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.

(Accounting Today)   IRS: What do you want from us, anyway? We only improperly paid out 1 out of every 4 earned income tax credit claims, and that's like a piddling little $11 billion annual ripoff so quit your biatchin'   (accountingtoday.com) divider line 124
    More: Asinine, Earned Income Tax Credit, IRS  
•       •       •

2085 clicks; posted to Politics » on 23 Apr 2013 at 11:06 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread
 
2013-04-23 10:52:50 AM  
There's doubling down and there'shiatting after the pit boss comes up with goons to throw you out of the casino.
 
2013-04-23 11:11:50 AM  
We don't begin to worry until the number hits 11 trillion. Then a crisis is imminent.
 
2013-04-23 11:13:15 AM  
Notably absent - commentary about properly filed EITC claims that are questioned by the IRS and conceded by the taxpayer because they get the shiate scared out of them when dealing with the IRS.

//former agent
 
2013-04-23 11:17:40 AM  
I completely posted in the wrong thread. Crap.
 
2013-04-23 11:19:07 AM  
So, they are biatching about a loss that is equal to the tax subsidies of one Fortune 500 company.


LOL
 
2013-04-23 11:27:55 AM  
Let's just get rid of the oil depletion allowance, and this $11 billion will look like a blip.
 
2013-04-23 11:28:54 AM  

Bloody William: I completely posted in the wrong thread. Crap.


no, it kind of works.
 
2013-04-23 11:30:34 AM  
$11billion?

That's like one week of bring democracy to Afghanistan.
 
2013-04-23 11:31:55 AM  

Alphakronik: So, they are biatching about a loss that is equal to the tax subsidies of one Fortune 500 company.


LOL


Apples/oranges.

I don't like subsidies either, but the companies that got them did so through legal means. Weaselly and slimy means, but perfectly legal. Hate the game, not the player.

And for what its worth, not even the most kucinichy interpretation of the definition of a subsidy gave any Fortune 500 company $11 billion in a year. Three got that much if you measured over three years. It's a good argument for eliminating the whole concept of taxes/tax subsidies for businesses altogether, but that's a different topic than the one here - which is IRS incompetence.

How fast would your business go under if you farked up one out of every four transactions?
 
2013-04-23 11:32:49 AM  

Paul Baumer: Notably absent - commentary about properly filed EITC claims that are questioned by the IRS and conceded by the taxpayer because they get the shiate scared out of them when dealing with the IRS.

//former agent


That doesn't surprise me.  Letters from the IRS can be scary shiat.  I especially like the one I got saying I had failed to file my taxes for 2000 (I had) and that I owed $25,000 (my gross income for that year was ~$27k).  I got it straightened out, but damn if that wasn't the scariest farking letter I've ever read.
 
2013-04-23 11:33:07 AM  
$11 billion would probably fix the air traffic controller mess.   Though the rental car companies would probably complain.
 
2013-04-23 11:33:34 AM  
Oh noes, some poor people accidentally became slightly less poor!
 
2013-04-23 11:36:32 AM  

Lost Thought 00: Oh noes, some poor people accidentally became slightly less poor!


How do we know the money went to poor people? The IRS didn't bother to check.
 
2013-04-23 11:38:10 AM  
TFA: The Internal Revenue Service was not in compliance with all requirements of a 2010 law that increased agency accountability

i.telegraph.co.uk

You were serious about that?
 
2013-04-23 11:38:37 AM  

Gulper Eel: How fast would your business go under if you farked up one out of every four transactions?


Depends. If you were regularly underpaying clients, you'd be out faster than you can say "late fee".

Overpaying the clients, though, could get you a little "traction", if you catch my meaning.

// of course, there are many companies that live off of bullshiat paper foisted on unsuspecting people who pay just to shut them up
// BoA, for one
 
2013-04-23 11:39:06 AM  

Gulper Eel: How fast would your business go under if you farked up one out of every four transactions?


The cable companies seem to do all right.
 
2013-04-23 11:39:54 AM  
As this chart indicates, the IRS takes its mandate to reduce EITC overclaims seriously.
Given the IRS's limited resources, however, the large amount of effort the IRS devotes
to relatively low-yield EITC audits means that the agency is probably collecting less
overall revenue than a strategy of pursuing higher-yield audits would produce.
...
Reports of improper EITC payments may create concern about fraud. As noted earlier,
a refundable feature per se does not account for improper payments. Nor is there any
reason to believe that low income workers are particularly fraudulent.57 Instead, it is
frequently the case that the IRS denies proper claims because of lack of
documentation.58

...
[T]he National Taxpayer Advocate believes that the study overstates the
overclaim rate because it relied exclusively on the outcome of EITC audits. TAS
data suggests that audit outcomes are frequently incorrect and that a significant
number of entitled taxpayers are being denied the credit in error.67


Link
Step 1: Deny 1 in 4 credits in audit
Step 2: Extrapolate denial rate to non-audited accounts
Step 3: Claim 11 billion in erroneous over-payment
 
2013-04-23 11:40:50 AM  
LOL.

And in other news, an Oregon dairy farmer got into trouble when his cattle protested that he milks them too much. The farmer's response: "My bad, so sad, I'll try not to do it again. By the way, you know I own your brown furry asses, right? Just want to make sure you know the score."
 
2013-04-23 11:41:32 AM  

Sergeant Grumbles: Gulper Eel: How fast would your business go under if you farked up one out of every four transactions?

The cable companies seem to do all right.


1/4 transactions is like a perfect week for them
 
2013-04-23 11:43:14 AM  

impaler: Link
Step 1: Deny 1 in 4 credits in audit
Step 2: Extrapolate denial rate to non-audited accounts
Step 3: Claim 11 billion in erroneous over-payment


It's even funnier that massaging the numbers to make the IRS look bad still pales in comparison to the tax breaks and subsidies corporations strong arm and bribe their way into receiving.
 
2013-04-23 11:44:23 AM  

Gulper Eel: Lost Thought 00: Oh noes, some poor people accidentally became slightly less poor!

How do we know the money went to poor people? The IRS didn't bother to check.


Because it's really really easy for the IRS to check that rich people don't claim the credit. Most of the errors are almost certainly on the margins of the credit's limits. And, as mentioned before, this doesn't even check the number of people who should have gotten the credit, but didn't. My guess is that the two roughly cancel each other out, otherwise this would have been noticed sooner by simple bottom-line checks
 
2013-04-23 11:46:44 AM  
Too bad the sequester made us reduce the man hours of the people who would do these audits.
 
2013-04-23 11:52:27 AM  

plewis: Too bad the sequester made us reduce the man hours of the people who would do these audits.


i1123.photobucket.com
 
2013-04-23 11:53:10 AM  

plewis: Too bad the sequester made us reduce the man hours of the people who would do these audits.


