If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The Daily Caller)   A new bill would require government employees be fired if they owe back taxes. Democrats on the committee opposed the bill. Hmm, wonder why?   (dailycaller.com) divider line 217
    More: Unlikely, back taxes, committee opposed, Elijah Cummings, Jason Chaffetz  
•       •       •

1211 clicks; posted to Politics » on 21 Mar 2013 at 8:35 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



217 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-03-21 10:44:37 AM

Philip Francis Queeg: skullkrusher: Philip Francis Queeg: skullkrusher: James F. Campbell: I bet the prison-industrial complex is salivating over this bill.

why? We don't have debtors prison anymore. Unfortunately.

Fear not.

Fear not.

Debtor prisons, once a relic of the 18th century, are making a frightening comeback in the U.S. justice system

that's a bit different

Not regressive enough for you?


no, just not quite the same as debtor's prison. Having trouble reading today?
 
2013-03-21 10:44:43 AM
The comments sure sound like "a Republican proposed this so it must be bad".

So much butthurt.
 
2013-03-21 10:45:38 AM

cman: A Republican doing something about people not paying taxes and a Democrat fighting for those who dont pay their taxes? What is this, reverse day?


There is not ain't no such unthing as reverse day.
 
2013-03-21 10:45:59 AM

cman: A Republican doing something about people not paying taxes and a Democrat fighting for those who dont pay their taxes? What is this, reverse day?


It's a Republican pursuing a counter-productive system of punishment for the sake of throwing red meat to idiot supporters, and Democrats trying to bring sanity to the discussion.  So it's hardly "reverse day".
 
2013-03-21 10:48:36 AM

coeyagi: Wait, I thought the GOP was against taxes altogether?  Oh, right, for the upper crust.  Sorry plebef*cks!  You gonna get raped (by the GOP SS IRS boogeyman)!



Remember a couple years ago when there was a proposal to add some funding to the IRS' operating budget to hire some more compliance officers to go after tax cheats, because a.) this was revenue-positive government spending and b.) it's illegal to cheat on taxes?

Remember when some legislators were against this, and had it killed? Remember their party affiliation?
 
2013-03-21 10:51:31 AM
Oh cool. If we fire a bunch of government workers who can't pay their back taxes, we'll have higher unemployment and less revenue coming in to pay down our debt. Then it'll all be Obama's fault!

WHERE ARE THE JOBS OBAMA?
 
2013-03-21 10:53:14 AM

LouDobbsAwaaaay: cman: A Republican doing something about people not paying taxes and a Democrat fighting for those who dont pay their taxes? What is this, reverse day?

It's a Republican pursuing a counter-productive system of punishment for the sake of throwing red meat to idiot supporters, and Democrats trying to bring sanity to the discussion.  So it's hardly "reverse day".



Unless we're in a Bizarro Universe, then it makes sense. Kinda like a double negative.
 
2013-03-21 10:54:17 AM

Dr Dreidel: I work with 2 - two! - such types, a libertarian and an anarchist, on a government-funded project (but we all work for a contractor, not the Feds directly). As in "there are government officials in our office/business group, we're paid via Congressional appropriations and we're subject to government contracting rules and oversight", and yet these guys who can't stand the idea of government big or small are overjoyed at earning their paycheck from it.


I know of several federal safety inspectors who are vehement anti-government teabaggers/anarchists.   Two of them routinely voice belief in conspiracy theories about the governments plans to destroy America and how most of the federal government is a waste and infringing on Americans freedoms and THEY'RE farkING LIFELONG EMPLOYEES OF ONE OF THE BRANCHES THEY ACCUSE TO PLOTTING TO DESTROY THE US.
 
2013-03-21 10:55:07 AM
If only there were some regular kind of payment that employees received, from which monies owed could be automatically deducted.
 
2013-03-21 10:55:07 AM
Typical of the GOP. It seems the "solutions" they often propose either just shifts the problem elsewhere or creates a whole new set of problems. Look how the money Texas "saved" by cutting funding to Planned Parenthood was eliminated by the increased cost to the state of unwanted pregnancies by the poor. This will just take away someone's ability to pay back the taxes as well as possibly turning them into a burden on the social safety net.
 
