making Your Taxes Simpler
    By Jordan Weissmann
    Slate
    April 14 2014 3:41 PM

    Theoretically, it should be far easier for Americans with simple finances to file their tax returns. Instead of making tax filers putz around W-2s and tax prep software, the IRS could electronically prepopulate their paperwork with the information it already receives from banks and employers, and tell filers how much they owe. If the final figure looked about right, you’d have the option to file. As Matt Yglesias wrote here last year, the whole process could be a five-minute snap.

    Theoretically. But for years now, Intuit, the maker of TurboTax, has fought tooth and nail to prevent automatic tax filing from becoming a reality, lobbying against bipartisan legislation to introduce it with the help of a powerful tech industry trade group and conservative anti-taxers like Grover Norquist. Intuit and its competitors in online tax prep don’t want the government cutting its market share. The tax-crusaders want to ensure that paying the government remains as much of a painful, resentment-generating slog as ever. And thus a potent alliance has been born.

    http://www.propublica.org/arti...
    How the Maker of TurboTax Fought Free, Simple Tax Filing
    by Liz Day
    ProPublica, March 26, 2013, 5 a.m.

    So why hasn't it become a reality?

    Well, for one thing, it doesn't help that it's been opposed for years by the company behind the most popular consumer tax software — Intuit, maker of TurboTax. Conservative tax activist Grover Norquist and an influential computer industry group also have fought return-free filing.

    Intuit has spent about $11.5 million on federal lobbying in the past five years — more than Apple or Amazon. Although the lobbying spans a range of issues, Intuit's disclosures pointedly note that the company "opposes IRS government tax preparation."

    The disclosures show that Intuit as recently as 2011 lobbied on two bills, both of which died, that would have allowed many taxpayers to file pre-filled returns for free. The company also lobbied on bills in 2007 and 2011 that would have barred the Treasury Department, which includes the IRS, from initiating return-free filing.

    Intuit argues that allowing the IRS to act as a tax preparer could result in taxpayers paying more money. It is also a member of the Computer & Communications Industry Association (CCIA), which sponsors a "STOP IRS TAKEOVER" campaign and a website calling return-free filing a "massive expansion of the U.S. government through a big government program."

    1. Re:Thanks for the fraud, Turbotax by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I would be happy if the government would just provide PDF forms with just enough brains so that you could fill them in and they would automatically do the calculations for you. Then give people the option to either sent those in electronically or print and mail the damn things. The automatic online filing would be a godsend but I would settle for PDFs with fields and auto calculations that I would have to print and mail.

      --
      Time to offend someone
    2. Re:Thanks for the fraud, Turbotax by hondo77 · · Score: 2

      We wouldn't have this problem if we filed our taxes online. Turbotax has prevented that, because they want to charge us for doing what the government could do free, as it does in less corrupt countries.

      I have filed my fiance's parents' taxes for free for the past three years, so I don't know what you're on about.

      --
      I live ze unknown. I love ze unknown. I am ze unknown.
  11. Re:Corporate taxes by Karmashock · · Score: 2

    Tell you what. You loan the US government 1 trillion dollars interest free per year and I'll sign off on your little plan.

    Short of that, we're destroying ourselves.

    --
    I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
  12. Re:Corporate taxes by Karmashock · · Score: 2

    yawn... you can't raise revenue any higher. They're already raising it as high as they can. If they raised it higher they'd get less money. We've already hit the laffer curve.

    Which means we're looking at over 1 trillion in CUTS.

    And as to the negative consequences of that... bring it.

    --
    I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
  13. Thus the problem with the TEA party by Overzeetop · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ..and really all of the "simple" solutions. It seems like a good idea - just don't spend that $1 Trillion and we can drop our taxes by $1 Trilllion. Except that economies don't really work that way. You can't add or subtract a trillion dollars like that and expect things not to spiral out of control.

    Remember the recession that freaked out the entire world? Remember the job losses, the stagnation of the economy, and the general feeling that the world would end? We lost 8.8 million jobs, most of them paying $14-21/hr (if wikipedia is to be believed). Do you know how many jobs $1 Trillion dollars pays for? About 18 Million - more than double what was lost in the great recession.