It's almost like, for government to function properly, you need to hire workers and pay them to do all the administrative work.... And we wonder why the SEC isn't efficient at catching bad guys.
 
2013-04-23 11:55:02 AM  

Gulper Eel: How fast would your business go under if you farked up one out of every four transactions?


Wait, so the government should be run like a business?

Guess they need to jack the tax rates up significantly. Have to make a profit, you know.
 
2013-04-23 12:02:25 PM  

rufus-t-firefly: Guess they need to jack the tax rates up significantly. Have to make a profit, you know.


An object is  worth what the market can bare.  The market has stated many times that it will not bare higher costs.
 
2013-04-23 12:03:09 PM  
EIC has always been ripe for fraud. Get a married couple with kids, split the kids between the parents as dependents, then each parent claims head of household. Most are smart enough to figure out the best way to do this. The IRS does not verify addresses or residences.

The past couple of years the IRS has put the burden of proof on the preparer i.e. more paperwork proving due dillegence, but that's not going to change anything. Until the IRS can match up social security number to residences the fraud will keep happening.
 
2013-04-23 12:06:24 PM  

Red Shirt Blues: Until the IRS can match up social security number to residences the fraud will keep happening.


But then the UN and the Illuminati will be able to track us down and take away our guns!
 
2013-04-23 12:08:26 PM  

Arkanaut: Red Shirt Blues: Until the IRS can match up social security number to residences the fraud will keep happening.

But then the UN and the Illuminati will be able to track us down and take away our guns!


That's why I am hiding behind seven proxies and have thirteen residences....none in which I live in.
 
2013-04-23 12:14:29 PM  

Red Shirt Blues: EIC has always been ripe for fraud. Get a married couple with kids, split the kids between the parents as dependents, then each parent claims head of household. Most are smart enough to figure out the best way to do this. The IRS does not verify addresses or residences.

The past couple of years the IRS has put the burden of proof on the preparer i.e. more paperwork proving due dillegence, but that's not going to change anything. Until the IRS can match up social security number to residences the fraud will keep happening.


hey why didn't I think of that. turbo tax you have let me down.
 
2013-04-23 12:15:59 PM  

TrollingForColumbine: Most are smart enough to figure out the best way to do this


now I see it.
 
2013-04-23 12:16:17 PM  
The EITC is pure BS.

/CSB = on

I was called to jury duty.  The accused was charge with possession with intent to distribute crack cocaine.  He was a bla man in his mid 20s about 5'5" maybe 130 Lbs.  He had someone file his taxes for him.  He earned about $12000 the previous year working part time.   On his taxes he claimed 2 dependents even thou the children did not live with him nor did he pay child support.  They were of course the children of 2 different women.  He received a check from the IRS for over $8000.  The idiot took the check to an any kind check cashing place who charged him 10% just to cash the check.  He then went and bought an ounce rock of crack.  The police testified that it was still one big rock when they found it.  The accused had NO criminal record.  The police time line was he bout the rock on Wednesday and went to a local club that night and the next.  On Friday he went to a 'friend's' house and smoke some rock with him while his friend's baby momma and 3 children were there.  He then went back to the same club only to return around midnight.  At that time a fight broke out between the friend and the accused.  The friend was 6'6" and over 230LBS.  The friend also had a very long rap sheet with assault and strong arm robbery.  So then we the jury get to listen to the 911 call made by the baby momma during the fight when the big friend beats the accused nearly to death.  Police and ambulances arrive and take the accused to the hospital and during surgery prep they find the crack.  The friend was accused and plead guilty to assault.  He serve a month or 2 in county and was out and gone before the accused even went to trial.  The case was air tight and we convicted him.  I found out later he got 25 years because he had neatly an ounce.  Considering his size and build I expect he was mad someone's biatch in the big house and will likely die of aids before his release.

All this because the government gave him more money than he had ever seen in his life and he had no clue how to handle it.

/CSB = off
 
2013-04-23 12:16:50 PM  
Number of families filing * tax credits available = eleventy billion dollars???

//we must be giving too much credit to the breeders
 
2013-04-23 12:19:37 PM  
Increase accountability standards, cut staff, complain about failure to comply with accountability standards and respond with "Obama jackbooted thugs" to any proposal to hire more tax collection staff.  Is that about right?
 
2013-04-23 12:20:20 PM  

pdee: The EITC is pure BS.

/CSB = on


There are a ton of things wrong with what happened in that story, but the tax refund was by far the least of them
 
2013-04-23 12:29:56 PM  

Saiga410: An object is worth what the market can bare. The market has stated many times that it will not bare higher costs.


It's be pretty funny if the US government started charging corporate America for the annual cost of protecting US interests abroad.
 
2013-04-23 12:34:28 PM  

Paul Baumer: Notably absent - commentary about properly filed EITC claims that are questioned by the IRS and conceded by the taxpayer because they get the shiate scared out of them when dealing with the IRS.

//former agent


This part I understand. The rest sounds all account.
IRS: Good Morning
Me: How Much?
The extent of my interview with them.
 
2013-04-23 12:43:55 PM  

pdee: The EITC is pure BS.

/CSB = on


So the takeaway here is that poor black people should stay poor or they'll just get uppity?
 
2013-04-23 12:49:33 PM  

pdee: He was a bla man in his mid 20s about 5'5" maybe 130 Lbs.


Cool story, Rick. By the way, EITC tops out at about $5,000, so you're fully of shiat.
 
2013-04-23 12:50:30 PM  

Gulper Eel: but the companies that got them did so through legal means


Damn straight.  If those EITC people would just buy their own senators, they could have the law favor them, too!

shiat, all those poor people with PhD's in accounting just ripping off the Gubmint!
 
2013-04-23 12:53:32 PM  

Red Shirt Blues: The IRS does not verify addresses or residences.


That's the farking truth.  In fact, some a-hole filed a tax return using my wife's SSN, creating all kinds of headaches for us, which could have all been avoided if the IRS verified ANY of the information on the return.  It's simply amazing...
 
2013-04-23 12:54:42 PM  
Call me when you find the $9 Billion that was "lost" in Iraq.
 
2013-04-23 01:03:08 PM  

DROxINxTHExWIND: Call me when you find the $9 Billion that was "lost" in Iraq.


How dare you question Halliburton's billing practices!
 
2013-04-23 01:07:09 PM  

RminusQ: pdee: He was a bla man in his mid 20s about 5'5" maybe 130 Lbs.

Cool story, Rick. By the way, EITC tops out at about $5,000, so you're fully of shiat.



