Taxes

IRS Employee: "Now More Than Ever My Job Has Become One of Ridicule and Despise"

|

this IRS eagle has become one of ridicule and despise

There's a nice listicle up at The Atlantic: "What People Don't Get About My Job."

Most of the entries offer genuinely illuminating peeks into the lives and work of other people—Graphic Designer: "The vast majority of designers make ugly things for incompetent people." Video Producer: "Video is not fast. Video is slooooooooooooooooooow."—but the entry for IRS Employee is dishearteningly predictable:

I have the job to be in between you and the most intimate part of your life: your money.  With a tax code that can stretch around the world three times, can anyone really be 100% certain they are in compliance when they get a letter from me? With the populist anti-tax fervor among the nation, now more than ever my job has become one of ridicule and despise. 

What people don't understand about my job is that chances are you are not the person I'm examining. I examine doctors who expense three Cadillacs, insurance brokers who claim jet skis for business use only, and real estate agents who haven't paid taxes in eight years. The public doesn't realize that tax auditors are the only people between a balanced effective tax rate among all social classes and the bourgeoisie stealing what isn't bolted down. Don't kid yourself; these people are stealing from you. This money helps pay for schools, roads and with any luck can keep mortgage interest deduction alive for a few more years….

So if you're one of those "Joe the Plumber" people who take time out of work to throw teabags at me on my way into the office in the morning: You are the middle class! I'm helping you!

I'm not sure what to hate the most: The terrible grammar? The factually-dubious claim about the Earth-encircling properties of the tax code? The inappropriate use of the word bourgeoisie? The apparently unselfconscious invocation of the "I'm from the government and I'm here to help" cliche?

Go ahead commenters, choose your own favorite line!

Via Radley Balko.

NEXT: Arianna Huffington's 9/13 Spirit

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Tar and feathers for you, fuckstick.

    1. Low-hanging fruit
      or
      Fish in a barrel?

      1. Thief in the stocks.

      2. Shit through a goose.

  2. The public doesn’t realize that tax auditors are the only people between a balanced effective tax rate among all social classes and the bourgeoisie stealing what isn’t bolted down.

    Stealing? I don’t think that word means what you think it does.

    This money helps pay for schools, roads and with any luck can keep mortgage interest deduction alive for a few more years….

    And if you let me keep my money, I could pay for these things that I use myself. I know, what a novel concept.

    You are the middle class! I’m helping you!

    We don’t need your help.

    1. Since when is it stealing to spend your own money on luxury goods for yourself?

      1. All money is the government’s. They decide how much of it you get to keep.

        1. It’s about time you figured this out! Now why don’t you join the adults at the table and help us make these agencies more effective.

          1. Tony has achieved Turing status…I can’t tell if it’s a spoof.

            1. Wrong – It’s a failed Turing experiment.

              Failed because it doesn’t learn – without the ability to ingest information and utilize it coherently, it cannot approximate human intelligence.

    2. Speaking of words not meaning what (s)he thinks, the term “bourgeoisie” in Marxism refers to the middle class (who the author purports to be on the side of), not the rich. Sounds like the author has a bit of false consciousness going on.

      1. Hey Tulpa. I saw you puttering around the uni today in yer little red truck.

        Two questions:

        Where can I find me some of them huge pictures of dead babies?

        What is a ‘sodomy abortion’?

        1. Are you a cop?

          Are you a cop?!

          ARE YOU A COP?!!!!

          1. Man, everybody knows that if I was I’d have to tell you, it’s like entrapment or something if I don’t. Dude. Man.

            I thought maybe you saw the crazy protesters on Forbes today. There was a guy in a little red truck with HUGE pictures of dead babies on it, below one it said SODOMY ABORTION. I’ve never saw those words juxtapose before.

            1. Well, according to the legal definition of sodomy, I suppose if one of those vacuum deals achieved penetration…

            2. I assume Sodomy Abortion is some variant of coitus interruptus.

      2. Actually the term has been used to mean several different groups by Marxists and non-Marxists, and one of them is equivalent to “rich people” so they guy is not wrong.