    "But wait," I hear you cry, "that trillion dollars would still be spent by the people who wouldn't have been taxed!" Oh, that's partially true. Understand that 40% of that money would go to multi-millionaires who's purchasing habits generally are not affected by their income. The other 60% probably would be spent, but that 60% would be spent on goods and services in an economy which has almost zero overlap with the manpower which would be idled by the drop of $1T in defense spending. Those are soldiers, intelligence report creators, bomb makers - not really things you purchase in your every day life. And because you can't train and re-purpose people fast enough to build the TVs and tablets and cars and hotel staff to pick up the increase in demand, the prices for all those products would increase. And because of the numbers, dropping the US income tax would result in a net increase in take home pay of about 4%-5% for most people in the middle class (Say, $60-80,000 annual household income) or about $50 a week.

    So you're magical tax-free utopia would end up with 18 Million people out of work and without the skills needed to change jobs, inflation in the disposable goods and discretionary services market, and a net effect of $50 a week in the pockets of the people who still have jobs.

    --
    Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
    1. Re:Thus the problem with the TEA party by Rockoon · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "But wait," I hear you cry, "that trillion dollars would still be spent by the people who wouldn't have been taxed!" Oh, that's partially true.

      Its completely true unless you subscribe to the under-the-mattress fallacy.

      Understand that 40% of that money would go to multi-millionaires who's purchasing habits generally are not affected by their income.

      I see. You are a subscriber. Yes, rich people when they get money stick it under mattresses in order to deny the money from the economy, and this is believable in spite of the fact that rich people are rich because they dont do stupid shit like that.

      --
      "His name was James Damore."
    2. Re:Thus the problem with the TEA party by whoever57 · · Score: 2

      Yes, rich people when they get money stick it under mattresses in order to deny the money from the economy,

      Or, they could invest that money abroad, China perhaps, where it is effectively denied from the US economy.

      --
      The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
    3. Re:Thus the problem with the TEA party by Herkum01 · · Score: 2

      I was going to down vote you but I thought better to reply.

      It has been proven time and again that a person on the low end of the scale will spend a greater portion of their salary on day to day purchases than a rich person.

      Do you really think if you gave a man like Larry Elison $1000 or $1M or $10M that he is going to run around like a kid in a candy store and spend it on daily needs? Most likely he WILL stick it under his mattress or something similar because at a certain point you don't need more.

    4. Re:Thus the problem with the TEA party by ne0n · · Score: 2

      You're right amigo. Gotta prop up that industrial-military complex or everything falls apart like Detroit. Can you imagine the utter FAIL if the USA became more peaceful like Canada or productive like China but hopefully without all the forced labor and communism...

      --
      $ :(){ :|:& };:
    5. Re:Thus the problem with the TEA party by ShaunC · · Score: 2

      Yes, rich people when they get money stick it under mattresses in order to deny the money from the economy

      Yes, they do, and they're hoarding more of it than ever; "members of this global elite are stashing an average $600 million each -- 10 times more than a year ago."

      --
      Thanks to the War on Drugs, it's easier to buy meth than it is to buy cold medicine!
    6. Re:Thus the problem with the TEA party by Overzeetop · · Score: 2

      Actually, I know quite a few people in that boat. Most of them do "invest" their extra cash because they don't have a need to spend more than they currently are. They don't live paycheck to paycheck, that money just goes into their investment portfolios (which, in a way, is "spent" but in reality is just changing hands with other investors who are moving elsewhere). It definitely doesn't buy bombs or planes or fatigues or army personnel.

      Will they spend some of that 40%? Sure. Will they spend all of it? Not even close.

      --
      Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
  14. Re:Corporate taxes by ArcherB · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Or you could just do a federal sales tax. Everyone pays, including corporations, so everyone has skin in the game. No loopholes. No moving out of the country to avoid paying your share. No April 15. No tax forms. No deductions or credits. Everyone knows exactly what they are paying. Everything purchased is taxed, period.