EIC does, but that doesn't mean the refund can't be more. He'd also qualify for a Refundable Child Tax Credit for each, that's another $2,000 right there. Add whatever he had withheld, and it definiately could get that high. The baby mommas could send a claim to the IRS for those kids though and they'd be able to claim them and he'd owe the money back, but it's not like someone like that would ever have the money to pay it back.
 
2013-04-23 01:10:46 PM  

Harbinger of the Doomed Rat: So the takeaway here is that poor black people should stay poor or they'll just get uppity?


Maybe for you.
 
2013-04-23 01:19:02 PM  

Dancin_In_Anson: Harbinger of the Doomed Rat: So the takeaway here is that poor black people should stay poor or they'll just get uppity?

Maybe for you.


No, I'm pretty sure that was the underlying message since they made a point to mention their skin color and finished it by saying it was all because they'd gotten more money than they're used to.  Their whole paragraph boils down to, "If you give black people more money, they'll use it to cause trouble."  That may not have been their intention, but it's sure as hell what they said.
 
2013-04-23 01:21:24 PM  

Dancin_In_Anson: Harbinger of the Doomed Rat: So the takeaway here is that poor black people should stay poor or they'll just get uppity?

Maybe for you.


images1.wikia.nocookie.net
 
2013-04-23 01:21:51 PM  

Harbinger of the Doomed Rat: "If you give black people more money, they'll use it to cause trouble."


That's the way you read it. I'd feel the same if the criminals were the color of a babbon's ass.
 
2013-04-23 01:31:29 PM  

Dancin_In_Anson: Harbinger of the Doomed Rat: "If you give black people more money, they'll use it to cause trouble."

That's the way you read it. I'd feel the same if the criminals were the color of a babbon's ass.


Yes, that's way I read it because they made a point of mentioning that the guy is black:

pdee: He was a bla man in his mid 20s


The situation described is farked up, and the color of the guy's skin is irrelevant, but pdee sure seemed to think it was worth mentioning.
 
2013-04-23 01:51:53 PM  

Dancin_In_Anson: Harbinger of the Doomed Rat: "If you give black people more money, they'll use it to cause trouble."

That's the way you read it. I'd feel the same if the criminals were the color of a babbon's ass.


A baboon's ass!?!?! You're CLEARLY a racist that hates Native Americans as much as you hate African Americans! What a crass reference to a racial slur used only by Old West biggots and a certain NFL franchise!

For shame!!!
 
2013-04-23 01:52:22 PM  
I am outraged that an agency stripped of manpower has an increase in the error rate!
 
2013-04-23 01:56:40 PM  
It's only $11 billion. BHFD. The government has trillions to spend.
 
2013-04-23 01:57:15 PM  
This again.  The IRS has repeatedly asked congress to clarify the rules governing the EITC and congress has done nothing.  They produce these reports frequently to press the point.

This whole thing came up 6-8 months ago about EITC going to non-citizens.  Congress needs to fix the law, the IRS can't just change the rules themselves.
 
2013-04-23 01:58:17 PM  
But but but, Iraq!!!

But but but corporations paying less tax because of govt created incentives to improve the economy!!!

How about we concentrate on each issue individually? Just because we wasted money in Iraq doesn't mean we should also waste money giving it away to people claiming EITC. Just because we've had bipartisan passage of bonus depreciation to stimulate spending on new equipment doesn't mean we should also give away money to fraudsters.
 
2013-04-23 01:59:54 PM  

Lost Thought 00: pdee: The EITC is pure BS.

/CSB = on

There are a ton of things wrong with what happened in that story, but the tax refund was by far the least of them


The point is, if we don't keep black people poor, they'll only get into trouble. It's the white man's burden to see to their upkeep, and part of that is making sure they don't get enough of anything to hurt themselves.
 
2013-04-23 02:00:10 PM  

Debeo Summa Credo: But but but, Iraq!!!

But but but corporations paying less tax because of govt created incentives to improve the economy!!!

How about we concentrate on each issue individually? Just because we wasted money in Iraq doesn't mean we should also waste money giving it away to people claiming EITC. Just because we've had bipartisan passage of bonus depreciation to stimulate spending on new equipment doesn't mean we should also give away money to fraudsters.


James!: This again.  The IRS has repeatedly asked congress to clarify the rules governing the EITC and congress has done nothing.  They produce these reports frequently to press the point.

This whole thing came up 6-8 months ago about EITC going to non-citizens.   Congress needs to fix the law, the IRS can't just change the rules themselves.

 
2013-04-23 02:00:28 PM  
So the same people who complain about how the government and the IRS shouldn't be coming after your money are upset that the government and the IRS didn't come after your money enough?
 
2013-04-23 02:01:47 PM  
This is why we need more taxes.
So the government can waste more money.

/this is what liberals actually believe.
 
2013-04-23 02:06:10 PM  

Paul Baumer: Notably absent - commentary about properly filed EITC claims that are questioned by the IRS and conceded by the taxpayer because they get the shiate scared out of them when dealing with the IRS.

//former agent


Why would people be afraid of the IRS? They are kind and helpful people. They are public servants.
 
2013-04-23 02:06:15 PM  

Sergeant Grumbles: impaler: Link
Step 1: Deny 1 in 4 credits in audit
Step 2: Extrapolate denial rate to non-audited accounts
Step 3: Claim 11 billion in erroneous over-payment

It's even funnier that massaging the numbers to make the IRS look bad still pales in comparison to the tax breaks and subsidies corporations strong arm and bribe their way into receiving.


And yet every call to simplify the tax codes is blocked by democrats. The subsidies they give away are honest and needed.
 
2013-04-23 02:06:40 PM  

Alphakronik: So, they are biatching about a loss that is equal to the tax subsidies of one Fortune 500 company.


LOL


So you think that the Fortune 500 companies get $11B in annual subsidies?  That would mean about $5.5 trillion dollars in annual subsidies.  LOL is right.

/this is what liberals actually believe.
 
2013-04-23 02:06:53 PM  

Snarcoleptic_Hoosier: I am outraged that an agency stripped of manpower has an increase in the error rate!


Stripped of manpower? Lolwut.
 
2013-04-23 02:08:34 PM  

tenpoundsofcheese: This is why we need more taxes.
So the government can waste more money.

/this is what liberals actually believe.


Combined government spending levels at 39.8% of GDP last year isn't that much.
 
2013-04-23 02:09:07 PM  

MyRandomName: Sergeant Grumbles: impaler: Link
Step 1: Deny 1 in 4 credits in audit
Step 2: Extrapolate denial rate to non-audited accounts
Step 3: Claim 11 billion in erroneous over-payment

It's even funnier that massaging the numbers to make the IRS look bad still pales in comparison to the tax breaks and subsidies corporations strong arm and bribe their way into receiving.