        “The term bourgeoisie has been widely used as an approximate equivalent of upper class under capitalism. ”

        “Marxism defines the bourgeoisie as the social class that owns the means of production in a capitalist society.”

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bourgeoisie

        1. At first I thought you were responding to me; answering my second question. That woulda been funny.

          1. Nah, responding to Tulpa, but now that you’ve mentioned sodomy abortion what else is there to say?

        2. Just because the term is used to refer to “people with money that I don’t like” doesn’t make that the proper usage, any more than it’s correct to call a person to the right of you who you don’t like a Nazi.

          1. And what, pray tell, is the “proper usage?” Language is functional, when people commonly use a word as X and people understand it to mean X, guess what it means?

            Did you say X? Because that is the answer.

            Hell, even JC gets it below.

            1. So if your kid says “nukyular” you’re not going to correct him or her, because everyone understands what (s)he means? Or if they say “I readed the book”?

            2. Of course I shouldn’t be surprised at your position — your fringe of the political spectrum depends fundamentally on redefining words to mean something completely different.

      3. the term “bourgeoisie” in Marxism refers to the middle class

        Sort of but not really.

        Back in the day when there was a “Real” upper class ie lords and ladies and kings and shit the middle class was the producing class, the smiths, the carpenters, the masons, the traders etc.

        That nomenclature has changed though. the Bourgeoisie, ie the production class, are now the upper class and the low skilled working class is now called the middle class.

        1. The term literally means “town people”, not the productive class. The drift of meaning hasn’t been anywhere near that logical.

          It has essentially come to mean “someone with money who I don’t like” among the chattering classes.

        2. Back in the day, working was something peasants did.

        3. Ugh.

          Bourgeoisie means people that live off other people’s labor and don’t work.

          Warren Buffett is Bourgeoisie. A plumber, OTOH, is proletariat.

          A plumber who owns a small plumbing company that employs workers but also works himself is Petite Bourgeoisie.

          In short, if people work for you, your Bourgeoisie. If you work for somebody else, you’re proletariat. This is why Max Weber criticized Marxist class structure on the grounds that according to his logic, CEOs of fortune 500 companies would be considered proletariat.

          The idea is that if you profit off somebody else’s labor you’re exploiting them, because they think the value of any product is the labor that goes into it. The flaw in all this is that even Warren Buffet works (once you consider his intellectual labor). But Marxists have all kinds of confusion over the connection between labor and value.


      4. the term “bourgeoisie” in Marxism refers to the middle class
        ~ Tulpa

        The above wrong as well. And now, is truth.

        bourgeoisie is French for “town dweller, townfolk, townie, freeman who lives in the city.” The Germans say burgher.

        It is said in contrast to the rural peasant of France who owed servitude in farming to a landholder.

        Marx suffered from horrible understanding of French life and worse, French.

  3. How am I supposed to reply to this article now that my keyboard is covered in vomit?

    1. Buy a new one and claim the old one as a write off!

      1. ….and a couple of Jet Skis!

  4. Don’t kid yourself; these people are stealing from you.

    No, they’re stealing from you, which is just fine.

    1. Its basically a Mafia protection money collector trying to get a “customer” riled up about another guy who didn’t pay them. “That guy didn’t pay so I’m going to take it from you. Don’t you hate that guy now?”

      1. Its basically a Mafia protection money collector trying to get a “customer” riled up about another guy who didn’t pay them. “That guy didn’t pay so I’m going to take it from you. Don’t you hate that guy now?”

        “Damn shame if somethin’ were to happen to your store, say like a fire or somethin’.”

  5. Before I click on the link, it the “listicle” all on one page, or do I have to click through page after page to get all the job descriptions?

    Because I’m not doing the latter and helping them in a shameless attempt to inflate their page views and ad revenue.

