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

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

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



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-03-22 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 17 of 217 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report