And yet every call to simplify the tax codes is blocked by democrats. The subsidies they give away are honest and needed.


How would you 'simplify' tax codes in such a way that doesn't cripple the economy or the lower and middle class?

We are a very complex and intricate society. Simple solutions are very inefficient. You're asking for the tax code equivalent of Education's Zero Tolerance policies.
 
2013-04-23 02:14:56 PM  

Jobber8742: RminusQ: pdee: He was a bla man in his mid 20s about 5'5" maybe 130 Lbs.

Cool story, Rick. By the way, EITC tops out at about $5,000, so you're fully of shiat.


EIC does, but that doesn't mean the refund can't be more. He'd also qualify for a Refundable Child Tax Credit for each, that's another $2,000 right there. Add whatever he had withheld, and it definiately could get that high. The baby mommas could send a claim to the IRS for those kids though and they'd be able to claim them and he'd owe the money back, but it's not like someone like that would ever have the money to pay it back.


Yeah, his story might be full of shiat, but not because of numbers. My ex-wife makes ~17k a year and has 6 kids that she can still claim as dependents. She gets ~8k back every single year and has it all spent by March.
 
2013-04-23 02:15:47 PM  

jigger:
Why would people be afraid of the IRS? They are kind and helpful people. They are public servants.

Very much this. My parents underwent an audit a couple of years ago (rules for FASFA eligibility had changed and dad didn't update the records, since he's a joint signer on my loans), and they still say it was extremely easy. The IRS people (even the phone support ones) don't want to fark with you, they just want the money and the forms.

Summercat: How would you 'simplify' tax codes in such a way that doesn't cripple the economy or the lower and middle class?

We are a very complex and intricate society. Simple solutions are very inefficient. You're asking for the tax code equivalent of Education's Zero Tolerance policies.


We could try treating all income, regardless of source, as equal and taxing it the same as ordinary income. That would cut some pages from the tax code, making it "simpler".
 
2013-04-23 02:16:30 PM  
I've never used the Earned Income Tax Credit, but I was always suspicious that was where most of the fraud may be taking place. I still don't know if it really is, but it seems like an obvious place to begin looking for fraud for most people.
 
2013-04-23 02:16:47 PM  

Dancin_In_Anson: Harbinger of the Doomed Rat: "If you give black people more money, they'll use it to cause trouble."

That's the way you read it. I'd feel the same if the criminals were the color of a babbon's ass.


"How is babbon formed?"
 
2013-04-23 02:18:25 PM  

Dafatone: So the same people who complain about how the government and the IRS shouldn't be coming after your money are upset that the government and the IRS didn't come after your money enough?


They're doing it in Wisconsin here.  Calling for the resignation of the UW President..........because he ran a surplus this year.....
 
2013-04-23 02:19:11 PM  
Snarcoleptic_Hoosier:
Summercat: How would you 'simplify' tax codes in such a way that doesn't cripple the economy or the lower and middle class?

We are a very complex and intricate society. Simple solutions are very inefficient. You're asking for the tax code equivalent of Education's Zero Tolerance policies.

We could try treating all income, regardless of source, as equal and taxing it the same as ordinary income. That would cut some pages from the tax code, making it "simpler".


Okay, you got me there. That might do some simplification, indeed.

However, most calls for 'simplifing' the tax code involve cutting out all tax credits and the graduated income tax, and instituting either a flat income tax or doing away with it and imposing consumption taxes.
 
2013-04-23 02:23:36 PM  

Harbinger of the Doomed Rat: Yes, that's way I read it because they made a point of mentioning that the guy is black:


And it's the one thing you focused on whereas I read it and thought "Sounds like a few white trash meth heads in my neck of the woods."
 
2013-04-23 02:24:09 PM  

Snarcoleptic_Hoosier: We could try treating all income, regardless of source, as equal and taxing it the same as ordinary income.


But that would obviously be class warfare against the Job Creators™, and we can't have that.
 
2013-04-23 02:24:32 PM  

pdee: The EITC is pure BS.

/CSB = on

I was called to jury duty.  The accused was charge with possession with intent to distribute crack cocaine.  He was a bla man in his mid 20s about 5'5" maybe 130 Lbs.  He had someone file his taxes for him.  He earned about $12000 the previous year working part time.   On his taxes he claimed 2 dependents even thou the children did not live with him nor did he pay child support.  They were of course the children of 2 different women.  He received a check from the IRS for over $8000.  The idiot took the check to an any kind check cashing place who charged him 10% just to cash the check.


Whoa!  We gotta move our business down to North Calinky. The NJ DOBI maxes us out at 2.21%
 
2013-04-23 02:24:39 PM  

MyRandomName: tenpoundsofcheese: This is why we need more taxes.
So the government can waste more money.

/this is what liberals actually believe.

Combined government spending levels at 39.8% of GDP last year isn't that much.


It is when debt as a percent of GDP is at a level not seen since 1946.  Debt > GDP = not good.
 
2013-04-23 02:25:57 PM  

Dafatone: So the same people who complain about how the government and the IRS shouldn't be coming after your money are upset that the government and the IRS didn't come after your money enough?


No... The same people that complain that upstanding Rich People are paying too much money to the gubmint so we need to make sure poor blah people who happen to be near pay more becuz SOSHULIZM!!!
 
2013-04-23 02:26:03 PM  

Dancin_In_Anson: Harbinger of the Doomed Rat: Yes, that's way I read it because they made a point of mentioning that the guy is black:

And it's the one thing you focused on whereas I read it and thought "Sounds like a few white trash meth heads in my neck of the woods."


Oh FFS, quit being coy and just come right out and accuse them of being racist for noticing racism already.  You know you want to.
 
2013-04-23 02:28:17 PM  

Snarcoleptic_Hoosier: jigger:
Why would people be afraid of the IRS? They are kind and helpful people. They are public servants.

Very much this. My parents underwent an audit a couple of years ago (rules for FASFA eligibility had changed and dad didn't update the records, since he's a joint signer on my loans), and they still say it was extremely easy. The IRS people (even the phone support ones) don't want to fark with you, they just want the money and the forms.

Summercat: How would you 'simplify' tax codes in such a way that doesn't cripple the economy or the lower and middle class?

We are a very complex and intricate society. Simple solutions are very inefficient. You're asking for the tax code equivalent of Education's Zero Tolerance policies.

We could try treating all income, regardless of source, as equal and taxing it the same as ordinary income. That would cut some pages from the tax code, making it "simpler".


I guess we could eliminate corporate income taxes and tax any investment gains as ordinary income taxes, thus eliminating the onerous corporate tax code and treating all income the same.

But I'm surprised you are in favor of that.
 
2013-04-23 02:28:38 PM  

tenpoundsofcheese: It is when debt as a percent of GDP is at a level not seen since 1946. Debt > GDP = not good.