    1. It’s a total of 3 pages.

  6. … now more than ever my job has become one of ridicule and despise.

    Good.

    1. … now more than ever my job has become one of ridicule and despise

      It’s a good thing that the ability to compose a coherent sentence isn’t a requirement to work for the IRS (or government in general). That would stop the growth of public sector employment in its fucking tracks!

    2. Despisement? Despision? I can see how she had a problem with that one. But to choose the wrongest possible answer? Unforgivable.

      1. “Contempt” would have been a good choice.

      2. How about: “now, more than ever, my job is ridiculed and despised.”

        Yes, it is still passive, but at least it is simple present tense (and grammatically correct).

      3. Despisatation?

  7. Assuming there are 70000 pages in the income tax code, they would stretch for about 12 miles if you laid them end to end. If you printed the tax code out on some ticker tape, assuming each word took on average 1 inch to print and that there were 7 million words in the tax code, it would stretch for around 110 miles. Note that I have absolutely no idea how long the tax code is or how many words it has.

    Also this IRS guy can go to hell.

    1. It would have taken you less time to google the answer than to calculate those fake analogies (word doesn’t seem correct, what is the correct term?).

      Also this IRS guy can go to hell.

      1. I did google. But I couldn’t get a consistent answer so I made one up that was in the ballpark of the others. If you don’t believe me, try to look up those numbers yourself.

    2. It’s also a fact that if they pulled out all of the uinals from every bus station mens room in America and laid them end to end, you wouldn’t want to be there when the did it.

  8. The public doesn’t realize that tax auditors are the only people between a balanced effective tax rate among all social classes and the bourgeoisie stealing what isn’t bolted down.

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

    1. Always clever, that.
      A+!

    2. Obviously they’re not doing a good job because effective taxes are still progressive.

  9. I could feel sympathy for him if he kept it to him being a good guy who is doing his best in a crappy job, but then he writes this:

    “With a tax code that can stretch around the world three times, can anyone really be 100% certain they are in compliance when they get a letter from me? With the populist anti-tax fervor among the nation, now more than ever my job has become one of ridicule and despise.

    What people don’t understand about my job is that chances are you are not the person I’m examining.”

    I could most likely nail you for something if I looked closely, but don’t worry, I probably won’t audit you! Why are running away? Damn populist anti-tax fervor!

    1. What’s even more stupid about that is that it’s bullshit.

      I’m a sixteen-year IT guy who recently finished law school and was admitted to the bar but can’t find a law job. My wife wife runs, part-time, a jewelrymaking business that operates at a loss most years. We have no real assets aside from our cars, and we’re resigned to renting the rest of our lives because we can’t afford to buy into the ludicrous California real estate market even on our mid-career Silicon Valley salaries. Neither of us has ever come remotely close to hitting it big in the IPO lottery.

      So I’m by no stretch of the imagination of a kind with “doctors who expense three Cadillacs, insurance brokers who claim jet skis for business use only, and real estate agents who haven’t paid taxes in eight years.” And yet I’ve been audited three times in the last decade alone.

      If telling himself that he’s standing between basic social justice and rich people stealing everything that’s not bolted down is how this shitheel gets through the day without killing himself, hey, fine, whatever. But out here in the real world he’s another boil on the ass of humanity begging to be lanced.

    2. It’s really very simple. He’s doing God’s work by robbing Peter to pay Paul, and being opposed to taxes in any form is so unreasonable as to be undeserving of more than a handwave as “fervor.”

  10. and with any luck can keep mortgage interest deduction alive for a few more years….

    “I don’t hafta unnerstand the laws, Mister. I’m just here ta make sure youse is obeyin’ ’em.”

  11. Just one more comment on this article:

    How do you think this guy feels about the Tea Party?

    1. I don’t know; how do the violent robot separatists of Chapek 9 feel about humanoid aliens?

      1. They’re not fans.

  12. As usual, the engineer is the only one with any goddamned perspective.

    1. I love the librarian. “This job requires a Masters degree for a reason.”

      She then proceeds to not explain at all why the job requires a Masters.

