Do you have adblock enabled?
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  
•       •       •

1214 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
 
2013-03-21 06:29:19 AM  
Because it's retarded?
 
2013-03-21 07:31:23 AM  
Run out of butthurt cream, subtard?
 
2013-03-21 07:41:14 AM  
Cummings said. "It is much, much, much more difficult to recoup the delinquent taxes from someone who is unemployed."

Common sense?
 
2013-03-21 07:42:37 AM  
I thought people who owed taxes got their wages garnished or went to prison?
 
2013-03-21 07:51:04 AM  
they actually PAY taxes?
 
2013-03-21 07:58:08 AM  
So Wesley Snipes and Willie Nelson can never be mailmen. That sucks.
 
2013-03-21 08:15:45 AM  
Until said employee is a military member.
 
2013-03-21 08:31:58 AM  
Because its dumb? Should we fire every employee who has any crime or misdemeanor on their record?
 
182
2013-03-21 08:38:53 AM  

PreMortem: Until said employee is a military member.


hooray!
 
2013-03-21 08:39:11 AM  
anything that makes government more dysfunctional.
 
2013-03-21 08:40:39 AM  

ginandbacon: Because it's retarded?


Done in one.
 
2013-03-21 08:42:08 AM  
Republicans never do anything anymore that doesn't have some ulterior motive, and they certainly never do anything just because it makes sense.  There has to be some particular person (read:  Democrat) who has a forgotten property tax bill out there somewhere.  This is targeted legislation.

Of course, the other thing they seem to be good at is passing bills that end up blowing up in their faces, so Boehner probably has a missed quarterly payment out there somewhere just waiting to be discovered.
 
2013-03-21 08:42:47 AM  
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.
 
2013-03-21 08:45:09 AM  

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.
 
2013-03-21 08:47:36 AM  
Because they understand how this would impact military families, and they care about military families?
 
2013-03-21 08:50:12 AM  
Why are these people intent on making government jobs the wort possible jobs people could want?  Only ensuring that good talent goes elsewhere and the people that fill these jobs are from the bottom of the talent pool.
 
2013-03-21 08:50:33 AM  
They are probably just protecting the Republicans.  Later they will push through a bill that will allow more Republicans to marry.
 
2013-03-21 08:51:25 AM  

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.


a.abcnews.com
I assume this deadbeat who's yet to pay up on his taxes supports this fullheartedly, and would be happy to explain.
 
2013-03-21 08:52:47 AM  
Because Douchey Bowtie McPunchyface is a douche who eats a bow tie and has an extremely punchable face?

/backpfeifengesicht should be an English word
//and Tucker Carlson's picture should be in its dictionary entry
 
2013-03-21 08:53:24 AM  
eats = wears
 
2013-03-21 08:53:42 AM  
Anyone want to bet that members of Congress would be exempt from this?
 
2013-03-21 08:53:44 AM  
I would be more impresses if it also applied to congress critters.
 
2013-03-21 08:54:11 AM  
Meh.  Kind of makes sense to me.  Your job is funded by taxes, if you aren't paying them too, that's kind of hypocritical.

Makes me think of the Tea Party types that I work with, (I work in a .gov position)  they should also be fired or at least have the self awareness to quit.
 
2013-03-21 08:54:11 AM  

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.


Me too.  I'm baffled.
 
2013-03-21 08:54:19 AM  

scrumpox: I would be more impresses if it also applied to congress critters.


impressed, even.
 
2013-03-21 08:54:37 AM  
Can't the Daily Caller go just one day without spraying so much liquefied chili shiat on the virtual walls that it makes me embarrassed to live on the same planet as the farknuggets who "Write" (for lack of a better term) for it, or at the very least refrain from licking their own spicy, dripping Pollocks up afterwards?

/That was rhetorical.
 
2013-03-21 08:54:44 AM  

EyeballKid: 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.

[a.abcnews.com image 320x240]
I assume this deadbeat who's yet to pay up on his taxes supports this fullheartedly, and would be happy to explain.


Haha, Oh Not-Joe the Not-Plumber, you captured America's distilled derp and parlayed it in to an exciting career of undermining everything you supposedly stand for. We all thank you.
 
2013-03-21 08:58:03 AM  

HotWingConspiracy: Haha, Oh Not-Joe the Not-Plumber, you captured America's distilled derp and parlayed it in to an exciting career of undermining everything you supposedly stand for. We all thank you.


He's Sarah Palin with a penis. Technically.
 
2013-03-21 08:59:27 AM  
Good. I am sure the GOP cares as deeply about the wealthy not paying taxes. Right.........RIGHT??
 
2013-03-21 08:59:48 AM  
Because Republicans are always fully committed to everyone paying their full share of taxes (so long as they make less than $50,000 a year)?
 
2013-03-21 09:00:43 AM  

PreMortem: Until said employee is a military member Republican Presidential Candidate


FTFY
 
2013-03-21 09:01:44 AM  
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.
 
2013-03-21 09:02:49 AM  
How are they supposed to pay the back taxes if they don't have a job?
 
2013-03-21 09:04:21 AM  

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?"
 
2013-03-21 09:04:39 AM  

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


I was asking that when the EU was pushing Austerity on Greece.. 'Okay, so they're not paying back what they owe.. you want them to fire everyone?'
 
2013-03-21 09:10:07 AM  

manimal2878: Meh.  Kind of makes sense to me.  Your job is funded by taxes, if you aren't paying them too, that's kind of hypocritical.

Makes me think of the Tea Party types that I work with, (I work in a .gov position)  they should also be fired or at least have the self awareness to quit.


Does it still make sense when you consider the fact that back taxes could be owed due to an innocent mistake?

/dnrtfa
//not giving that bowtie-wearin' jackhole clicks
 
2013-03-21 09:10:45 AM  
Cuz poor people won't pay taxes?
 
2013-03-21 09:11:54 AM  
The Democrats should propose legislation that says any congressperson with debt - mortgages, car loans, anything - should be fired. Lets see how the Republicans react.
 
2013-03-21 09:12:03 AM  

Invisible Dynamite Monkey: Why are these people intent on making government jobs the wort possible jobs people could want?  Only ensuring that good talent goes elsewhere and the people that fill these jobs are from the bottom of the talent pool.


I think you answered your own question. Republicans can't get elected on platforms of "government bad" if the government is effective, so they do what they can to make the government as ineffective as possible.
 
2013-03-21 09:12:37 AM  

twat_waffle: eats = wears


Are you working hard putting food on your family?
 
2013-03-21 09:19:21 AM  
The Democrats should propose legislation that says any congressperson who proposes legislation that limits your rights based on faith, sex, age, economics, education or race - should be fired.  Of course, it would be as useful as the GOP trying to repeal Obamacare, but at least you could see the GOP squirm and piss and moan, even some of the devout libertardians.
 
2013-03-21 09:19:50 AM  
And I'm sure that no Republican government employees anywhere owe back taxes.  Methinks they haven't thought their cunning plan through.
 
2013-03-21 09:20:02 AM  
I think it's a better idea to garnish their wages....
 
2013-03-21 09:20:28 AM  

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


They could bottle subby's taint sweat and sell it on eBay as holy water, you know, if they were boostrappy and all.
 
2013-03-21 09:20:54 AM  

Fark It: I think it's a better idea to garnish their wages....


You mean, keep them working so they can actually pay off their debt? That's just crazy talk.
 
2013-03-21 09:21:45 AM  
How about they oppose it because it's f*cking stupid and counterproductive.  Not only does inflicting more financial hardship decrease the chances that they'll be able to pay the money back, but it also means that all the training you've sunk into that person, along with their understanding of the job that came through experience just walked out the door.
 
2013-03-21 09:21:49 AM  
Just a few steps away from indentured servitude, then the Confederate states can have their cheap labor force back!
 
2013-03-21 09:22:38 AM  
The governor of Michigan appointed a manager for the city of Detroit.  Within hours it is discovered he had a lien against his home because of unpaid taxes.  Snyder quickly released a statement saying the unpaid taxes weren't a big deal.  Moral of the story, it is OK if republicans do it.
 
2013-03-21 09:22:56 AM  

ginandbacon: Because it's retarded?


farking seriously.
 