We know that is true because the economists that said it based it on a spreadsheet that wasn't calculating correctly.

But that's ok, because we don't need facts when we have beliefs, amirite?
 
2013-04-23 02:31:20 PM  

maddogdelta: tenpoundsofcheese: It is when debt as a percent of GDP is at a level not seen since 1946. Debt > GDP = not good.

We know that is true because the economists that said it based it on a spreadsheet that wasn't calculating correctly.

But that's ok, because we don't need facts when we have beliefs, amirite?


You do realize that the spreadsheet error doesn't mean more debt isnt detrimental to growth, right?

Just that the 90% debt/GDP inflection point highlighted by Reinhardt rogoff isnt accurate.
 
2013-04-23 02:32:11 PM  

tenpoundsofcheese: MyRandomName: tenpoundsofcheese: This is why we need more taxes.
So the government can waste more money.

/this is what liberals actually believe.

Combined government spending levels at 39.8% of GDP last year isn't that much.

It is when debt as a percent of GDP is at a level not seen since 1946.  Debt > GDP = not good.


Worring about GDP vs Debt during a recession and the immediate recovery is like worrying about exercising and losing weight, or cleaning the house, while you're sick with the flu or a long running illness. You need to relax, and eat the chicken soup, and wait until you're better before you tackle the issues.
 
2013-04-23 02:36:11 PM  

MyRandomName: Combined government spending levels at 39.8% of GDP last year isn't that much.


2012 budget $3.538T
2012 GDP $15,000T

Looks closer to 24%
 
2013-04-23 02:38:57 PM  

CptnSpldng: pdee: The EITC is pure BS.

/CSB = on

I was called to jury duty.  The accused was charge with possession with intent to distribute crack cocaine.  He was a bla man in his mid 20s about 5'5" maybe 130 Lbs.  He had someone file his taxes for him.  He earned about $12000 the previous year working part time.   On his taxes he claimed 2 dependents even thou the children did not live with him nor did he pay child support.  They were of course the children of 2 different women.  He received a check from the IRS for over $8000.  The idiot took the check to an any kind check cashing place who charged him 10% just to cash the check.

Whoa!  We gotta move our business down to North Calinky. The NJ DOBI maxes us out at 2.21%


They showed us the receipt.  The guy paid about $860 to cash a check during business hours in the middle of the week.  He could have taken it to any bank and paid no more than $5 or $10.
 
2013-04-23 02:41:40 PM  

maddogdelta: tenpoundsofcheese: It is when debt as a percent of GDP is at a level not seen since 1946. Debt > GDP = not good.

We know that is true because the economists that said it based it on a spreadsheet that wasn't calculating correctly.

But that's ok, because we don't need facts when we have beliefs, amirite?


that is the wrong context
here is better link
 
2013-04-23 02:41:45 PM  

Debeo Summa Credo: I guess we could eliminate corporate income taxes and tax any investment gains as ordinary income taxes, thus eliminating the onerous corporate tax code and treating all income the same.


Since corporations are legal persons, I guess that moves their "ordinary" tax bracket to 35% marginal.
 
2013-04-23 02:45:18 PM  

pdee: He could have taken it to any bank and paid no more than $5 or $10.


More than 20% of African-Americans and Hispanics do not have a bank account. Link
 
2013-04-23 02:46:19 PM  

impaler: MyRandomName: Combined government spending levels at 39.8% of GDP last year isn't that much.

2012 budget $3.538T
2012 GDP $15,000T

Looks closer to 24%


Combined means all of government spending, not just federal.
 
2013-04-23 02:48:15 PM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: pdee: He could have taken it to any bank and paid no more than $5 or $10.

More than 20% of African-Americans and Hispanics do not have a bank account. Link


fta:   Sabino Fuentes-Sanchez hid $25,000 all around his house because he didn't trust banks.

Stupid people do stupid things.  What is your point?
 
2013-04-23 02:50:47 PM  

impaler: 2012 budget $3.538T
2012 GDP $15,000T

Looks closer to 24%

tenpoundsofcheese: hat is the wrong context
here is better link


soooo... you don't believe the raging socialists at Bloomberg, huh?  And you want me to believe some random graph photoshopped and put on some image hosting site?

As I said, who  (dailyfinance.com) needs (slate.com) facts (guardian.co.uk) when (those raging socialists at IEEE who will have you believe silly things like Ohm's law!) you have (All dem Marxists at the Wall Street Journal... and they point out that it is not just the spreadsheet error that says these twats are full of shiat)  beliefs?

Even when numbers are calculated correctly, building a sample large enough to produce meaningful results means applying the experiences of countries decades ago-when data quality may have been suspect-to very different countries today.

But beliefs are easier, aren't they?  Reality doesn't need to interrupt your rant.  You will be forever unencumbered by the thought process when you have beliefs..
 
2013-04-23 02:50:47 PM  

tenpoundsofcheese: Sabino Fuentes-Sanchez hid $25,000 all around his house because he didn't trust banks.

Stupid people do stupid things.  What is your point?


I wasn't talking about Sabino, I was talking about the person in whoeverpostedit's story. Perhaps he didn't have a bank account. More than 20% of those minority groups don't.
 
2013-04-23 02:50:59 PM  

theorellior: Debeo Summa Credo: I guess we could eliminate corporate income taxes and tax any investment gains as ordinary income taxes, thus eliminating the onerous corporate tax code and treating all income the same.

Since corporations are legal persons, I guess that moves their "ordinary" tax bracket to 35% marginal.


And they no longer get to deduct payroll.
 
2013-04-23 02:51:14 PM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: pdee: He could have taken it to any bank and paid no more than $5 or $10.

More than 20% of African-Americans and Hispanics do not have a bank account. Link


If he had a bank account he would have had to pay nothing.  Any bank will cash a check drawn on the us treasury for a small fee.  Thats the 5 or 10 dollars.
 
2013-04-23 02:53:28 PM  

pdee: If he had a bank account he would have had to pay nothing.  Any bank will cash a check drawn on the us treasury for a small fee.  Thats the 5 or 10 dollars.


Well if we're agreeing he didn't have a bank account, perhaps he was unaware that banks will do that for a fee. Not a stretch.

My point was that the line "he could have just done this" doesn't always apply. Sure it does, to you. But other people have other motivations, backgrounds, and obstacles. Just do something doesn't always apply.
 
2013-04-23 02:56:20 PM  

Debeo Summa Credo: I guess we could eliminate corporate income taxes and tax any investment gains as ordinary income taxes, thus eliminating the onerous corporate tax code and treating all income the same.


Double taxation is a myth and you're still not getting any corporate sex.
 