      1. It’s a Masters in Obfuscation And Misdirection.

        1. According to the comments, they are able to resurrect dead books that would otherwise be lost forev…I mean, have to be replaced at wholesale prices paid for by the person who damaged them. And the usual trope about poor communities that desperately cling to their free internet connections provided only by the grace and skill of their 6 years’ postsecondary education; the gist is that librarians must be worshipped and compensated heavily for their noble and selfless service.

          1. If you haven’t figured out the Dewey Decimal System after 6 years, you may have one chromosome too many or too few.

          2. I actually just went on a hunt online to try to find why librarians need masters degrees. The best answers I found were:

            1. Librarians need management skills because they run the library in the same way a shopkeeper runs a business.
            2. Librarians need to sort books about possibly unfamiliar subjects intelligently into the library’s cataloging system.

            For #1 I’m wondering how many small business owners even have masters degrees. Or how much a masters degree would help you when starting and running a business.

            For #2 I’d expect a clerk with a GED to be able to accomplish.

      2. I’ve never seen a librarian doing anything that couldn’t be done by an entry-level sales clerk at Barnes and Noble.

        Or a nursery school teaching assistant.

        1. Yeah, I briefly went to library school, because I’m super into books and shit. And I couldn’t believe how fucking retarded the program and everyone in it were (and this was a “good” program). It was basically a bunch of former English or education majors who wanted to have storytime with kids for the rest of their lives. And thought you needed a Masters for that.

    2. The engineer was a good one.

      The construction worker is going to need a boat lest he drowns in his river of tears.

      Fashion model: shut up, nobody fucking cares. You do coke and have your picture taken, does that need twenty fucking paragraphs.

      Tax guy ruined it for me, I couldn’t even bring myself to click through after that.

  13. federally-funded schools are the reason why they suck.

    also does he realize thqt his iob is illegal, with the 18th amendment being unratified and all?

    1. PLEASE don’t start that 18th amendment ratification bullshit!

      You sound just like the fuck heads who claim Bush stole the election or Obama wasn’t born here!

      1. Unless Kenya is the 51st state – no he wasn’t born here.

        I also don’t believe in the Moon landing either.

        1. We have pics of your moon!

      2. I don’t care if he’s actually Sarah Palin’s grandson and was born in a shack in Bumfuck, Alaska. He still sucks.

        1. Granted, but accurately identifying why he suck is critical!

    2. Isn’t that the amendment for Prohibition?

    3. Are you drunk?

  14. This money helps pay for schools, roads and with any luck can keep mortgage interest deduction alive for a few more years…

    Yes, because those three things are the only things that the federal government spends money on.

    1. Unfortunately, my kids do not attend a Federal school and I don’t live on a Federal road. (Not that I would want to do either) Thanks anyhow.

  15. The public doesn’t realize that tax auditors are the only people between a balanced effective tax rate among all social classes and the bourgeoisie stealing what isn’t bolted down.

    DELICIOUS.

  16. the bourgeoisie stealing what isn’t bolted down.

    Note to self: Sell bolts to government.

    1. Note to self: Sell boltcutters to the bourgeoisie.

      1. Do both, double you money.

        1. Note to self: Sell boltcutters to everyone.

          1. Sell welders to government?

            1. Note to self: Sell laser torches to citizens.

              1. Feed mayonnaise to the tuna.

                1. Brilliant!

                2. This is Chuck telling Bill to SHUT UP….shut up….shut up! Chuck telling Bill to SHUT UP.

  17. You are the middle class! I’m helping you!

    So, doctors, insurance agents, and real estate brokers aren’t middle class?

    Sorry, bub, you gave the game away with your class-warfare “bourgeoisie”. I hope you cry yourself to sleep every night.

  18. With a tax code that can stretch around the world three times…

    That hyperbole seems to mean to express how ridiculously complex the United States Tax Code is. I’m not sure why we have a problem with anyone pointing that out.