2013-03-21 09:23:17 AM  

coeyagi: The Democrats should propose legislation that says any congressperson who proposes legislation that limits your rights based on faith, sex, age, economics, education or race - should be fired.  Of course, it would be as useful as the GOP trying to repeal Obamacare, but at least you could see the GOP squirm and piss and moan, even some of the devout libertardians.


The fun thing is that they could totally pitch it as a "freedom" bill.  They could call it the Keeping America Safe From Sharia Law, Anti-White Racism, and Anti-Heterosexual Discrimination bill.
 
2013-03-21 09:23:19 AM  

Muta: The governor of Michigan appointed a manager for the city of Detroit.  Within hours it is discovered he had a lien against his home because of unpaid taxes.  Snyder quickly released a statement saying the unpaid taxes weren't a big deal.  Moral of the story, it is OK if republicans do it.


What, you don't want an emergency financial manager who can't handle his own finances?
 
2013-03-21 09:23:27 AM  
Active duty military, veterans affairs workers, and postal service workers are the biggest offenders with $100 million, $150 million, and $270 million owed, respectively.

Sad that this guy is proposing laying off our troops and those helping our troops recover.
 
2013-03-21 09:25:10 AM  
Create'n them jobs.
 
2013-03-21 09:27:23 AM  
Leona Helmsley agrees. Besides, taxes are for little people.
 
2013-03-21 09:30:30 AM  
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)!
 
2013-03-21 09:33:54 AM  

Fark It: I think it's a better idea to garnish their wages....


IRS already has the mechanisms/authority to do that.  Stupid Bill.
 
2013-03-21 09:36:07 AM  
I guess owing back child support is okay though?
 
2013-03-21 09:39:04 AM  
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.
 
2013-03-21 09:40:18 AM  

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.
 
2013-03-21 09:40:49 AM  
Wait, can't they combine anti-abortion legislation and this bill?  Maybe instead of being fired or a wage garnishment, why not incentivize having children rather than an abortion by waving tax debt or at least decreasing the burden?  Or perhaps a guns for cash type turn-in program - hand in all your rubbers, birth control pills and morning after pills in exchange for tax debt relief.  Yeah, that's the ticket!
 
2013-03-21 09:41:48 AM  

ginandbacon: Because it's retarded?


Makes almost as much sense as suspending the professional and/or driver's license of people who are behind in child support payments.
 
2013-03-21 09:42:15 AM  

steverockson: I guess owing back child support is okay though?


Your newsletter. I wish to subscribe to it.
 
2013-03-21 09:43:09 AM  
BECAUSE DEMOCRATS AND TAXES, YOU SEE
 
2013-03-21 09:43:55 AM  
Let's do this with teachers too!  If they can't do the maths, then they shouldn't be teaching our kids!

i.imgur.com
 
2013-03-21 09:48:34 AM  
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.
 
2013-03-21 09:50:43 AM  

cannibalparrot: Does it still make sense when you consider the fact that back taxes could be owed due to an innocent mistake?

/dnrtfa
//not giving that bowtie-wearin' jackhole clicks


Well, had you read the article, you would know starting the process to contest the taxes would shield you from the firing.
 
m00
2013-03-21 10:00:48 AM  
Aren't Republicans against taxes?
 
2013-03-21 10:00:57 AM  

Richard Saunders: ginandbacon: Because it's retarded?

Makes almost as much sense as suspending the professional and/or driver's license of people who are behind in child support payments.


Yeah, that's pretty retarded too.
 
2013-03-21 10:03:43 AM  

manimal2878: Meh.  Kind of makes sense to me.  Your job is funded by taxes, if you aren't paying them too, that's kind of hypocritical.

Makes me think of the Tea Party types that I work with, (I work in a .gov position)  they should also be fired or at least have the self awareness to quit.


Owing back taxes doesn't mean tax evasion. People who owe back taxes are still paying them usually in installments plus interest.
 
2013-03-21 10:05:59 AM  

manimal2878: cannibalparrot: Does it still make sense when you consider the fact that back taxes could be owed due to an innocent mistake?

/dnrtfa
//not giving that bowtie-wearin' jackhole clicks

Well, had you read the article, you would know starting the process to contest the taxes would shield you from the firing.


Yeah, that's great and all, but what if the taxes are legitimate, and the only issue is the taxpayer transposed two numbers 3 years back?  Should he be fired?
 
2013-03-21 10:10:25 AM  

PreMortem: Cummings said. "It is much, much, much more difficult to recoup the delinquent taxes from someone who is unemployed."

Common sense?


stephaniefusco.com

You're arguing with a chair.
 
2013-03-21 10:11:02 AM  

Great_Milenko: Republicans never do anything anymore that doesn't have some ulterior motive, and they certainly never do anything just because it makes sense. There has to be some particular person (read: Democrat) who has a forgotten property tax bill out there somewhere. This is targeted legislation.


Geithner and...someone else (Holder?) were high-profile appointees that had something like $7,000 in unpaid taxes. When it came to light, they paid what they owed in full (pre-confirmation IIRC), but the GOP doesn't think that's fair.

manimal2878: Makes me think of the Tea Party types that I work with, (I work in a .gov position) they should also be fired or at least have the self awareness to quit.


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.
 
2013-03-21 10:11:51 AM  

killershark: I think something is wrong with me because I'm kind of OK with this. Granted, I think there should be some exceptions


When exceptions come into the picture, it makes it all the more stupid. The "exceptions" will be the bill's author, his family and friends, his colleagues and their families and friends, anyone who donates to his campaign, anyone who has money, anyone who wants to sleep with someone, blah blah. No exceptions.
 
2013-03-21 10:12:05 AM  

cannibalparrot: manimal2878: cannibalparrot: Does it still make sense when you consider the fact that back taxes could be owed due to an innocent mistake?

/dnrtfa
//not giving that bowtie-wearin' jackhole clicks

Well, had you read the article, you would know starting the process to contest the taxes would shield you from the firing.

Yeah, that's great and all, but what if the taxes are legitimate, and the only issue is the taxpayer transposed two numbers 3 years back?  Should he be fired?


You god damn right he should be fired.  And then he can't pay those taxes for one, and second, he'll be drawing social services.  His wife will leave him.  His car will get repo'ed.  He'll default on his mortgage.  It's all good fun and games against the little guy because of a very minor f*ck up years ago - that'll learn 'em!
 
2013-03-21 10:14:07 AM  
I bet the prison-industrial complex is salivating over this bill.
 
2013-03-21 10:15:46 AM  
Democrats should add an amendment to block government contracts with companies that owe taxes, or better yet, with companies that don't pay any taxes. This thing would be tabled in record time.
 
2013-03-21 10:16:21 AM  
This makes total sense when you first hear it but as soon as you think about it at all, you realize just how stoopid it is. Which is actually a step in the right direction for the Tea Party crowd, normally their shiat is immediately terrible.

/Keep on reaching for that potatoe, boys!!
 
2013-03-21 10:17:12 AM  

Epicfarker: Democrats should add an amendment to block government contracts with companies that owe taxes, or better yet, with companies that don't pay any taxes. This thing would be tabled in record time.


Then who would they get their kickbacks from?
 
2013-03-21 10:17:50 AM  

tagkc: Anyone want to bet that members of Congress would be exempt from this?


I believe they'd be exempt by default. Representatives aren't hired, they're elected. There's a process for removing them from office, but I don't think they can be fired the way someone with a regular job can be.
 
2013-03-21 10:18:36 AM  

coeyagi: cannibalparrot: manimal2878: cannibalparrot: Does it still make sense when you consider the fact that back taxes could be owed due to an innocent mistake?

/dnrtfa
//not giving that bowtie-wearin' jackhole clicks

Well, had you read the article, you would know starting the process to contest the taxes would shield you from the firing.

Yeah, that's great and all, but what if the taxes are legitimate, and the only issue is the taxpayer transposed two numbers 3 years back?  Should he be fired?

You god damn right he should be fired.  And then he can't pay those taxes for one, and second, he'll be drawing social services.  His wife will leave him.  His car will get repo'ed.  He'll default on his mortgage.  It's all good fun and games against the little guy because of a very minor f*ck up years ago - that'll learn 'em!


The sad thing is, I know people that would say this because "fark that guy!"

Despite the fact that the ripple effects will end up screwing him over somehow (just not all that noticably).
 
2013-03-21 10:19:46 AM  
I got an email saying that federal employees are exempt from paying taxes and that congresspeople and their families don't have to repay student loans. This bill is pointless

/seriously, meh
 
2013-03-21 10:20:45 AM  

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


why? We don't have debtors prison anymore. Unfortunately.
 