2013-04-23 02:57:00 PM  

Gulper Eel: I don't like subsidies either, but the companies that got them did so through legal means. Weaselly and slimy means, but perfectly legal. Hate the game, not the player.


When the players create the game, I'm allowed to hate the players, too.
 
2013-04-23 02:57:22 PM  

maddogdelta: (All dem Marxists at the Wall Street Journal... and they point out that it is not just the spreadsheet error that says these twats are full of shiat)


Damn... fark dropped the WSJ link....   The quote is from that article..

However, Dean Baker has an interesting op-ed on the whole situation.
 
2013-04-23 02:58:07 PM  

maddogdelta: Looks closer to 24%
tenpoundsofcheese: hat is the wrong context
here is better link

soooo... you don't believe the raging socialists at Bloomberg, huh? And you want me to believe some random graph photoshopped and put on some image hosting site?


I thought a picture would be easier for you to understand.
Here is the same data from Wiki.

See chart about historic debt levels.

reality, deal with it.
 
2013-04-23 02:59:20 PM  

Lost Thought 00: Oh noes, some poor people accidentally became slightly less poor!


That was my reaction as well, but isn't EITC for poor people? So isn't the problem here is that it's going to slightly richer people?
 
2013-04-23 03:01:47 PM  
A billion here, a billion there.  Pretty soon you are talking about some real money!
 
2013-04-23 03:02:48 PM  

Gunny Walker: Lost Thought 00: Oh noes, some poor people accidentally became slightly less poor!

That was my reaction as well, but isn't EITC for poor people? So isn't the problem here is that it's going to slightly richer people?


More likely poor people without qualifying dependents.
 
2013-04-23 03:12:40 PM  

pdee: They showed us the receipt. The guy paid about $860 to cash a check during business hours in the middle of the week. He could have taken it to any bank and paid no more than $5 or $10.


that is assuming he was in good standing with the banks.
 
2013-04-23 03:20:06 PM  

impaler: Gunny Walker: Lost Thought 00: Oh noes, some poor people accidentally became slightly less poor!

That was my reaction as well, but isn't EITC for poor people? So isn't the problem here is that it's going to slightly richer people?

More likely poor people without qualifying dependents.


Probably, but my point is if you are poor enough, you still qualify. (Even if you don't have kids.) That's why I put "slightly richer" in my post.
$45,060 ($50,270 married filing jointly) with three or more qualifying children
$41,952 ($47,162 married filing jointly) with two qualifying children
$36,920 ($42,130 married filing jointly) with one qualifying child
$13,980 ($19,190 married filing jointly) with no qualifying children
If you make $36,920, you might not be that hard up. (Of course, I'm in TN. YMMV in NYC.)
 
2013-04-23 03:25:25 PM  

Lehk: pdee: They showed us the receipt. The guy paid about $860 to cash a check during business hours in the middle of the week. He could have taken it to any bank and paid no more than $5 or $10.

that is assuming he was in good standing with the banks.


A lot of banks won't cash it - they make you open an account, deposit the check and wait a week before the hold is off the check. They may give you access to $1000 of it in the meanwhile.
 
2013-04-23 03:35:24 PM  

CptnSpldng: Lehk: pdee: They showed us the receipt. The guy paid about $860 to cash a check during business hours in the middle of the week. He could have taken it to any bank and paid no more than $5 or $10.

that is assuming he was in good standing with the banks.

A lot of banks won't cash it - they make you open an account, deposit the check and wait a week before the hold is off the check. They may give you access to $1000 of it in the meanwhile.


WalMart will cash a tax refund check for $3.
 
2013-04-23 03:36:56 PM  

tenpoundsofcheese: This is why we need more taxes.
So the government can waste more money.

/this is what liberals actually believe.



If only we had a budget surplus before the GOP controlled the Whitehouse and both houses of Congress for 6 years!
 
2013-04-23 03:42:42 PM  

Debeo Summa Credo: Snarcoleptic_Hoosier: jigger:
Why would people be afraid of the IRS? They are kind and helpful people. They are public servants.

Very much this. My parents underwent an audit a couple of years ago (rules for FASFA eligibility had changed and dad didn't update the records, since he's a joint signer on my loans), and they still say it was extremely easy. The IRS people (even the phone support ones) don't want to fark with you, they just want the money and the forms.

Summercat: How would you 'simplify' tax codes in such a way that doesn't cripple the economy or the lower and middle class?

We are a very complex and intricate society. Simple solutions are very inefficient. You're asking for the tax code equivalent of Education's Zero Tolerance policies.

We could try treating all income, regardless of source, as equal and taxing it the same as ordinary income. That would cut some pages from the tax code, making it "simpler".

I guess we could eliminate corporate income taxes and tax any investment gains as ordinary income taxes, thus eliminating the onerous corporate tax code and treating all income the same.

But I'm surprised you are in favor of that.


As long as the minimum wage would be raised to an appropriate level and scale with inflation to keep labor at a basic level of subsistence, I would be cool with cutting some business taxes so the costs can be offset rather than allowing companies to pocket the difference.
 
2013-04-23 03:44:53 PM  

Teufelaffe: CptnSpldng: Lehk: pdee: They showed us the receipt. The guy paid about $860 to cash a check during business hours in the middle of the week. He could have taken it to any bank and paid no more than $5 or $10.

that is assuming he was in good standing with the banks.

A lot of banks won't cash it - they make you open an account, deposit the check and wait a week before the hold is off the check. They may give you access to $1000 of it in the meanwhile.

WalMart will cash a tax refund check for $3.


Not in New Jersey.  They have to apply to the DOBI in order to get a license. And there's a couple of their stores that could never get a license as long as an existing licensed check casher is located withing 2500 feet of them. Also, I doubt that they'd want to open up a completely separate set of bank accounts to keep their MSB activities separate from their other activities.

I understand that New York state is just as restrictive.
 
2013-04-23 03:52:14 PM  

Sergeant Grumbles: Debeo Summa Credo: I guess we could eliminate corporate income taxes and tax any investment gains as ordinary income taxes, thus eliminating the onerous corporate tax code and treating all income the same.

Double taxation is a myth and you're still not getting any corporate sex.


A myth? That would imply that anybody who believes in double taxation is an idiot.
 
2013-04-23 03:54:47 PM  

Dr Dreidel: theorellior: Debeo Summa Credo: I guess we could eliminate corporate income taxes and tax any investment gains as ordinary income taxes, thus eliminating the onerous corporate tax code and treating all income the same.

Since corporations are legal persons, I guess that moves their "ordinary" tax bracket to 35% marginal.

And they no longer get to deduct payroll.


Great way to reduce wages. Reduce the tax benefit of paying wages. Brilliant!

Your economic genius always astounds.
 