    1. Insert the word “practically” and maybe it’s hyperbole. As written, it’s just untrue.

      At least that’s my problem with the comment.

      1. Its true if the font is 20 feet tall, and the character spacing is 800%. Or something.

      2. There are some things you can recognize as hyperbole without inserting the word “practically.” Anyway, his general complaint about the utterly needless length and complexity of the tax code was the area where I did sympathize with him. However, he lost my sympathy when he launched into his class warfare rant.

  19. I am an elementary art teacher. I teach 450 kids each week in 45 minute sessions. I am not only a teacher, but a security officer, tutor, mentor, and counselor.

    Can someone please tell me the substantive differences between a teacher and a tutor, and a mentor and a counselor. Isn’t there something like 90% overlap in these separate “roles”?

    Libraries offer so much more than moldy old books. There’s also music, movies, TV shows, video games, and electronic databases that span a whole galaxy of scholarly and practical information unavailable to any level of googling.

    Yes, it’s really hard to find those things online (plus most libraries have shit for scholarly databases).

    What people don’t understand about my job is that chances are you are not the person I’m examining. I examine doctors who expense three Cadillacs, insurance brokers who claim jet skis for business use only, and real estate agents who haven’t paid taxes in eight years. The public doesn’t realize that tax auditors are the only people between a balanced effective tax rate among all social classes and the bourgeoisie stealing what isn’t bolted down. …

    You are the middle class! I’m helping you!

    Doctors, insurance brokers and real estate agents are often in the middle class, as are the “bourgeoisie.”

    Thus far, only the engineer has managed to come across without an inflated sense of self-importance. (And he’s actually right to say that most people are mathematically and scientifically illiterate, unlike others who claim people just could not possibly do their job.)

    1. There’s also the inconvenient fact that if you can’t find something via googling, it’s almost certainly going to be a real pain in the ass to find it through the library too.

      1. One of the comments captured it perfectly:

        I always hear, “Don’t you even know what a great resource a librarian is?” And no, I don’t. Neither does anyone else. Smart people are good at finding ways to learn things.

        For me, most librarians stock the shelves, check out my books and periodically assist with microfilm. If I need help finding something, I’m pretty sure my Google-fu can match any librarian’s, as does my ability to figure out in which section related books are. Smart people, those who get the most out of library, are the ones most capable of figuring things out and thus not needing a master’s degree holder.

        1. I’ve gotten better help from a clerk at a bookstore than most librarians. Its not a requirement to be a librarian that you’re good at knowing where stuff is apparently.

    2. tutor-One that gives additional, special, or remedial instruction

      mentor-an advisor

      teacher-A person who teaches, esp. in a school

      Dude, have you not heard of this website called google? Just type the word you are interested in followed by the word definition.

      1. substantive – of substantial quantity

        I was comparing tutor and teacher, then mentor and counselor. I am aware that these words, like all words, mean different things (even couch and sofa describe different objects). But they are so tightly related that they’re meaningless.

        It would be one thing to say that what people don’t realize about, say, a professor’s job is the amount of time he spends sitting alone doing research or trying to sell his ideas to skeptical foundations with grant money, while most only see the lectures and figure the TAs grade the exams. It’s quite another to say that not only do I teach, I also do additional teaching. Not only do I counsel, I advise.

        Shouldn’t they be teaching — or tutoring — people to avoid redundancy?

        1. I think what they were getting at is they work as a teacher, instructing a group of kids at a school, as well as a mentor (informally advising and encouraging some of those same kids) and a tutor (individually giving remedial help to some).

          1. “I not only cook fries. I also flip burgers. And then, there is filling up the drinks for the drive through window.”

            Fast food workers have a more diverse skill set than “elementary art teachers”, they also are much humbler, and they actually contribute to society and earn their pay without robbing the rest of us.

            1. Personally I prefer when they don’t “contribute” to my meal.

  20. “This money helps pay for schools, roads and with any luck can keep mortgage interest deduction alive for a few more years….”