2013-03-21 10:56:08 AM

qorkfiend: cman: A Republican doing something about people not paying taxes and a Democrat fighting for those who dont pay their taxes? What is this, reverse day?

How would firing people who owe money help them pay back their debt? This idea is lightyears away from "doing something".


Hmm. What if we give them a raise so they can pay back their debt?


I know, I know, "garnish the hell out their paycheck" is the approved solution, it's just not as funny.
 
2013-03-21 10:56:12 AM

pdee: The comments sure sound like "a Republican proposed this so it must be bad".

So much butthurt.


No it's a stupid idea so it must be bad. Unless you automatically equate Republican with stupid.
 
2013-03-21 10:56:14 AM
Tax debts under dispute, on payment plans or those with liens filed are exempt.  You have 6 months to either refute the governments claim, agree to an installment agreement, or secure the governments position with a lien.

Sounds just awful.
 
2013-03-21 10:57:06 AM

beta_plus: A lib getting butt hurt about being punished for not paying his taxes is like a conservative complaining about not being able to cheat on his wife beard.



FTFY
 
2013-03-21 10:59:34 AM

heavymetal: Typical of the GOP. It seems the "solutions" they often propose either just shifts the problem elsewhere or creates a whole new set of problems. Look how the money Texas "saved" by cutting funding to Planned Parenthood was eliminated by the increased cost to the state of unwanted pregnancies by the poor. This will just take away someone's ability to pay back the taxes as well as possibly turning them into a burden on the social safety net.


that's because thinking more than one step ahead is for elitist hippies.
 
2013-03-21 10:59:36 AM
*sigh* - Life would be so much easier if politicians were punished double for every crime they commit while in office, except for crimes they had a hand in legislating....then it should be 10 times the regular punishment.
 
2013-03-21 11:01:35 AM

pdee: The comments sure sound like "a Republican proposed this so it must be bad".

So much butthurt.


So, you think that firing potentially hundreds of thousands of military personnel, postal workers, and other government employees because they owe back taxes (remember, they could be making payments on owed taxes...owing back taxes does not automatically equal tax evasion or violating the law) is a good idea?

Trust me, we don't think this is a bad bill because it was proposed by a Republican, we think it's a bad bill because it's farking retarded and would result in the loss of hundreds of thousands of jobs, a resulting spike in unemployment, another economic recession, and a major hit to our defense readiness around the world.  In short, this bill is almost as stupid as you are.
 
2013-03-21 11:02:40 AM
Skimming some google search results just now to find some documentation for the events I'm half-remembering from 2009 that I was referring to in my previous comment, it looks like there's been a more-or-less continuous battle over IRS budgets, with Obama in favor of increased funding and Republicans in favor of cutting the IRS operating budgets. Adequate staffing would result in collecting more revenue, inadequate staffing would mean more people getting away with cheating.

Yet another reason to vote against Republicans -- if there's a clash of interests between law-abiding taxpayers (me, e.g.) and a freeloading criminal tax cheat who by all rights should be in prison, they'll choose the tax cheat.

Every time.
 
2013-03-21 11:03:01 AM
So, as I understand it:

Poor people owe back taxes: fire them
Republican presidential candidate owes back taxes: non issue
 Democratic President cheats on wife: Impeach!

Republican Governor cheats on wife: Run off for the Senate!

Democratic President takes out two dictators with 0 loss of American lives: Tyrant!
Republican President takes out one dictator with 4000+ lives and trillion of dollars lost: Miss me yet?
 
2013-03-21 11:04:49 AM

Zeb Hesselgresser: Tax debts under dispute, on payment plans or those with liens filed are exempt.  You have 6 months to either refute the governments claim, agree to an installment agreement, or secure the governments position with a lien.

Sounds just awful.


so would be in favor of extending this idea to all jobs? how about jobs for companies that get a majority of their business from government contracts?

if you owe back taxes you are not allowed to work! there, that'll show 'em.

/why not garnish their wages instead of firing them?
//as it is, it's a typical GOP "punish them!" reaction with zero thought beyond that.
 