2013-04-23 04:06:33 PM  

Snarcoleptic_Hoosier: Debeo Summa Credo: Snarcoleptic_Hoosier: jigger:
Why would people be afraid of the IRS? They are kind and helpful people. They are public servants.

Very much this. My parents underwent an audit a couple of years ago (rules for FASFA eligibility had changed and dad didn't update the records, since he's a joint signer on my loans), and they still say it was extremely easy. The IRS people (even the phone support ones) don't want to fark with you, they just want the money and the forms.

Summercat: How would you 'simplify' tax codes in such a way that doesn't cripple the economy or the lower and middle class?

We are a very complex and intricate society. Simple solutions are very inefficient. You're asking for the tax code equivalent of Education's Zero Tolerance policies.

We could try treating all income, regardless of source, as equal and taxing it the same as ordinary income. That would cut some pages from the tax code, making it "simpler".

I guess we could eliminate corporate income taxes and tax any investment gains as ordinary income taxes, thus eliminating the onerous corporate tax code and treating all income the same.

But I'm surprised you are in favor of that.

As long as the minimum wage would be raised to an appropriate level and scale with inflation to keep labor at a basic level of subsistence, I would be cool with cutting some business taxes so the costs can be offset rather than allowing companies to pocket the difference.


I'm not even in favor of cutting taxes. I'd be in favor of a more efficient taxation of business income (reducing tax preferences in corporate code, greatly reducing corp rate, but making it revenue neutral by raising rate on dividends and cap gains), however my main point in entering these threads is to correct people who think investors are getting a great deal. They aren't.
 
2013-04-23 04:38:45 PM  

tenpoundsofcheese: reality, deal with it.


The chart ends in 2010. After that it is an estimate.  So your "this is a guess based on my belief" is reality?

Let's talk about this....

You do realize that economics as applied to very large entities, like countries, isn't exactly the same as economics applied to individuals, right? And being simpleminded and saying "debt... bad ....always... forever"  has no weight when you try to apply it to reality, right?

Hell, that "debt bad always forever" doesn't even work for individuals.  You can have a debt of $250k with an income of $60k and it will be considered a reasonable situation. lots of people do this, it's called buying a house.

Governments can print money... I know, you don't like that, but it's really a straightforward idea.  Gold has no more real, intrinsic value than paper.  Just because there's less gold than paper doesn't make it more valuable.  We only value it because it's pretty.

Currencies assume value in proportion to how much they can purchase in goods and services.  Central governments will try to provide enough money so that goods and services can be fairly traded.  If there is too little currency, then each unit of currency will be horribly overvalued, and economies will suffer because there will not be enough money in circulation to do basic things buy sell and invest.

If, on the other hand, there is too much money in supply, then the currency will become nearly worthless as a currency.

Currently, under all of this austerity bullshiat that you believe in, we have policies of "don't spend money, don't print money, do everything you can to make bankers even richer"  which is what is really hurting growth.

In a low growth economy, money needs to be in high enough supply so banks can lend it, people can get it and spend it.  If businesses don't spend, and consumers aren't spending, the government has to prime the pump with its own spending.

BTW, have you noticed that repubes are very Keynsian when it comes to military spending, but non keynsian when it comes to other government spending?
 
2013-04-23 05:00:08 PM  

Debeo Summa Credo: Dr Dreidel: theorellior: Debeo Summa Credo: I guess we could eliminate corporate income taxes and tax any investment gains as ordinary income taxes, thus eliminating the onerous corporate tax code and treating all income the same.

Since corporations are legal persons, I guess that moves their "ordinary" tax bracket to 35% marginal.

And they no longer get to deduct payroll.

Great way to reduce wages. Reduce the tax benefit of paying wages. Brilliant!

Your economic genius always astounds.


I wasn't assigning a valence (I actually assumed this would be bad), just pointing out that doing away with corporate tax law and counting all money in as income means businesses don't get to deduct payroll.
 
2013-04-23 06:22:19 PM  

Dr Dreidel: Debeo Summa Credo: Dr Dreidel: theorellior: Debeo Summa Credo: I guess we could eliminate corporate income taxes and tax any investment gains as ordinary income taxes, thus eliminating the onerous corporate tax code and treating all income the same.

Since corporations are legal persons, I guess that moves their "ordinary" tax bracket to 35% marginal.

And they no longer get to deduct payroll.

Great way to reduce wages. Reduce the tax benefit of paying wages. Brilliant!

Your economic genius always astounds.

I wasn't assigning a valence (I actually assumed this would be bad), just pointing out that doing away with corporate tax law and counting all money in as income means businesses don't get to deduct payroll.


Okay, not sure of the relevance but I apologize. Thought you were were suggesting keeping the tax at 35% AND don't deduct payroll.
 
2013-04-23 06:33:47 PM  

maddogdelta: tenpoundsofcheese: reality, deal with it.

The chart ends in 2010. After that it is an estimate.  So your "this is a guess based on my belief" is reality?

Let's talk about this....

You do realize that economics as applied to very large entities, like countries, isn't exactly the same as economics applied to individuals, right? And being simpleminded and saying "debt... bad ....always... forever"  has no weight when you try to apply it to reality, right?

Hell, that "debt bad always forever" doesn't even work for individuals.  You can have a debt of $250k with an income of $60k and it will be considered a reasonable situation. lots of people do this, it's called buying a house.

Governments can print money... I know, you don't like that, but it's really a straightforward idea.  Gold has no more real, intrinsic value than paper.  Just because there's less gold than paper doesn't make it more valuable.  We only value it because it's pretty.

Currencies assume value in proportion to how much they can purchase in goods and services.  Central governments will try to provide enough money so that goods and services can be fairly traded.  If there is too little currency, then each unit of currency will be horribly overvalued, and economies will suffer because there will not be enough money in circulation to do basic things buy sell and invest.

If, on the other hand, there is too much money in supply, then the currency will become nearly worthless as a currency.

Currently, under all of this austerity bullshiat that you believe in, we have policies of "don't spend money, don't print money, do everything you can to make bankers even richer"  which is what is really hurting growth.

In a low growth economy, money needs to be in high enough supply so banks can lend it, people can get it and spend it.  If businesses don't spend, and consumers aren't spending, the government has to prime the pump with its own spending.

BTW, have you noticed that repubes are very Keynsian when ...


You are very, very funny.
+1 for the funny.
/please post again, I enjoyed the laugh.
Favorited.
 
2013-04-23 09:26:39 PM  
maddogdelta:

Hell, that "debt bad always forever" doesn't even work for individuals. You can have a debt of $250k with an income of $60k and it will be considered a reasonable situation. lots of people do this, it's called buying a house.

That really is the stupidest argument people use on fark.