2013-03-21 10:30:06 AM  

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

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


Hey, you're right! It's time we returned to our traditional roots of imprisoning regular citizens who are in debt, instead of coddling them by designing an entire economic system to gradually leech away their earnings and labor over a lifetime and funneling it to the wealthy and powerful.

Now punch yourself in the balls and explain to the class why you're an idiot.
 
2013-03-21 10:30:15 AM  
I dunno, subby, is it anything like Republicans opposed to making Congressional insider trading illegal?
 
2013-03-21 10:31:17 AM  

geek_mars: tagkc: Anyone want to bet that members of Congress would be exempt from this?

I believe they'd be exempt by default. Representatives aren't hired, they're elected. There's a process for removing them from office, but I don't think they can be fired the way someone with a regular job can be.


Well here in Illinois if you owe back child support you can hold a state job, but congressmen are exempt from that as we found out with Congressman Child Support.
 
2013-03-21 10:31:25 AM  

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 socialism, duh.
 
2013-03-21 10:33:48 AM  

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

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

Hey, you're right! It's time we returned to our traditional roots of imprisoning regular citizens who are in debt, instead of coddling them by designing an entire economic system to gradually leech away their earnings and labor over a lifetime and funneling it to the wealthy and powerful.

Now punch yourself in the balls and explain to the class why you're an idiot.


why stop there? Workhouses for the poor!

/Poe's Law isn't an excuse for being gullible and lazy
 
2013-03-21 10:34:13 AM  
Will that include congressmen/woman and senators as well as their staff?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/irs-federal-workers/in de x.html
 
2013-03-21 10:34:29 AM  
it's great if spiteful counter-productive retribution is more important to you than collecting the money owed...I can see why the GOP likes this.

/never ever vote GOP....ever.
 
2013-03-21 10:34:30 AM  

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.


That's easy. They will still be eligible for a lucrative career in the fast food industry, freeing a fry cook to work in government.
 
2013-03-21 10:35:38 AM  
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?
 
2013-03-21 10:36:09 AM  

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
 
2013-03-21 10:36:19 AM  
Well, we've gotta fill those debtors' prisons somehow.
 
2013-03-21 10:38:05 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?


How would firing people who owe money help them pay back their debt? This idea is lightyears away from "doing something".
 
2013-03-21 10:38:29 AM  

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.
 
2013-03-21 10:39:03 AM  

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
 
2013-03-21 10:40:49 AM  

EyeballKid: 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.

[a.abcnews.com image 320x240]
I assume this deadbeat who's yet to pay up on his taxes supports this fullheartedly, and would be happy to explain.


If you told me 5 years ago that that douchebag's face and name would still mean anything in society today, I'd have punched you in the goddamn throat.
And by "you", I mean "him". whaddadoosh.
 
2013-03-21 10:41:31 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".


Taking a shiat in a stairwell is technically "doing something".
This idea isn't quite as productive as shiatting up a stairwell, but it is something.

/The GOP: if it wasn't for bad ideas we wouldn't have any at all.
 
2013-03-21 10:41:57 AM  

manimal2878: Meh.  Kind of makes sense to me.  Your job is funded by taxes, if you aren't paying them too, that's kind of hypocritical.



So, if they are no longer working, they can pay off their debt...how?
 
2013-03-21 10:42:15 AM  

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?
 
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!"
 
2013-03-21 01:17:33 PM  
republicans pass bill to double the size of the IRS?
 
2013-03-21 01:18:06 PM  

Harbinger of the Doomed Rat: 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 paym ...


Wage garnishing is much better if you can get it, but you have to take someone to court to garnish their wages, and then they can appeal, and the entire process can be dragged out, and then when you finally get your settlement, you can only legally garnish some amount not to exceed 4% or whatever. If they owe $25,000 and 4% of their annual salary is only $1500, then you'll never get it back at that rate. So there are situations where a threat of termination would be more appropriate, such as when they owe large amounts (which by the way is exactly the situation discussed in the article).
 
2013-03-21 01:25:34 PM  

cannibalparrot: Yeah, that's great and all, but what if the taxes are legitimate, and the only issue is the taxpayer transposed two numbers 3 years back? Should he be fired?


Do they know about the taxes and are refusing to pay them or address them in any way?  Then fire them.

Have they not yet been put on notice they owe taxes, are making payments, or are contesting the taxes? Then don't fire them.

It'
 
2013-03-21 01:27:19 PM  

Tommy Moo: Harbinger of the Doomed Rat: 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 sim ...


If they don't have the large amount to pay on hand, firing them isn't going to make that money magically appear.
 
2013-03-21 01:28:51 PM  
I don't get why people who are paid by the government have to pay income taxes anyway. There's no revenue gain from taxing people paid by the government because it's the government's money in the first place; public servants are paid from public coffers, and the taxes go back into public coffers. Just reduce their salaries by whatever they would have paid in taxes, and make what's left tax free income.
 
2013-03-21 01:30:36 PM  

Lord_Baull: So, if they are no longer working, they can pay off their debt...how?


Let's see, by getting another job maybe.


I
 
2013-03-21 01:30:40 PM  

Izicata: I don't get why people who are paid by the government have to pay income taxes anyway. There's no revenue gain from taxing people paid by the government because it's the government's money in the first place; public servants are paid from public coffers, and the taxes go back into public coffers. Just reduce their salaries by whatever they would have paid in taxes, and make what's left tax free income.


I suppose it simplifies things to have them pay taxes like private sector employees especially when it comes to calculating taxes owed, deductions, etc.
 
2013-03-21 01:39:30 PM  

Izicata: I don't get why people who are paid by the government have to pay income taxes anyway. There's no revenue gain from taxing people paid by the government because it's the government's money in the first place; public servants are paid from public coffers, and the taxes go back into public coffers. Just reduce their salaries by whatever they would have paid in taxes, and make what's left tax free income.


Could you imagine the whining of the right if that is how we did it?  Government employees don't even pay taxes!!!!  Never mind if you did reduce their salary by the equivalent amount.  That is the best reason never to implement a system like you suggest.
 
2013-03-21 02:06:46 PM  

Tommy Moo: Wage garnishing is much better if you can get it, but you have to take someone to court to garnish their wages, and then they can appeal, and the entire process can be dragged out, and then when you finally get your settlement, you can only legally garnish some amount not to exceed 4% or whatever. If they owe $25,000 and 4% of their annual salary is only $1500, then you'll never get it back at that rate. So there are situations where a threat of termination would be more appropriate, such as when they owe large amounts (which by the way is exactly the situation discussed in the article).


That would be all fine and dandy if this bill had anything whatsoever to do with non-government entities seeking payment from debtors.  This is a bill about government employees who owe money to the government.  The IRS doesn't have to go to court to get people's wages garnished.

That still doesn't change the fact that you are arguing that taking away someone's ability to pay a debt is a viable option for getting them to pay their debt.
 
2013-03-21 02:13:56 PM  
Oh, and the IRS doesn't have the same amount restrictions on wage garnishment, so they can get more than that 4% or whatever it is that other entities are limited to.
 
2013-03-21 02:19:40 PM  

manimal2878: Izicata: I don't get why people who are paid by the government have to pay income taxes anyway. There's no revenue gain from taxing people paid by the government because it's the government's money in the first place; public servants are paid from public coffers, and the taxes go back into public coffers. Just reduce their salaries by whatever they would have paid in taxes, and make what's left tax free income.

Could you imagine the whining of the right if that is how we did it?  Government employees don't even pay taxes!!!!  Never mind if you did reduce their salary by the equivalent amount.  That is the best reason never to implement a system like you suggest.


Man, this just reminds me of good ol' Bevets and his bizarre quote (from a movie, maybe?) that went something like "Look at those people on the ground, they look like dots. If I gave you a million dollars for every dot you stopped, how many could you afford to save? A million dollars. Tax-free, of course, the only way to make money."
 
2013-03-21 02:20:37 PM  

Harbinger of the Doomed Rat: Oh, and the IRS doesn't have the same amount restrictions on wage garnishment, so they can get more than that 4% or whatever it is that other entities are limited to.


