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
    More: Unlikely, back taxes, committee opposed, Elijah Cummings, Jason Chaffetz  
•       •       •

1216 clicks; posted to Politics » on 21 Mar 2013 at 8:35 AM (3 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-03-21 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.
 
Displayed 50 of 217 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
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