    Indeed. Let’s address those in order: The schools and roads both are crumbling and it’s not for lack of funds, it’s because they are politicized. Consider if the IRS were to start auditing, well, itself for starters! Then, have them audit school boards and construction offices…

    Next… and this is hilarious, the precious homeowner mortgage deduction. Congrats folks! If you blow twice as much money on a house as the sticker price, you get a good 10% of that cash back! You’re a WINNER! I prefer to just pay for most of the house in cash and then get rid of the mortgage as soon as possible. OH, wait, housing is overpriced due to speculation and government interest rates fixes. I’ll hold off for a while before buying, thanks!

  21. I examine doctors who expense three Cadillacs, insurance brokers who claim jet skis for business use only, and real estate agents who haven’t paid taxes in eight years….
    This money helps pay for schools, roads and with any luck can keep mortgage interest deduction alive for a few more years….

    You know who benefits most from the mortgage interest deduction? Upper middle class and lower upper middle class professionals like doctors, lawyers, insurance brokers, real estate agents, and the bourgeoisie.

    The mortgage interest deduction is one of the things in the tax code tilted more towards “the rich,” (and especially that part of the rich that doesn’t consider itself rich) than most anything else.

    1. “You know who benefits most from the mortgage interest deduction?”

      People with mortgages?

      What do I win?

      1. I have a mortgage. My interest on the mortgage is always close but not enough to make it worth it for me to claim the interest deduction through an itemized account along with other deductions, thus I’ve never claimed the interest.

        What do I win?

      2. Nothing.

        Sellers of houses and their agents benefit the most because of market distortion.

        Tax deductions don’t change anyone’s budget. They just mean that sellers can get more for a house, because the buyer can pay a larger payment for the house. The same house.

        1. You mean being able to deduct your mortage on your taxes doesn’t benefit the person paying the mortgage?

          Wow.

          1. Not if it means that the price you paid for the house is higher.

            Also not if it’s still not worth it for you to itemize.

            Some people benefit, since not everyone itemizes.

            On average, it helps the wealthy.

            1. No. The “wealthy” people making decent salaries, hit the AMT and their deductions are phased out.

              The mortgage deduction is meaningless to high salary earners.

              1. It’s not meaningless, because most of those people would pay a higher normal tax than their assessment under the AMT calculation if not for the mortgage interest deduction.

      3. People with mortgages large enough and with enough other possible deductions that itemizing is worth it. Those people are overwhelmingly richer than the average taxpayer.

        The mortgage interest deduction is way more skewed towards the wealthy.

          1. If the mortgage interest deduction didn’t exist, then most of those people would pay a normal income tax amount higher than what’s calculated under the AMT.

      4. Tax Policy Center on “Who Itemizes”

        More taxpayers claim the standard deduction than itemize: Tax Policy Center estimates that about 70 percent of taxpayers will claim the standard deduction on their 2010 tax returns.
        Taxpayers in higher tax brackets are more likely to itemize than those in lower brackets (see table). Just 3.9 percent of taxpayers in the 0 percent bracket and 16.2 percent of taxpayers in the 10 percent bracket itemize. In sharp contrast, 70.9 percent of taxpayers in the 33 percent bracket and 89.4 percent of taxpayers in the 35 percent bracket itemize.

        IRS dude is for the wealthy.

    2. Does it matter that the car is a Cadillac? If doctors travel or are allowed to call a car a combined expense then it dosen’t matter what kind of car they drive. PLUS smaller Cadillacs can be cheaper than a comparable Chevrolet or Buick depending on the model and options.

  22. D is for Dad
    “Being a stay-at-home Dad is like unemployment.”

    Does he know that his wife is banging her boss while he’s at home changing diapers, or should we tell him? Maybe he gets off on it.

    1. Maybe he gets off on it.

      The cuckoldry or the diapers? Wait, you know what, never mind. I don’t want to know.