Actually, the limit the IRS has when garnishing wages is how much money they have to leave someone after the garnish:

Tables for Figuring Amount Exempt from Levy on Wages, and Other Income (PDF)


For other entities, it varies depending on the type of income and to whom the money is owed:

What is the Maximum Wage Garnishment Amount
 
2013-03-21 02:45:01 PM  

Tommy Moo: Harbinger of the Doomed Rat: 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 paym ...

Wage garnishing is much better if you can get it, but you have to take someone to court to garnish their wages, and then they can appeal, and the entire process can be dragged out, and then when you finally get your settlement, you can only legally garnish some amount not to exceed 4% or whatever. If they owe $25,000 and 4% of their annual salary is only $1500, then you'll never get it back at that rate. So there are situations where a threat of termination would be more appropriate, such as when they owe large amounts (which by the way is exactly the situation discussed in the article).


The IRS doesn't have to take you to court to put a levy on your wages.
 
2013-03-21 02:53:01 PM  
Hey Blue Team fans who seem to think that huge numbers of federal employees owe back taxes without any financial hardship and are refusing to set up a payment plan (the only people the law would apply to), and feel the need to oppose this.  Fark you.
 
2013-03-21 02:57:20 PM  

BMFPitt: Hey Blue Team fans who seem to think that huge numbers of federal employees owe back taxes without any financial hardship and are refusing to set up a payment plan (the only people the law would apply to), and feel the need to oppose this.  Fark you.


What the hell are you on about?
 
2013-03-21 02:58:24 PM  

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.


How many employees would this impact as of 1/1/2013?  What are the staffing costs and technology costs to implement this.  Would the enforcement of this require additional office space to be rented or purchased?  How would that compare to any money saved?
 
2013-03-21 03:01:30 PM  

BMFPitt: Hey Blue Team fans who seem to think that huge numbers of federal employees owe back taxes without any financial hardship and are refusing to set up a payment plan (the only people the law would apply to), and feel the need to oppose this.  Fark you.


Your conditional turned into a straw man.  Nobody is opposing people paying back taxes here.  the opposition by most is firing people who owe back taxes, therefore ensuring that it is more difficult to actually collect the money they owe.

My personal opposition is that I don't think that this makes sense from a cost/benefit perspective and is more "ha-ha fark you" type legislation.  So kill yourself.
 
2013-03-21 03:08:31 PM  

BMFPitt: Hey Blue Team fans who seem to think that huge numbers of federal employees owe back taxes without any financial hardship and are refusing to set up a payment plan (the only people the law would apply to), and feel the need to oppose this.  Fark you.


Let's break this down since some of you seem to have a really hard time with the concepts involved:

The way things are right now
Person A works for the government and owes back taxes.  They're refusing to pay.  The IRS can garnish their wages, thereby guaranteeing payment.

The way things would be under this law
Person A works for the government and owes back taxes.  They're refusing to pay. They get fired.  The IRS can no longer garnish their wages, BECAUSE THEY DON'T FARKING HAVE WAGES ANYMORE, thereby guaranteeing no payment.

If you think the second option is the best course of action, then you are too stupid to live.
 
2013-03-21 03:12:06 PM  

Fluorescent Testicle: BMFPitt: Hey Blue Team fans who seem to think that huge numbers of federal employees owe back taxes without any financial hardship and are refusing to set up a payment plan (the only people the law would apply to), and feel the need to oppose this.  Fark you.

What the hell are you on about?


Look at all the comments that talk about how this would lead to huge numbers of people losing their jobs.  As such they are implying that government employees are Fox News caricatures.  As someone who gets their paycheck from Uncle Sam and actually performs a useful function for market rate pay, I find this horribly insulting and would like them to stop trying to "help."
 
2013-03-21 03:16:44 PM  

BMFPitt:   As someone who gets their paycheck from Uncle Sam and actually performs a useful function for market rate pay, I find this horribly insulting and would like them to stop trying to "help."


I'm from the private sector, and I'm here to help.

What do you mean, I can't go around scaring people like that?
 
2013-03-21 03:18:36 PM  

BMFPitt: Fluorescent Testicle: BMFPitt: Hey Blue Team fans who seem to think that huge numbers of federal employees owe back taxes without any financial hardship and are refusing to set up a payment plan (the only people the law would apply to), and feel the need to oppose this.  Fark you.

What the hell are you on about?

Look at all the comments that talk about how this would lead to huge numbers of people losing their jobs.  As such they are implying that government employees are Fox News caricatures.  As someone who gets their paycheck from Uncle Sam and actually performs a useful function for market rate pay, I find this horribly insulting and would like them to stop trying to "help."


Government Employees Owe Billions in Delinquent Taxes

From that article:

The federal agency with the largest back-tax bill? The US Postal Service, where hundreds of thousands of employees owed a total of more than $283 million, said the report. Also high on the list is the Department of Veterans Affairs, where employees had more than $156 million in back taxes.

So, just the USPS alone would result in the loss of hundreds of thousands of jobs under this bill.
 
2013-03-21 03:19:07 PM  

Harbinger of the Doomed Rat: BMFPitt: Hey Blue Team fans who seem to think that huge numbers of federal employees owe back taxes without any financial hardship and are refusing to set up a payment plan (the only people the law would apply to), and feel the need to oppose this.  Fark you.

Let's break this down since some of you seem to have a really hard time with the concepts involved:

The way things are right now
Person A works for the government and owes back taxes.  They're refusing to pay.  The IRS can garnish their wages, thereby guaranteeing payment.

The way things would be under this law
Person A works for the government and owes back taxes.  They're refusing to pay. They get fired.  The IRS can no longer garnish their wages, BECAUSE THEY DON'T FARKING HAVE WAGES ANYMORE, thereby guaranteeing no payment.

If you think the second option is the best course of action, then you are too stupid to live.


Your theory rests on the assumption that a significant number of federal employees are refusing to pay taxes despite the ability to, would not be further motivated by the threat of losing their job, and those who fit that description are actually productive employees.
 
2013-03-21 03:39:54 PM  

BMFPitt: Harbinger of the Doomed Rat: BMFPitt: Hey Blue Team fans who seem to think that huge numbers of federal employees owe back taxes without any financial hardship and are refusing to set up a payment plan (the only people the law would apply to), and feel the need to oppose this.  Fark you.

Let's break this down since some of you seem to have a really hard time with the concepts involved:

The way things are right now
Person A works for the government and owes back taxes.  They're refusing to pay.  The IRS can garnish their wages, thereby guaranteeing payment.

The way things would be under this law
Person A works for the government and owes back taxes.  They're refusing to pay. They get fired.  The IRS can no longer garnish their wages, BECAUSE THEY DON'T FARKING HAVE WAGES ANYMORE, thereby guaranteeing no payment.

If you think the second option is the best course of action, then you are too stupid to live.

Your theory rests on the assumption that a significant number of federal employees are refusing to pay taxes despite the ability to, would not be further motivated by the threat of losing their job, and those who fit that description are actually productive employees.


Dear god, you still don't get it, do you?


THERE IS NO NEED TO THREATEN PEOPLE WITH TERMINATION WHEN THE IRS CAN SIMPLY TAKE THE MONEY FROM THEM.


There is nothing good about this bill.  It is douchebaggery in legislative form.  It's, "Oh, you're not paying your back taxes?  Well fark you buddy, see how you like not having a job!"

Now, if the bill gave the government the option to fire people for refusal to pay back taxes, you might have an argument.  As it stands though, this bill requires that their employment be terminated.  This bill would not suddenly motivate the hundreds of thousands of government employees who are delinquent on their taxes to start paying, it would put them out of work and make it so they can't pay.
 
2013-03-21 03:41:04 PM  

Teufelaffe: BMFPitt: Fluorescent Testicle: BMFPitt: Hey Blue Team fans who seem to think that huge numbers of federal employees owe back taxes without any financial hardship and are refusing to set up a payment plan (the only people the law would apply to), and feel the need to oppose this.  Fark you.

What the hell are you on about?

Look at all the comments that talk about how this would lead to huge numbers of people losing their jobs.  As such they are implying that government employees are Fox News caricatures.  As someone who gets their paycheck from Uncle Sam and actually performs a useful function for market rate pay, I find this horribly insulting and would like them to stop trying to "help."

Government Employees Owe Billions in Delinquent Taxes

From that article:

The federal agency with the largest back-tax bill? The US Postal Service, where hundreds of thousands of employees owed a total of more than $283 million, said the report. Also high on the list is the Department of Veterans Affairs, where employees had more than $156 million in back taxes.