You do realize that that debt is secured by the underlying asset, the house.
You can walk away from that debt, pay some fines, have a hit on your credit rating, but that is not really a lasting debt and you can keep earning your $60k/year.

If we default on $16T in debt, what is that secured by (besides the full faith, blah, blah, IOUs of the US)?
And when we default, and the economy goes belly up, what will that do to your ability to keep collecting the revenue taxes that you are used to collecting?

The correct analogy is that you have $60k in income, $70k in living costs and $250k in student loan debt.
 
2013-04-23 09:30:21 PM  
As a CPA, I welcome Accounting Today to Fark and hope to see more this most informative and humorous journal.

Reminds of that scene in Look Who's Talking where Grandpa (retired CPA) was reading the Journal of Accountacy and laughing his ass off.
 
2013-04-23 09:49:43 PM  

tenpoundsofcheese: That really is the stupidest argument people use on fark.

You do realize that that debt is secured by the underlying asset, the house.
You can walk away from that debt, pay some fines, have a hit on your credit rating, but that is not really a lasting debt and you can keep earning your $60k/year.


And US debt is held mostly by US citizens.


tenpoundsofcheese: If we default on $16T in debt, what is that secured by (besides the full faith, blah, blah, IOUs of the US)?
And when we default, and the economy goes belly up, what will that do to your ability to keep collecting the revenue taxes that you are used to collecting?


Keep that in mind the next time the MAJORITY party in the house holds up raising the "allow the Treasury to borrow what the house already contracted it to pay out" limit (better known by the misnomer 'debt limit').

Because that's the only way we can default.
 
2013-04-23 10:20:45 PM  

impaler: tenpoundsofcheese: That really is the stupidest argument people use on fark.

You do realize that that debt is secured by the underlying asset, the house.
You can walk away from that debt, pay some fines, have a hit on your credit rating, but that is not really a lasting debt and you can keep earning your $60k/year.

And US debt is held mostly by US citizens.


tenpoundsofcheese: If we default on $16T in debt, what is that secured by (besides the full faith, blah, blah, IOUs of the US)?
And when we default, and the economy goes belly up, what will that do to your ability to keep collecting the revenue taxes that you are used to collecting?

Keep that in mind the next time the MAJORITY party in the house holds up raising the "allow the Treasury to borrow what the house already contracted it to pay out" limit (better known by the misnomer 'debt limit').

Because that's the only way we can default.


He's right that the student loan debt scenario is a much better analogy than the stupid home mortgage.

You are right about the debt ceiling and default, but the reason we can't actually default is because we can print our own money. And just printing money to pay down debt isn't exactly a good outcome either.
 
2013-04-23 11:11:30 PM  

pdee: All this because the government gave him more money than he had ever seen in his life and he had no clue how to handle it.


What I got out of that screed is maybe we shouldn't give money to Oil Companies or Monsanto anymore.
 
2013-04-24 01:43:06 AM  

TrollingForColumbine: TrollingForColumbine: Most are smart enough to figure out the best way to do this

now I see it.


Who did you think you were logged in as?
 
2013-04-24 07:35:39 AM  

tenpoundsofcheese: If we default on $16T in debt, what is that secured by (besides the full faith, blah, blah, IOUs of the US)?
And when we default, and the economy goes belly up, what will that do to your ability to keep collecting the revenue taxes that you are used to collecting?


You really don't know shiat about economics, do you.  I admitted my analogy has holes and your analogy has just as many holes, yet you believe (BELIEVE!!! IT MAKES IT ALL REAL)  that yours is perfect.

Debeo Summa Credo: You are right about the debt ceiling and default, but the reason we can't actually default is because we can print our own money. And just printing money to pay down debt isn't exactly a good outcome either.


Item one.
However, we need to print money, otherwise there would be none.  And barter isn't good for any society that as varied sources of wealth as we do.  The gold standard is only one step above barter, and a great way (outside of teaching creationism as science) to send us back into the dark ages.

impaler: Keep that in mind the next time the MAJORITY party in the house holds up raising the "allow the Treasury to borrow what the house already contracted it to pay out" limit (better known by the misnomer 'debt limit').

Because that's the only way we can default.


this is the real case...the only way a sovereign nation can default on its debt.


And to think... this whole subthread started, and continues, because some people BELIEVE their right wing talking points, and hope that those will become real because they BELIEVE so hard.
 
2013-04-24 07:40:06 AM  

I created this alt just for this thread: Oh FFS, quit being coy and just come right out and accuse them of being racist for noticing racism already. You know you want to.


This is obviously not necessary.
 
2013-04-24 08:52:01 AM  

maddogdelta: tenpoundsofcheese: If we default on $16T in debt, what is that secured by (besides the full faith, blah, blah, IOUs of the US)?
And when we default, and the economy goes belly up, what will that do to your ability to keep collecting the revenue taxes that you are used to collecting?

You really don't know shiat about economics, do you.  I admitted my analogy has holes and your analogy has just as many holes, yet you believe (BELIEVE!!! IT MAKES IT ALL REAL)  that yours is perfect.

Debeo Summa Credo: You are right about the debt ceiling and default, but the reason we can't actually default is because we can print our own money. And just printing money to pay down debt isn't exactly a good outcome either.

Item one.
However, we need to print money, otherwise there would be none.  And barter isn't good for any society that as varied sources of wealth as we do.  The gold standard is only one step above barter, and a great way (outside of teaching creationism as science) to send us back into the dark ages.

impaler: Keep that in mind the next time the MAJORITY party in the house holds up raising the "allow the Treasury to borrow what the house already contracted it to pay out" limit (better known by the misnomer 'debt limit').

Because that's the only way we can default.

this is the real case...the only way a sovereign nation can default on its debt.


And to think... this whole subthread started, and continues, because some people BELIEVE their right wing talking points, and hope that those will become real because they BELIEVE so hard.


You do understand that I'm not advocating barter, right? Just pointing out that printing money to cover debts incurred by a sovereign nation is not a benign solution. Inflating your way out of debt isn't much better than defaulting.
 
2013-04-24 03:20:19 PM  

I created this alt just for this thread: Dancin_In_Anson: Harbinger of the Doomed Rat: Yes, that's way I read it because they made a point of mentioning that the guy is black:

And it's the one thing you focused on whereas I read it and thought "Sounds like a few white trash meth heads in my neck of the woods."

Oh FFS, quit being coy and just come right out and accuse them of being racist for noticing racism already.  You know you want to.


I'm surprised we didn't get a full-on racial slur there.

The Internet Never Forgets
 
2013-04-24 04:35:49 PM  

LibertyHiller: The Internet Never Forgets


What in God's name are you babbling about?
 
Displayed 124 of 124 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