    --
    There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
  15. Re:Corporate taxes by Jaime2 · · Score: 2

    Rich people spend less of their money and save more of it than poor people, simply because there's more left over after paying for the necessities. A flat sales tax only plan would significantly raise tax rates for the poor (who currently pay no income tax). So, it would be even more regressive than the current system.

  16. Easy Fix by CanHasDIY · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Repeal the 16th Amendment (or just admit it was never legally ratified), reset the legal meaning of "income" from "money given in exchange for labor" back to "capital gains as a result of business profits," and BOOM!

    Problem solved.

    --
    An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
  17. Factually incorrect by raymorris · · Score: 3, Insightful

    > The corporation has a profit margin or they would not be taxed.

    FYI, that is factually false. Approximately half of all taxes on business re unrelated to profit, or margin. A few of the taxes I, as a small business person, pay each month or quarter:

    Social Security and medicare
    Federal Unemployment tax
    State unemployment tax
    State training tax (in some states)
    State workforce disability tax (in some states)
    --Note all of the above are for hiring people. As the president has said, if you want people do less of something, put a tax on it.
    Business personal property tax (Every year, I pay a tax for owning my 15 year old desk, my pens and pencils, my mouse pad ...)
    Franchise tax
    Sales and use tax

    Income taxes account for only 20% of tax revenue. 80% of the taxes paid are paid whether they bankrupt the business or not.

  18. Re:Corporate taxes by dave314159259 · · Score: 2

    The Laffer Curve can be proved valid trivially:

    If the tax rate is 0%, obviously tax revenue are zero.

    If the tax rate is 100%, tax receipts will be very close to zero, as nearly nobody will engage in the taxed activity for no gain.

    Between those two endpoints, starting from 0%, the following behavior is observed:

    • At first, increases in revenue will track very closely to increases in the tax rate (the tax is too small to affect behavior)
    • As the rate increases further, increases in the tax rate push more and more people out of the taxed activity, resulting in smaller increases in revenue.
    • Eventually, the revenue curve wiill flatten out as higher tax rates don't bring in any more revenue.
    • Finally we enter the last part of the curve, where revenue goes down as the tax rate goes up, connecting the "maximum revenue" point with the "nearly zero revenue at 100% tax" point.

    Different activities have different curves. The reason for lower taxes on capital gains is the tax-yield curve for capital gains flattens out at a lower rate than the tax-yield curve for labor.

  19. Practically speaking as a CPA... by Bourdain · · Score: 2

    (1) Our tax structure isn't going to change meaningfully anytime soon
    (2) The IRS won't allow or enforce any sort of efile for everyone in the short-term
    (3) The IRS does allow you to file Form 14039 which puts a flag on your account which will make it harder for someone to cheat you out of your refund because your account will go through extra checks (such as making sure that your address and other information hasn't changed from last year since most information breaches don't contain all of the information necessary to file your tax return) and will reject fraudulent looking returns
    http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf...
    (4) The IRS might decide to, upon filing form 14039 or if you have experienced a fraudulent return filed for you, a distinct PIN which is like a PIN for a credit freeze


    Morale of the story if you're concerned about not getting your refund
    -file form 8822 when you change address and notify your employees and other agencies which file forms on your behalf to have your current address so all filings point to the same physical address
    -file form 14039 to have the identify theft flag added to your profile
    -always try to arrange so you owe a little money come tax time (but not so much that you owe a penalty) so your refund is not in purgatory in the event of a fraudulent return filed on your behalf
    -if you do indeed get a refund, try to file as early as possible to beat out a fraudster

  20. Re:Or just go to a flat tax system and by HiThere · · Score: 2

    A flat tax is inappropriate, but an linear tax (tax = rate * income - base) is probably reasonable. or even a quadratic tax (tax = rate1 * income^2 + rate2 * income - base).

    For various reasons I prefer the simpler linear tax with a fairly large base, so that people living on minimum wage would actually get a small amount back. The tricky part is defining income...it's got to include ALL sources of income, including long term capital gain, but you don't want to discourage investments. However, that should be done OUTSIDE THE TAX SYSTEM. Keep the tax system as simple as possible.

    --

    I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.