So, just the USPS alone would result in the loss of hundreds of thousands of jobs under this bill.


According to the study, it's 100k for the entire government who either owe something or who data is missing for.  No information on what tiny fraction of that is just refusing to pay, but I'd guess no more than 10% tops, probably closer to 1%.  And I doubt that anyone who is refusing to pay taxes is a model employee.
 
2013-03-21 03:42:58 PM  

ginandbacon: Because  it's they're retarded?

FTFY

 
2013-03-21 03:45:49 PM  

Harbinger of the Doomed Rat: BMFPitt: Harbinger of the Doomed Rat: BMFPitt: Hey Blue Team fans who seem to think that huge numbers of federal employees owe back taxes without any financial hardship and are refusing to set up a payment plan (the only people the law would apply to), and feel the need to oppose this.  Fark you.

Let's break this down since some of you seem to have a really hard time with the concepts involved:

The way things are right now
Person A works for the government and owes back taxes.  They're refusing to pay.  The IRS can garnish their wages, thereby guaranteeing payment.

The way things would be under this law
Person A works for the government and owes back taxes.  They're refusing to pay. They get fired.  The IRS can no longer garnish their wages, BECAUSE THEY DON'T FARKING HAVE WAGES ANYMORE, thereby guaranteeing no payment.

If you think the second option is the best course of action, then you are too stupid to live.

Your theory rests on the assumption that a significant number of federal employees are refusing to pay taxes despite the ability to, would not be further motivated by the threat of losing their job, and those who fit that description are actually productive employees.

Dear god, you still don't get it, do you?


THERE IS NO NEED TO THREATEN PEOPLE WITH TERMINATION WHEN THE IRS CAN SIMPLY TAKE THE MONEY FROM THEM.

There is nothing good about this bill.  It is douchebaggery in legislative form.  It's, "Oh, you're not paying your back taxes?  Well fark you buddy, see how you like not having a job!"

Now, if the bill gave the government the option to fire people for refusal to pay back taxes, you might have an argument.  As it stands though, this bill requires that their employment be terminated.  This bill would not suddenly motivate the hundreds of thousands of government employees who are delinquent on their taxes to start paying, it would put them out of work and make it so they can't pay.


Please explain why we would want to government to employ those who are refusing to pay taxes despite the ability to.  The bill is certainly just populist fluff, but it is highly effective at its purpose because of people like you who are playing exactly by Red Team's script.
 
2013-03-21 03:47:16 PM  

Harbinger of the Doomed Rat:

THERE IS NO NEED TO THREATEN PEOPLE WITH TERMINATION WHEN THE IRS CAN SIMPLY TAKE THE MONEY FROM THEM.

This bears repeating.
 
2013-03-21 03:48:47 PM  

BMFPitt: Please explain why we would want to government to employ those who are refusing to pay taxes despite the ability to.


Because taking away that ability isn't going to make that money appear in the coffers, and putting a lien on their wages (which the IRS can already do, and without any court intervention whatsoever) will.
 
2013-03-21 03:48:51 PM  

BMFPitt: Teufelaffe: BMFPitt: Fluorescent Testicle: BMFPitt: Hey Blue Team fans who seem to think that huge numbers of federal employees owe back taxes without any financial hardship and are refusing to set up a payment plan (the only people the law would apply to), and feel the need to oppose this.  Fark you.

What the hell are you on about?

Look at all the comments that talk about how this would lead to huge numbers of people losing their jobs.  As such they are implying that government employees are Fox News caricatures.  As someone who gets their paycheck from Uncle Sam and actually performs a useful function for market rate pay, I find this horribly insulting and would like them to stop trying to "help."

Government Employees Owe Billions in Delinquent Taxes

From that article:

The federal agency with the largest back-tax bill? The US Postal Service, where hundreds of thousands of employees owed a total of more than $283 million, said the report. Also high on the list is the Department of Veterans Affairs, where employees had more than $156 million in back taxes.

So, just the USPS alone would result in the loss of hundreds of thousands of jobs under this bill.

According to the study, it's 100k for the entire government who either owe something or who data is missing for.  No information on what tiny fraction of that is just refusing to pay, but I'd guess no more than 10% tops, probably closer to 1%.  And I doubt that anyone who is refusing to pay taxes is a model employee.


And there it is.  This isn't about being fair, or getting people to pay their tax bill, this is about sticking it to people you don't like because they're probably not very good employees.  Not like you, right?  You're better than they are, but this bill will show them!  They won't be so smug when they're out on their ass because they're not paying their taxes, by golly.

You're being petty, and so is this bill.
 
2013-03-21 03:50:15 PM  

HeartBurnKid: BMFPitt: Please explain why we would want to government to employ those who are refusing to pay taxes despite the ability to.

Because taking away that ability isn't going to make that money appear in the coffers, and putting a lien on their wages (which the IRS can already do, and without any court intervention whatsoever) will.


Do you not understand the question or are you avoiding it?
 
2013-03-21 03:51:28 PM  

BMFPitt: HeartBurnKid: BMFPitt: Please explain why we would want to government to employ those who are refusing to pay taxes despite the ability to.

Because taking away that ability isn't going to make that money appear in the coffers, and putting a lien on their wages (which the IRS can already do, and without any court intervention whatsoever) will.

Do you not understand the question or are you avoiding it?


I understand the question, and I answered it.  We want them to remain employed because we want them to pay their bill. If they are employed and making money, we can force them to pay their bill.  If they are not, we can't.  Do you not understand that?
 
2013-03-21 03:55:20 PM  

HeartBurnKid: BMFPitt: HeartBurnKid: BMFPitt: Please explain why we would want to government to employ those who are refusing to pay taxes despite the ability to.

Because taking away that ability isn't going to make that money appear in the coffers, and putting a lien on their wages (which the IRS can already do, and without any court intervention whatsoever) will.

Do you not understand the question or are you avoiding it?

I understand the question, and I answered it.  We want them to remain employed because we want them to pay their bill. If they are employed and making money, we can force them to pay their bill.  If they are not, we can't.  Do you not understand that?


So that's a no, then? See the other guy's response for clues.
 
2013-03-21 03:57:19 PM  

BMFPitt: Please explain why we would want to government to employ those who are refusing to pay taxes despite the ability to.


Because they might be good at their job?  This may come as a shocking surprise to you, but whether or not someone is paying their back taxes is not actually a good metric for determining their suitability for say, delivering mail, or piloting a plane, or filing paperwork, or writing documentation, or any number of tasks that are entirely unrelated to paying debts.
 
2013-03-21 03:57:53 PM  

BMFPitt: HeartBurnKid: BMFPitt: HeartBurnKid: BMFPitt: Please explain why we would want to government to employ those who are refusing to pay taxes despite the ability to.

Because taking away that ability isn't going to make that money appear in the coffers, and putting a lien on their wages (which the IRS can already do, and without any court intervention whatsoever) will.

Do you not understand the question or are you avoiding it?

I understand the question, and I answered it.  We want them to remain employed because we want them to pay their bill. If they are employed and making money, we can force them to pay their bill.  If they are not, we can't.  Do you not understand that?

So that's a no, then? See the other guy's response for clues.


I answered the only part of your post that wasn't based on a generalization or a fabrication, but if you insist, if the guy "isn't a model employee", then fire him for screwing something else up.
 
2013-03-21 04:00:45 PM  

Harbinger of the Doomed Rat: BMFPitt: Please explain why we would want to government to employ those who are refusing to pay taxes despite the ability to.

Because they might be good at their job?  This may come as a shocking surprise to you, but whether or not someone is paying their back taxes is not actually a good metric for determining their suitability for say, delivering mail, or piloting a plane, or filing paperwork, or writing documentation, or any number of tasks that are entirely unrelated to paying debts.


Fun Fact: While it is flagged as a concern, being delinquent on your taxes, in and of itself, will not prevent you from getting a top secret security clearance.  So, yeah, the government isn't going to look at someone who's not paying back taxes and suddenly decide they're a bad employee because of that.
 
2013-03-21 04:22:12 PM  

Tommy Moo: Harbinger of the Doomed Rat: 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 sim ...


So, getting back some of it is worse then getting back none of it?
 
2013-03-21 04:47:01 PM  
If they don't have a job, they won't be able to pay the back taxes.