2013-03-21 11:04:53 AM

ginandbacon: Because it's retarded?


How so? A billion dollars owed by Federal employees it, does not seem retarded to me. Particularly when you consider that most of those, if not all took the civil servants oath.

I, [name], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.

Yeah, idiotic to fire people who swore an oath to uphold the Constitution, including tax laws, when they fail in those duties.
 
2013-03-21 11:04:54 AM

Satanic_Hamster: Dr Dreidel: I work with 2 - two! - such types, a libertarian and an anarchist, on a government-funded project (but we all work for a contractor, not the Feds directly). As in "there are government officials in our office/business group, we're paid via Congressional appropriations and we're subject to government contracting rules and oversight", and yet these guys who can't stand the idea of government big or small are overjoyed at earning their paycheck from it.

I know of several federal safety inspectors who are vehement anti-government teabaggers/anarchists.   Two of them routinely voice belief in conspiracy theories about the governments plans to destroy America and how most of the federal government is a waste and infringing on Americans freedoms and THEY'RE farkING LIFELONG EMPLOYEES OF ONE OF THE BRANCHES THEY ACCUSE TO PLOTTING TO DESTROY THE US.



This surprises you? The cognitive dissonance that emanates from teabaggers could power the sun.
 
2013-03-21 11:06:09 AM

Slaves2Darkness: ginandbacon: Because it's retarded?

How so? A billion dollars owed by Federal employees it, does not seem retarded to me. Particularly when you consider that most of those, if not all took the civil servants oath.

I, [name], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.

Yeah, idiotic to fire people who swore an oath to uphold the Constitution, including tax laws, when they fail in those duties.


It's idiotic to see people with debt, and think that the proper solution is to make it harder for them to pay it back.
 
2013-03-21 11:09:17 AM

Zeb Hesselgresser: Tax debts under dispute, on payment plans or those with liens filed are exempt.  You have 6 months to either refute the governments claim, agree to an installment agreement, or secure the governments position with a lien.

Sounds just awful.


Since the IRS can already garnish the wages of someone who isn't paying back taxes, what is the point of making a law that fires those people?  It would make about as much sense as a bill that would require businesses to fire any employee who is delinquent on their student loans.  People with no income can't pay their bills...that's kinda how it works.

Of course, this bill is coming from the party that thinks that lowering taxes while increasing spending is "fiscally responsible government", so it's not surprising that they would think that taking away someone's ability to earn income is a good answer for them owing the government money.
 
2013-03-21 11:14:59 AM
As long as there is some kind of grace period to fix things once identified, I have no problem with this.

// Federal employee
// Pays taxes
 
2013-03-21 11:15:19 AM

qorkfiend: Slaves2Darkness: ginandbacon: Because it's retarded?

How so? A billion dollars owed by Federal employees it, does not seem retarded to me. Particularly when you consider that most of those, if not all took the civil servants oath.

I, [name], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.

Yeah, idiotic to fire people who swore an oath to uphold the Constitution, including tax laws, when they fail in those duties.

It's idiotic to see people with debt, and think that the proper solution is to make it harder for them to pay it back.


From the Article:

Chaffetz explained that the term "seriously tax delinquent" is defined as having an outstanding federal tax debt where a notice of lien has been publicly filed.
The bill exempts employees who can demonstrate financial hardships and an effort of working to settle tax liabilities.


Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2013/03/20/federal-employees-who-dont-pay-taxes -would-be-fired-under-bill-that-passed-committee/#ixzz2OBfWXiH5">htt p://dailycaller.com/2013/03/20/federal-employees-who-dont-pay-taxes -would-be-fired-under-bill-that-passed-committee/#ixzz2OBfWXiH5


So let's see according to the article you won't get fired if you are making an effort to pay your back taxes and are in financial hardships. It is only those who have not paid, or are willing to make an effort to pay and get to the point where the IRS is using the legal system to compel them to pay.

I say it is idiotic to give those freeloaders, those moochers, a pass. That those who swore to uphold the Constitution should be held to a higher standard then the rest of you citizens, and those who refuse to pay their taxes should be punished.

