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 41
    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»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Archived thread
2013-03-21 07:41:14 AM  
8 votes:
Cummings said. "It is much, much, much more difficult to recoup the delinquent taxes from someone who is unemployed."

Common sense?
2013-03-21 06:29:19 AM  
8 votes:
Because it's retarded?
2013-03-21 08:45:09 AM  
4 votes:

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 09:22:38 AM  
3 votes:
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 10:56:14 AM  
2 votes:
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 09:21:49 AM  
2 votes:
Just a few steps away from indentured servitude, then the Confederate states can have their cheap labor force back!
2013-03-21 09:21:45 AM  
2 votes:
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 09:02:49 AM  
2 votes:
How are they supposed to pay the back taxes if they don't have a job?
2013-03-21 08:54:11 AM  
2 votes:
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 08:53:42 AM  
2 votes:
Anyone want to bet that members of Congress would be exempt from this?
2013-03-21 10:30:41 PM  
1 votes:

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 01:28:51 PM  
1 votes:
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 11:49:39 AM  
1 votes:
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 11:24:33 AM  
1 votes:
This bill makes as much sense as suspending students from school for truancy.
2013-03-21 11:24:28 AM  
1 votes:

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 11:20:41 AM  
1 votes:

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 11:09:17 AM  
1 votes:

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 11:03:01 AM  
1 votes:
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 11:02:40 AM  
1 votes:
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 11:01:35 AM  
1 votes:

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 10:55:07 AM  
1 votes:
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 10:55:07 AM  
1 votes:
If only there were some regular kind of payment that employees received, from which monies owed could be automatically deducted.
2013-03-21 10:45:59 AM  
1 votes:

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 10:35:38 AM  
1 votes:
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 10:11:51 AM  
1 votes:

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 10:05:59 AM  
1 votes:

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 09:41:48 AM  
1 votes:

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 09:40:18 AM  
1 votes:

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 09:39:04 AM  
1 votes:
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 09:36:07 AM  
1 votes:
I guess owing back child support is okay though?
2013-03-21 09:23:27 AM  
1 votes:
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 09:19:21 AM  
1 votes:
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 09:12:03 AM  
1 votes:

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 09:11:54 AM  
1 votes:
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 09:00:43 AM  
1 votes:

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


FTFY
2013-03-21 08:53:44 AM  
1 votes:
I would be more impresses if it also applied to congress critters.
2013-03-21 08:42:47 AM  
1 votes:
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 08:42:08 AM  
1 votes:
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 07:51:04 AM  
1 votes:
they actually PAY taxes?
2013-03-21 07:42:37 AM  
1 votes:
I thought people who owed taxes got their wages garnished or went to prison?
2013-03-21 07:31:23 AM  
1 votes:
Run out of butthurt cream, subtard?
 
Displayed 41 of 41 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