Who votes for these morons?!
 
2013-03-21 05:05:06 PM  

Harbinger of the Doomed Rat: BMFPitt: Hey Blue Team fans who seem to think that huge numbers of federal employees owe back taxes without any financial hardship and are refusing to set up a payment plan (the only people the law would apply to), and feel the need to oppose this.  Fark you.

Let's break this down since some of you seem to have a really hard time with the concepts involved:

The way things are right now
Person A works for the government and owes back taxes.  They're refusing to pay.  The IRS can garnish their wages, thereby guaranteeing payment.

The way things would be under this law
Person A works for the government and owes back taxes.  They're refusing to pay. They get fired.  The IRS can no longer garnish their wages, BECAUSE THEY DON'T FARKING HAVE WAGES ANYMORE, thereby guaranteeing no payment.

If you think the second option is the best course of action, then you are too stupid to live.


What makes you think we won't replace Person A? With someone who actually pays their taxes. You are acting like Person A is indispensable. Sure we may never recover back taxes from Person A, but who cares we now have Person B working the job that Person A got fired from and Person B pays their taxes. Meanwhile Person A is no longer accruing more debt from not paying their taxes, because they have no income to tax. I say that is a win win.

As for being too stupid to live, well when you have to result to insults and name calling your argument is obviously weak and you have lost.
 
2013-03-21 05:07:42 PM  

HellRaisingHoosier: If they don't have a job, they won't be able to pay the back taxes.

Who votes for these morons?!


sounds like the bill is directed at people who do have a job and still don't pay their taxes
 
2013-03-21 06:19:03 PM  

Slaves2Darkness: Sure we may never recover back taxes from Person A, but who cares we now have Person B working the job that Person A got fired from and Person B pays their taxes. Meanwhile Person A is no longer accruing more debt from not paying their taxes, because they have no income to tax. I say that is a win win.


Um, if it's years of back taxes they can be arrested for tax evasion so there's really no point in this legislation except to be a short-sighted douche.
 
2013-03-21 06:59:51 PM  
This has nothing to do with back-taxes, it has to do withJason Chaffetz's hatred of public employee pensions.

This is what he really thinks: "We pay ourtaxes, painful though they are, and they get to enjoy fantastic privileges at work: medical benefits, lavish secure retirement, and job security, not to mention higher pay than in the private sector for all but the top levels. In return, we expect them do their jobs and to pay their damntaxes, just as we have to in order to survive. "   American Thinker link
 
2013-03-21 07:16:51 PM  

dopirt: This has nothing to do with back-taxes, it has to do withJason Chaffetz's hatred of public employee pensions.

This is what he really thinks: "We pay ourtaxes, painful though they are, and they get to enjoy fantastic privileges at work: medical benefits, lavish secure retirement, and job security, not to mention higher pay than in the private sector for all but the top levels. In return, we expect them do their jobs and to pay their damntaxes, just as we have to in order to survive. "   American Thinker link


You know, it wasn't so long ago that I used to hear people say you went into the private sector for the money, and the public sector for the job security.  If that situation really has flipped, and the people in the public sector are now making more money than the private sector, then perhaps everybody should be giving all those private sector "job creators" the stink-eye, instead of looking for excuses to fire public-sector workers.
 
2013-03-21 07:19:00 PM  
skullkrusher:
sounds like the bill is directed at people who do have a job and still don't pay their taxes

I realize that. And what will happen to their ability to pay bills/debts/loans/taxes when they no longer have a job?
 
2013-03-21 08:53:50 PM  

Slaves2Darkness: Harbinger of the Doomed Rat: BMFPitt: Hey Blue Team fans who seem to think that huge numbers of federal employees owe back taxes without any financial hardship and are refusing to set up a payment plan (the only people the law would apply to), and feel the need to oppose this.  Fark you.

Let's break this down since some of you seem to have a really hard time with the concepts involved:

The way things are right now
Person A works for the government and owes back taxes.  They're refusing to pay.  The IRS can garnish their wages, thereby guaranteeing payment.

The way things would be under this law
Person A works for the government and owes back taxes.  They're refusing to pay. They get fired.  The IRS can no longer garnish their wages, BECAUSE THEY DON'T FARKING HAVE WAGES ANYMORE, thereby guaranteeing no payment.

If you think the second option is the best course of action, then you are too stupid to live.

What makes you think we won't replace Person A? With someone who actually pays their taxes. You are acting like Person A is indispensable. Sure we may never recover back taxes from Person A, but who cares we now have Person B working the job that Person A got fired from and Person B pays their taxes. Meanwhile Person A is no longer accruing more debt from not paying their taxes, because they have no income to tax. I say that is a win win.

As for being too stupid to live, well when you have to result to insults and name calling your argument is obviously weak and you have lost.


If you garnish their wages you can.  If you fire them, you can't.  Not that hard to figure out, Sparky.

But hey, I'm quite sure that firing Person A then spending more money to train Person B will totally make up for Person A's newfound inability to pay their back taxes.  This whole, "let's ignore the option that guarantees us money and go with the option that costs us more money and is a big FU to someone who is in debt*" thing you're cheerleading is a surefire winner!

*No, I am not pitying the people who aren't paying their back taxes.  I'm just pointing out that once again the Republicans have come up with yet another way of punishing people for not conforming to the Republican ideal.  I.e., rich, white, and male.
 
2013-03-21 10:23:11 PM  

I created this alt just for this thread: And there it is.  This isn't about being fair, or getting people to pay their tax bill


"This" as in the bill or my support of it?  The bill is nothing but red meat for the base.  But my reasons are about getting people to pay their taxes, which I would consider to be fair.

this is about sticking it to people you don't like because they're probably not very good employees.

Making them pay their taxes is "sticking it to" them?

Not like you, right?  You're better than they are, but this bill will show them!  They won't be so smug when they're out on their ass because they're not paying their taxes, by golly.

In the highly unlikely event that even a single person would be fired over this, it is because they refused to pay taxes even when it meant losing their job.  Yes, I am better than someone who does that, as are pretty much all taxpayers.  Why do you believe otherwise?

Harbinger of the Doomed Rat: Because they might be good at their job?  This may come as a shocking surprise to you, but whether or not someone is paying their back taxes is not actually a good metric for determining their suitability for say, delivering mail, or piloting a plane, or filing paperwork, or writing documentation, or any number of tasks that are entirely unrelated to paying debts.


This  may come as a shocking surprise to you, but it correlates pretty well.  People who are fark-ups with money tend to be fark-ups in other areas, too.  And when it comes to those who refuse to pay despite the ability to, I'd guess that correlation is even higher.

Teufelaffe: Fun Fact: While it is flagged as a concern, being delinquent on your taxes, in and of itself, will not prevent you from getting a top secret security clearance.  So, yeah, the government isn't going to look at someone who's not paying back taxes and suddenly decide they're a bad employee because of that.


If it were someone who fits the narrow criteria of this bill, I suspect that it would be very difficult to get or maintain a clearance.

HeartBurnKid: You know, it wasn't so long ago that I used to hear people say you went into the private sector for the money, and the public sector for the job security.  If that situation really has flipped, and the people in the public sector are now making more money than the private sector, then perhaps everybody should be giving all those private sector "job creators" the stink-eye, instead of looking for excuses to fire public-sector workers.


Why?  I am more interested in why we are overpaying for labor.  At the low end, we're vastly overpaying.

Harbinger of the Doomed Rat: If you garnish their wages you can.  If you fire them, you can't.  Not that hard to figure out, Sparky.


You can still garnish their wages at their next job if they go out of their way to get fired by refusing to come up with a payment plan.

*No, I am not pitying the people who aren't paying their back taxes.

Yes you are.

I'm just pointing out that once again the Republicans have come up with yet another way of punishing people for not conforming to the Republican ideal.  I.e., rich, white, and male.

I wasn't aware that not paying taxes was exclusively a poor non-white female thing.
 
2013-03-21 10:29:47 PM  

BMFPitt: I created this alt just for this thread: And there it is.  This isn't about being fair, or getting people to pay their tax bill

"This" as in the bill or my support of it?  The bill is nothing but red meat for the base.  But my reasons are about getting people to pay their taxes, which I would consider to be fair.

this is about sticking it to people you don't like because they're probably not very good employees.

Making them pay their taxes is "sticking it to" them?