So
 
2013-03-21 11:16:47 AM

Slaves2Darkness: qorkfiend: Slaves2Darkness: ginandbacon: Because it's retarded?

How so? A billion dollars owed by Federal employees it, does not seem retarded to me. Particularly when you consider that most of those, if not all took the civil servants oath.

I, [name], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.

Yeah, idiotic to fire people who swore an oath to uphold the Constitution, including tax laws, when they fail in those duties.

It's idiotic to see people with debt, and think that the proper solution is to make it harder for them to pay it back.

From the Article:

Chaffetz explained that the term "seriously tax delinquent" is defined as having an outstanding federal tax debt where a notice of lien has been publicly filed.
The bill exempts employees who can demonstrate financial hardships and an effort of working to settle tax liabilities.


Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2013/03/20/federal-employees-who-dont-pay-taxes -would-be-fired-under-bill-that-passed-committee/#ixzz2OBfWXiH5">htt p://dailycaller.com/2013/03/20/federal-employees-who-dont-pay-taxes -would-be-fired-under-bill-that-passed-committee/#ixzz2OBfWXiH5

So let's see according to the article you won't get fired if you are making an effort to pay your back taxes and are in financial hardships. It is only those who have not paid, or are willing to make an effort to pay and get to the point where the IRS is using the legal system to compel them to pay.

I say it is idiotic to give those freeloaders, those moochers, a pass. That those who swore to uphold the Constitution should be held to a higher standard then the rest of you citizens, and those who ...


You know not every government employees takes that oath, don't you?
 
2013-03-21 11:19:50 AM

Lord_Baull: This surprises you? The cognitive dissonance that emanates from teabaggers could power the sun.


The shame thing is?  Since they inspect *our* site I can't say crap about it out of fear/knowledge it would piss them off.  Here are guys who will rant at length how government regulations and inspections are nothing less then Nazi Germany and are destroying America and unconstitutional and wastes of tax payer money and etc etc; and they're life long employees and inspectors in the DOL.
 
2013-03-21 11:20:41 AM

Slaves2Darkness: So let's see according to the article you won't get fired if you are making an effort to pay your back taxes and are in financial hardships. It is only those who have not paid, or are willing to make an effort to pay and get to the point where the IRS is using the legal system to compel them to pay.


And? The pre-existing legal remedy for the IRS is wage garnishment. How are they going to garnish the wages of someone who doesn't have any wages?
 
2013-03-21 11:21:22 AM

Snarfangel: mrshowrules: killershark: I think something is wrong with me because I'm kind of OK with this. Granted, I think there should be some exceptions such as military and you should get a warning first for any bills you didn't realize were outstanding. But if you're in a job that's really really hard to get fired from and getting a good government pension when you retire, you should be paying into the system.

The IRS can garnish your wages.  Non-issue.

I fail to see how a little sprig of parsley will help.


It will do absolutely nothing if a tomato rose is what is actually called for.
 
2013-03-21 11:23:36 AM

Teufelaffe: Zeb Hesselgresser: Tax debts under dispute, on payment plans or those with liens filed are exempt.  You have 6 months to either refute the governments claim, agree to an installment agreement, or secure the governments position with a lien.

Sounds just awful.

Since the IRS can already garnish the wages of someone who isn't paying back taxes, what is the point of making a law that fires those people?  It would make about as much sense as a bill that would require businesses to fire any employee who is delinquent on their student loans.  People with no income can't pay their bills...that's kinda how it works.

Of course, this bill is coming from the party that thinks that lowering taxes while increasing spending is "fiscally responsible government", so it's not surprising that they would think that taking away someone's ability to earn income is a good answer for them owing the government money.



Plus if someone comitted tax fraud there are already laws addressing that; and odds are if arrested for those they would probably lose their job anyway.  Especially if the job required a securiy clearance.
 
2013-03-21 11:24:28 AM

Slaves2Darkness: ginandbacon: Because it's retarded?

How so? A billion dollars owed by Federal employees it, does not seem retarded to me. Particularly when you consider that most of those, if not all took the civil servants oath.

I, [name], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.