Not like you, right?  You're better than they are, but this bill will show them!  They won't be so smug when they're out on their ass because they're not paying their taxes, by golly.

In the highly unlikely event that even a single person would be fired over this, it is because they refused to pay taxes even when it meant losing their job.  Yes, I am better than someone who does that, as are pretty much all taxpayers.  Why do you believe otherwise?

Harbinger of the Doomed Rat: Because they might be good at their job?  This may come as a shocking surprise to you, but whether or not someone is paying their back taxes is not actually a good metric for determining their suitability for say, delivering mail, or piloting a plane, or filing paperwork, or writing documentation, or any number of tasks that are entirely unrelated to paying debts.

This  may come as a shocking surprise to you, but it correlates pretty well.  People who are fark-ups with money tend to be fark-ups in other areas, too.  And when it comes to those who refuse to pay despite the ability to, I'd guess that correlation is even higher.

Teufelaffe: Fun Fact: While it is flagged as a concern, being delinquent on your taxes, in and of itself, will not prevent you from getting a top secret security clearance.  So, yeah, the government isn't going to look at someone who's not paying back taxes and suddenly decide they're a bad employee because of that.

If it were someone who fits the narrow criteria of this bill, I suspect that it would b ...


Horry Crab! I hope it doesn't come down to fisticuffs.
 
2013-03-21 10:30:41 PM  

HellRaisingHoosier: skullkrusher:
sounds like the bill is directed at people who do have a job and still don't pay their taxes

I realize that. And what will happen to their ability to pay bills/debts/loans/taxes when they no longer have a job?


They'll keep not paying their taxes I suppose. They didn't pay them when they had money, they'll probably not pay them when they don't. Maybe the threat to the livelihoods of the worst offenders will get them to pay, who knows? I don't really give a flying fark if tax scofflaws get fired for cheating their boss and the rest of us.
 
2013-03-21 10:34:28 PM  

BMFPitt: I wasn't aware that not paying taxes was exclusively a poor non-white female thing.


It seems, maybe I should have highlighted this in my previous.
 
2013-03-21 10:43:15 PM  

BMFPitt: "This" as in the bill or my support of it? The bill is nothing but red meat for the base. But my reasons are about getting people to pay their taxes, which I would consider to be fair.


If your reasons are about getting people to pay their taxes, then supporting this bill is the exact wrong way to go about it.  As I've pointed out numerous times before, the best way to actually collect on that money is to simply put a lein on their wages, not to fire them and make sure they don't have any wages to put a lien on in the first place.

BMFPitt: HeartBurnKid: You know, it wasn't so long ago that I used to hear people say you went into the private sector for the money, and the public sector for the job security. If that situation really has flipped, and the people in the public sector are now making more money than the private sector, then perhaps everybody should be giving all those private sector "job creators" the stink-eye, instead of looking for excuses to fire public-sector workers.

Why? I am more interested in why we are overpaying for labor. At the low end, we're vastly overpaying.


Because the problem is not that we're overpaying; public sector pay hasn't really grown in the intervening time.  It's that we're being underpaid.
 
2013-03-22 12:14:58 AM  

HeartBurnKid: If your reasons are about getting people to pay their taxes, then supporting this bill is the exact wrong way to go about it.  As I've pointed out numerous times before, the best way to actually collect on that money is to simply put a lein on their wages, not to fire them and make sure they don't have any wages to put a lien on in the first place.


As stated multiple times before, I would expect the number of people fired to be near zero.  I have a hard time seeing why you would expect otherwise, or why you think the type of person who would refuse to pay back taxes even if it meant getting fired is someone you want working for you anyway.

Because the problem is not that we're overpaying; public sector pay hasn't really grown in the intervening time.  It's that we're being underpaid.

It's not the check that's terrible (although there are plenty of examples of vastly overpaid people.)  It's the huge cost of benefits that is responsible for the gap.  The total cost for a $30k fed is way higher than a $30k private worker, and it's the same talent pool.

I'm sure as hell not happy with my negative real pay growth over the last 3 years or the fact that I'm going to have a 10% de facto pay cut for the next 6 months, but I'm also not going anywhere which says something.  At least until they start laying people off in October.
 
2013-03-22 12:22:11 AM  

BMFPitt: It's not the check that's terrible (although there are plenty of examples of vastly overpaid people.) It's the huge cost of benefits that is responsible for the gap. The total cost for a $30k fed is way higher than a $30k private worker, and it's the same talent pool.


Race to the bottom hooray!
 
2013-03-22 12:33:07 AM  

BMFPitt: Teufelaffe: Fun Fact: While it is flagged as a concern, being delinquent on your taxes, in and of itself, will not prevent you from getting a top secret security clearance.  So, yeah, the government isn't going to look at someone who's not paying back taxes and suddenly decide they're a bad employee because of that.

If it were someone who fits the narrow criteria of this bill, I suspect that it would be very difficult to get or maintain a clearance.


Nope.  Outstanding debt, including tax delinquency, is really only a concern is so far as it's potential blackmail fodder.  Of course, it's preferred that the person work toward eliminating the debt, but that by itself generally* won't keep someone from getting or keeping a clearance.  I work for a company that does security clearance background investigations for the government, so surprisingly enough, I do actually know what I'm talking about here.

*Obviously, it will also depend on the agency requesting the clearance for the individual and what they need the clearance for.  Someone who's trying to get a job working with ballistic missile guidance systems is going to be more of a concern in the blackmail department than someone who's getting the clearance so they can work in the file room for the Office of Personnel Management.


BMFPitt: As stated multiple times before, I would expect the number of people fired to be near zero.


You do understand that this bill would make it mandatory to fire these people, right?  It's not like it's giving the employers a choice; this bill becomes law and everyone who works for the government and is refusing to pay back taxes is out of a job instantly.  That's what makes this bill such a terrible incentive to get government employees to pay their back taxes, because once it's passed, it would be too late for them.
 
2013-03-22 12:44:46 AM  

BMFPitt: As stated multiple times before, I would expect the number of people fired to be near zero. I have a hard time seeing why you would expect otherwise, or why you think the type of person who would refuse to pay back taxes even if it meant getting fired is someone you want working for you anyway.


And I have a hard time seeing why this bill is necessary in the first place.  The IRS already has all the tools they need to collect back taxes and then some, and this bill would actually make it harder for them to do so, seemingly for no other reason than spite.  And as I said before, if this really isn't "someone you want working for you anyway", then surely you can already find a reason to fire them without having to ram a bill through Congress to establish a new firing offense.

BMFPitt: It's not the check that's terrible (although there are plenty of examples of vastly overpaid people.) It's the huge cost of benefits that is responsible for the gap. The total cost for a $30k fed is way higher than a $30k private worker, and it's the same talent pool.

I'm sure as hell not happy with my negative real pay growth over the last 3 years or the fact that I'm going to have a 10% de facto pay cut for the next 6 months, but I'm also not going anywhere which says something. At least until they start laying people off in October.


So you're not happy with your negative real pay growth or your pay cut, but instead of blaming the people responsible for it, you want to take it out on people who are fighting to get by just like you are.  Makes sense.
 
2013-03-22 12:50:15 AM  

Teufelaffe: You do understand that this bill would make it mandatory to fire these people, right?  It's not like it's giving the employers a choice; this bill becomes law and everyone who works for the government and is refusing to pay back taxes is out of a job instantly.  That's what makes this bill such a terrible incentive to get government employees to pay their back taxes, because once it's passed, it would be too late for them.


No, not really.  They can just decide to set up a payment plan within 15 months and they're all set.

This Act and the amendments made by this Act shall take effect 9 months after the date of enactment of this Act.

Before any such determination is given effect with respect to an individual, the individual shall be afforded 180 days to demonstrate that such individual's debt is one described in subparagraph...

An employee may continue to serve, in a situation involving financial hardship, if the continued service of such employee is in the best interests of the United States, as determined on a case-by-case basis.
 
2013-03-22 12:57:34 AM  

HeartBurnKid: And I have a hard time seeing why this bill is necessary in the first place.


As I have stated multiple times, it isn't.  It is purely political grandstanding.

So you're not happy with your negative real pay growth or your pay cut, but instead of blaming the people responsible for it, you want to take it out on people who are fighting to get by just like you are.  Makes sense.