Yeah, idiotic to fire people who swore an oath to uphold the Constitution, including tax laws, when they fail in those duties.



I fully support this idea. We can fire anyone that authors legislation to limit voter rights, the privacy of women, or for two consenting adults to marry the person they love.
 
2013-03-21 11:24:33 AM
This bill makes as much sense as suspending students from school for truancy.
 
2013-03-21 11:24:35 AM

qorkfiend: Slaves2Darkness: So let's see according to the article you won't get fired if you are making an effort to pay your back taxes and are in financial hardships. It is only those who have not paid, or are willing to make an effort to pay and get to the point where the IRS is using the legal system to compel them to pay.

And? The pre-existing legal remedy for the IRS is wage garnishment. How are they going to garnish the wages of someone who doesn't have any wages?


Then get a job in the private sector.

// I don't know how that makes sense as an answer, but that'll be the answer, and responding with a quizzical look just means you need to study it out more
 
2013-03-21 11:26:35 AM

I created this alt just for this thread: This bill makes as much sense as suspending students from school for truancy.


Simply suspending them is not enough. We must suspend them over a pit of alligators.
 
2013-03-21 11:31:10 AM
First things first, the bill has to be based on a faulty premise, right?  For 100,000 federal employees to owe $1B then they would have to owe $10,000 on average.  That seems unlikely, to say the least.

Second, as has been said, it's a dumb idea.  The IRS already has ways of collecting back taxes and penalties for not paying on time.
 
2013-03-21 11:48:00 AM
Can't the IRS just dock their wages? It seems like it would be pretty easy for the federal government to satisfy back taxes with one of their own employees.
 
2013-03-21 11:49:39 AM
I'm just tired of the animosity towards Federal Employees.   Simply targetting Fed Employees seems unfair, as EVERYONE should be paying their taxes.   Everytime I hear that I'm sucking on the taxpayer teet or that I'm overpaid I want to punch them in the face.  In the cock in the case of Ann Coulter.

/frozen wages for past 3 years despite cost of living increases
//not allowed overtime or comp time for the past 3 months
///about to lose 23% of gross take home starting next month
////underpaid compared to private sector equivelants
//looking like I have to sell out to private sector to keep the mortgage going....
//at least the slashies are free, and pre-emptive, I'm on lunchbreak - fark off 'you have time to fark'ers
 
2013-03-21 11:51:33 AM

VoodooTaco: I'm just tired of the animosity towards Federal Employees.   Simply targetting Fed Employees seems unfair, as EVERYONE should be paying their taxes.   Everytime I hear that I'm sucking on the taxpayer teet or that I'm overpaid I want to punch them in the face.  In the cock in the case of Ann Coulter.

/frozen wages for past 3 years despite cost of living increases
//not allowed overtime or comp time for the past 3 months
///about to lose 23% of gross take home starting next month
////underpaid compared to private sector equivelants
//looking like I have to sell out to private sector to keep the mortgage going....
//at least the slashies are free, and pre-emptive, I'm on lunchbreak - fark off 'you have time to fark'ers


but, if you're not paying your taxes, you're cheating your employer. Any other employer would fire you for cheating them so...

/still a bad idea
 
2013-03-21 11:53:07 AM

pueblonative: CPennypacker: How are they supposed to pay the back taxes if they don't have a job?

Ding ding ding! We have another winner in "Are you smarter than a bowtie-wearing douche?"


If they already have a job and they aren't using it to pay back the taxes, then you have to hold the threat of something over their heads to get your money, and the only way they will respect that threat is if you demonstrate your willingness to act on it by firing other people.

Have you ever had anyone owe you money? They will make every good faith promise in the world to you and then never hand you a red cent until you threaten them with something. My (former) best friend stole $6,000 from me, whined and cried that he would pay it back, but he just didn't have any money this month. And the next month. And the one after that. Then as soon as I told him I was going to call the department of labor and leave an anonymous tip that he was working under the table for cash at a bar, he magically was suddenly doing better and had $500 for me that very day.
 
2013-03-21 12:01:53 PM

Tommy Moo: pueblonative: CPennypacker: How are they supposed to pay the back taxes if they don't have a job?

Ding ding ding! We have another winner in "Are you smarter than a bowtie-wearing douche?"

If they already have a job and they aren't using it to pay back the taxes, then you have to hold the threat of something over their heads to get your money, and the only way they will respect that threat is if you demonstrate your willingness to act on it by firing other people.

Have you ever had anyone owe you money? They will make every good faith promise in the world to you and then never hand you a red cent until you threaten them with something. My (former) best friend stole $6,000 from me, whined and cried that he would pay it back, but he just didn't have any money this month. And the next month. And the one after that. Then as soon as I told him I was going to call the department of labor and leave an anonymous tip that he was working under the table for cash at a bar, he magically was suddenly doing better and had $500 for me that very day.


But then he'll just collect unemployment.

Wouldn't it make more sense to throw him in jail until he pays off his debt?
 
2013-03-21 12:06:02 PM

Tommy Moo: pueblonative: CPennypacker: How are they supposed to pay the back taxes if they don't have a job?

Ding ding ding! We have another winner in "Are you smarter than a bowtie-wearing douche?"

If they already have a job and they aren't using it to pay back the taxes, then you have to hold the threat of something over their heads to get your money, and the only way they will respect that threat is if you demonstrate your willingness to act on it by firing other people.

Have you ever had anyone owe you money? They will make every good faith promise in the world to you and then never hand you a red cent until you threaten them with something. My (former) best friend stole $6,000 from me, whined and cried that he would pay it back, but he just didn't have any money this month. And the next month. And the one after that. Then as soon as I told him I was going to call the department of labor and leave an anonymous tip that he was working under the table for cash at a bar, he magically was suddenly doing better and had $500 for me that very day.


If only there were some way that the government could simply take payments automatically, without having to depend upon the debtor to do so voluntarily...

Tommy Moo: Can't the IRS just dock their wages? It seems like it would be pretty easy for the federal government to satisfy back taxes with one of their own employees.


...huh...did you forget to change to your alt?
 
2013-03-21 12:08:07 PM

eiger: HotWingConspiracy: So removing earning power from someone that owes money is a good idea because...well shiat some teabagger is going to have to walk me through this.

Because once someone makes a mistake in life, they must be punished and punished forever... unless it's me or my family then forgiveness must be swift and complete.


Because socialism, duh!
 
2013-03-21 12:13:04 PM

ChimpMitten: Let me put on my derping cap and try to explain the logic behind this.

Government employees don't really pay taxes since the money just goes back to them in the form of their salary and benefits.  If they owe back taxes they are effectively stealing from the private sector and people with real jobs.  Since any back taxes that they owe would be dwarfed by the future costs of their salary and benefits, firing them is a net win.

Arguing that they won't be able to pay their back taxes if they are fired is like arguing over a leaking faucet on a sinking ship.


"You're a god damn genius."

cdn.hark.com
 
2013-03-21 12:35:22 PM

twat_waffle: eats = wears


Wipe the spittle off the monitor next time so you can proofread.
 
2013-03-21 12:42:24 PM

Harbinger of the Doomed Rat: Tommy Moo: pueblonative: CPennypacker: How are they supposed to pay the back taxes if they don't have a job?

Ding ding ding! We have another winner in "Are you smarter than a bowtie-wearing douche?"

If they already have a job and they aren't using it to pay back the taxes, then you have to hold the threat of something over their heads to get your money, and the only way they will respect that threat is if you demonstrate your willingness to act on it by firing other people.

Have you ever had anyone owe you money? They will make every good faith promise in the world to you and then never hand you a red cent until you threaten them with something. My (former) best friend stole $6,000 from me, whined and cried that he would pay it back, but he just didn't have any money this month. And the next month. And the one after that. Then as soon as I told him I was going to call the department of labor and leave an anonymous tip that he was working under the table for cash at a bar, he magically was suddenly doing better and had $500 for me that very day.

If only there were some way that the government could simply take payments automatically, without having to depend upon the debtor to do so voluntarily...

Tommy Moo: Can't the IRS just dock their wages? It seems like it would be pretty easy for the federal government to satisfy back taxes with one of their own employees.