I blame the people responsible (Congress, and the Presidents, and the people who voted for them.)  But what do I want to take out on who?  My desire to not pay low level employees 2-3 times their market value isn't a punishment.  It's just financial responsibility.  The government's job isn't to keep me or anyone else employed, its job is to provide for various services.  Hiring people is a means to that end.
 
2013-03-22 01:02:23 AM  

BMFPitt: HeartBurnKid: And I have a hard time seeing why this bill is necessary in the first place.

As I have stated multiple times, it isn't.  It is purely political grandstanding.


And yet here you are, arguing for it out of some kind of weird combination of jealousy and generalization.

BMFPitt: I blame the people responsible (Congress, and the Presidents, and the people who voted for them.)  But what do I want to take out on who?  My desire to not pay low level employees 2-3 times their market value isn't a punishment.  It's just financial responsibility.  The government's job isn't to keep me or anyone else employed, its job is to provide for various services.  Hiring people is a means to that end.


You realize that the job isn't going to suddenly cease to need to be done just because you fire the person doing it, don't you?  It just means that someone new will be hired on, and still be getting those cushy government benefits you hate so much.  And that someone will probably be far less experienced and not nearly as good at their job as the person that just got fired for the purpose of, in your words, "pure political grandstanding".
 
2013-03-22 07:42:17 AM  

HeartBurnKid: And yet here you are, arguing for it out of some kind of weird combination of jealousy and generalization.


Jealousy of what?  I'm arguing for it because people should pay their taxes.  This isn't something stupid or arbitrary like a drug law (which can also get you fired from the government.)  It's paying your taxes which pay for the job in question.

You realize that the job isn't going to suddenly cease to need to be done just because you fire the person doing it, don't you?

Assuming it needed to be done in the first place, and assuming that even a single person would actually get fired (which is a big stretch), I feel pretty confident that that person could be easily replaced with a better employee.

It just means that someone new will be hired on, and still be getting those cushy government benefits you hate so much.  And that someone will probably be far less experienced and not nearly as good at their job as the person that just got fired for the purpose of, in your words, "pure political grandstanding".

No, they got fired because they refused to even attempt to pay money owed to their employer, with plenty of time to work out an arrangement to do so, and despite their financial ability to.  It's not really getting fired as much as it is them quitting.
 
2013-03-22 08:37:38 AM  

manimal2878: Makes me think of the Tea Party types that I work with, (I work in a .gov position) they should also be fired or at least have the self awareness to quit.


much as i dislike the teahadists, nobody should EVER fear losing their job due to their political beliefs. (Except politicians)
 
2013-03-22 08:46:47 AM  

Lehk: manimal2878: Makes me think of the Tea Party types that I work with, (I work in a .gov position) they should also be fired or at least have the self awareness to quit.

much as i dislike the teahadists, nobody should EVER fear losing their job due to their political beliefs. (Except politicians)


Even if their political beliefs are a conflict of interest with their job?  Yeah, it's possible for people to do their jobs without being influenced by their politics (or religion), but in my experience they never do.  So, yeah, I'm not going to trust a Christian Scientist who's a doctor to be competent at their job, nor am I going to trust a Tea Partier who works for the government to be anything other than a shiatty worker.
 
2013-03-22 09:03:26 AM  

BMFPitt: I'm arguing for it because people should pay their taxes.


You keep saying this, and yet you keep avoiding the point that this will only make it harder for the IRS to collect those taxes.  Why?
 
2013-03-22 09:10:37 AM  

HeartBurnKid: BMFPitt: I'm arguing for it because people should pay their taxes.

You keep saying this, and yet you keep avoiding the point that this will only make it harder for the IRS to collect those taxes.  Why?


You keep believing that any significant number of people who would continue to refuse to pay their taxes even when it means they would lose their job.  Why?
 
2013-03-22 09:16:13 AM  

BMFPitt: HeartBurnKid: BMFPitt: I'm arguing for it because people should pay their taxes.

You keep saying this, and yet you keep avoiding the point that this will only make it harder for the IRS to collect those taxes.  Why?

You keep believing that any significant number of people who would continue to refuse to pay their taxes even when it means they would lose their job.  Why?


And you avoid the point again.
 
2013-03-22 09:36:03 AM  

HeartBurnKid: BMFPitt: HeartBurnKid: BMFPitt: I'm arguing for it because people should pay their taxes.

You keep saying this, and yet you keep avoiding the point that this will only make it harder for the IRS to collect those taxes.  Why?

You keep believing that any significant number of people who would continue to refuse to pay their taxes even when it means they would lose their job.  Why?

And you avoid the point again.


So now you're just saying "LA LA LA I DON'T HEAR YOU!" because your entire point is based on the premise that people will consciously choose to lose their jobs because they refuse to pay taxes, and I'm calling bullshiat on that premise.
 
2013-03-22 10:59:22 AM  

BMFPitt: HeartBurnKid: BMFPitt: HeartBurnKid: BMFPitt: I'm arguing for it because people should pay their taxes.

You keep saying this, and yet you keep avoiding the point that this will only make it harder for the IRS to collect those taxes.  Why?

You keep believing that any significant number of people who would continue to refuse to pay their taxes even when it means they would lose their job.  Why?

And you avoid the point again.

So now you're just saying "LA LA LA I DON'T HEAR YOU!" because your entire point is based on the premise that people will consciously choose to lose their jobs because they refuse to pay taxes, and I'm calling bullshiat on that premise.


And now you're pulling the Rove tactic of accusing others of exactly what you're doing.  Splendid.
 
2013-03-22 01:55:17 PM  

BMFPitt: HeartBurnKid: BMFPitt: HeartBurnKid: BMFPitt: I'm arguing for it because people should pay their taxes.

You keep saying this, and yet you keep avoiding the point that this will only make it harder for the IRS to collect those taxes.  Why?

You keep believing that any significant number of people who would continue to refuse to pay their taxes even when it means they would lose their job.  Why?

And you avoid the point again.

So now you're just saying "LA LA LA I DON'T HEAR YOU!" because your entire point is based on the premise that people will consciously choose to lose their jobs because they refuse to pay taxes, and I'm calling bullshiat on that premise.


BZZT  Incorrect, sir!

Even if not a single person were to lose their job due to this law, the fact that the bill is specifically designed to take away their ability to pay back taxes makes it a stupid farking law.  There are no two ways about it.  If you craft a law to accomplish a goal, and built into the law is a method that makes it impossible to achieve that goal, you have failed as a lawmaker.  This would be like a video store threatening to no longer accept any form of payment from customers who won't pay their late fees.

The fact that any portion of the GOP thinks this bill is a good idea is a perfect example of what is so utterly farked up about their party these days.  "Hey guys I have a great idea.  It's a bill that defeats its own purpose!"
 
2013-03-22 11:34:03 PM  

HeartBurnKid: And now you're pulling the Rove tactic of accusing others of exactly what you're doing.  Splendid.


You're doing a Bush-like dance where I can't tell if you're as incapable of reading comprehension as you claim to be.

Carlo Spicy-Wiener: Even if not a single person were to lose their job due to this law, the fact that the bill is specifically designed to take away their ability to pay back taxes makes it a stupid farking law.


If not a single person was fired, then how would this law take away anyone's ability to pay?

There are no two ways about it.  If you craft a law to accomplish a goal, and built into the law is a method that makes it impossible to achieve that goal, you have failed as a lawmaker.  This would be like a video store threatening to no longer accept any form of payment from customers who won't pay their late fees.

No, it would be a video store having a policy that if you owe it a bunch of late fees you can't work there.

The fact that any portion of the GOP thinks this bill is a good idea is a perfect example of what is so utterly farked up about their party these days.  "Hey guys I have a great idea.  It's a bill that defeats its own purpose!"

It's adorable that you don't understand the purpose this many posts in.
 
2013-03-23 09:39:32 AM  

BMFPitt: It's adorable that you don't understand the purpose this many posts in.


It's adorable that you're deliberately refusing to understand that a law that is supposedly designed to get people to pay their back taxes has a penalty built in that makes someone unable to pay their back taxes.  This would be like having a law stating that pregnant women who refuse to carry their baby to term are to be executed before they can give birth.

Again, if someone makes a law that has a built in clause that makes the entire purpose of the law moot, they're a shiatty lawmaker.  And if you can make it this far in this thread without understanding the fundamental flaw with this bill, then you're a shiatty thinker.
 
Displayed 217 of 217 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report