...huh...did you forget to change to your alt?


You didn't "catch" me in anything there. Either solution would work. All I said is that you have to threaten people who owe money with something and be prepared to make good on it. Wage docking or termination are both viable choices.
 
2013-03-21 12:49:41 PM

Tommy Moo: Harbinger of the Doomed Rat: Tommy Moo: pueblonative: CPennypacker: How are they supposed to pay the back taxes if they don't have a job?

Ding ding ding! We have another winner in "Are you smarter than a bowtie-wearing douche?"

If they already have a job and they aren't using it to pay back the taxes, then you have to hold the threat of something over their heads to get your money, and the only way they will respect that threat is if you demonstrate your willingness to act on it by firing other people.

Have you ever had anyone owe you money? They will make every good faith promise in the world to you and then never hand you a red cent until you threaten them with something. My (former) best friend stole $6,000 from me, whined and cried that he would pay it back, but he just didn't have any money this month. And the next month. And the one after that. Then as soon as I told him I was going to call the department of labor and leave an anonymous tip that he was working under the table for cash at a bar, he magically was suddenly doing better and had $500 for me that very day.

If only there were some way that the government could simply take payments automatically, without having to depend upon the debtor to do so voluntarily...

Tommy Moo: Can't the IRS just dock their wages? It seems like it would be pretty easy for the federal government to satisfy back taxes with one of their own employees.

...huh...did you forget to change to your alt?

You didn't "catch" me in anything there. Either solution would work. All I said is that you have to threaten people who owe money with something and be prepared to make good on it. Wage docking or termination are both viable choices.


No, they aren't.  Wage docking results in you getting your money back.  Termination results in making it far more difficult for you to get your money back.
 
2013-03-21 12:52:19 PM
coeyagi:
They could bottle subby's taint sweat and sell it on eBay as holy water, you know, if they were boostrappy and all.

Oh, I think it would be "hole"y water, if you know what I mean.
 
2013-03-21 12:54:10 PM

Dubya's_Coke_Dealer: Run out of butthurt cream, subtard?


Oh come on, he's not saying "Democrats don't pay their taxes", he's just asking questions.

Kind of like "Do Democrats hate America?" and "Is George W. Bush the greatest President in American history?"  They're just asking questions.

Leading, BS questions designed to get their most soft-minded fans to donate their last penny (sometimes literally) to their PAC.
 
2013-03-21 01:03:44 PM

Tommy Moo: Harbinger of the Doomed Rat: Tommy Moo: pueblonative: CPennypacker: How are they supposed to pay the back taxes if they don't have a job?

Ding ding ding! We have another winner in "Are you smarter than a bowtie-wearing douche?"

If they already have a job and they aren't using it to pay back the taxes, then you have to hold the threat of something over their heads to get your money, and the only way they will respect that threat is if you demonstrate your willingness to act on it by firing other people.

Have you ever had anyone owe you money? They will make every good faith promise in the world to you and then never hand you a red cent until you threaten them with something. My (former) best friend stole $6,000 from me, whined and cried that he would pay it back, but he just didn't have any money this month. And the next month. And the one after that. Then as soon as I told him I was going to call the department of labor and leave an anonymous tip that he was working under the table for cash at a bar, he magically was suddenly doing better and had $500 for me that very day.

If only there were some way that the government could simply take payments automatically, without having to depend upon the debtor to do so voluntarily...

Tommy Moo: Can't the IRS just dock their wages? It seems like it would be pretty easy for the federal government to satisfy back taxes with one of their own employees.

...huh...did you forget to change to your alt?

You didn't "catch" me in anything there. Either solution would work. All I said is that you have to threaten people who owe money with something and be prepared to make good on it. Wage docking or termination are both viable choices.


Termination is only a viable choice if you're a moron when wage garnishment is, and has already been, a possible course of action.  Think about it for a second.  In what reality is taking away someone's source of income an intelligent option when you can simply automatically deduct payments from their pay?

"Well, I could choose this option which guarantees that I'll receive payment, but I think I go with this other option that guarantees that I won't receive payment.  That'll show 'em!"
 
Displayed 50 of 217 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report