  23. …my job has become one of ridicule and despise.

    Why do I keep visualizing an organ grinder’s monkey?

    1. He might be STEVE SMITH, dude.

      STEVE SMITH NO NEED TALK GOOD! STEVE SMITH RAPE RIDICULE AND DESPISE!

    2. At least I find the monkey entertaining!

  24. This money helps pay for schools, roads and with any luck can keep mortgage interest deduction alive for a few more years my salary, benefits, and pension….

    Now we have some perspective on this little rant.

  25. The entry for Fascist Security Enforcement Officer was similarly biased when he made the claim that he wasn’t “appreciated for the hard work I perform ensuring you follow the rules and do exactly what you’re told. Everybody looks at me like I’m bullying them, but what you don’t realize is that if I wasn’t there to tell you what to do then you’d be raping and pillaging in the streets.”

  26. I actually agree with the author about tax cheats costing the rest of us money. Revenue shortfalls lead to more borrowing which ultimately will be borne by future taxpayers (and not future tax cheats).

    Of course (s)he forgets to note that:

    1. Several of those tax cheats are politicians, and the IRS doesn’t lay a hand on them, and

    2. If we should be upset about tax cheats’ underpaying of their taxes by a few hundred thousand dollars, how much more so should we be upset about politicians who waste billions of dollars?

    1. “Several of those tax cheats are politicians, and the IRS doesn’t lay a hand on them, and”

      Randall Harold Cunningham (born December 8, 1941), usually known as Randy or Duke, is United States Navy veteran and former Republican member of the United States House of Representatives from California’s 50th Congressional District from 1991 to 2005.

      Cunningham resigned from the House on November 28, 2005, after pleading guilty to accepting at least $2.4 million in bribes and under-reporting his income for 2004. He pleaded guilty to federal charges of conspiracy to commit bribery, mail fraud, wire fraud and tax evasion. On March 3, 2006, he received a sentence of eight years and four months in prison and an order to pay $1.8 million in restitution.[1]

      1. So he made $600k in pure bribes and probably gets an 8 year sentence to free, if mandatory boarding. Nice!

        1. Yeah Lost, I’m sure if you were sentenced to prison you’d go “yay, free boarding for eight years!”

          Probably also “free sodomy too!”

          The point is Tulpa’s claim is demonstrably false; many pols have gone away on tax evasion charges.

          1. The point is Tulpa’s claim is demonstrably false; many pols have gone away on tax evasion charges.

            Or they become members of Obama’s Cabinet.

            1. And are put in charge of the IRS…

      2. That wasn’t just tax evasion. Tax evasion was the least of the crimes he was put away for.

        On January 30, 2009, it was reported that Daschle’s friendship and business partnership with businessman Leo Hindery could cause problems for Daschle’s Senate confirmation. Daschle has been a paid consultant and advisor to Hindery’s InterMedia Partners since 2005, during which time he received from Hindery access to a limousine and chauffeur. Daschle reportedly did not declare this service on his annual tax forms as required by law. A spokeswoman for Daschle said that he “simply and probably naively” considered the use of the car and driver “a generous offer” from Hindery, “a longtime friend”. Daschle told the Senate Finance Committee that in June 2008?just as he was letting the press know he would like to be HHS secretary in an Obama administration — that “something made him think that the car service might be taxable” and he began seeking to remedy the situation.

        Daschle reportedly also did not pay taxes on an additional $83,333 that he earned as a consultant to InterMedia Partners in 2007; this was discovered by Senator Daschle’s accountant in December 2008. According to ABC News, Daschle also took tax deductions for $14,963 in donations that he made between 2005 and 2007 to charitable organizations that did not meet the requirements for being tax deductible.

        The former Senator paid the three years of owed taxes and interest?an amount totaling $140,167?in January 2009, but still reportedly owed “Medicare taxes equal to 2.9 percent” of the value of the car service he received, amounting to “thousands of dollars in additional unpaid taxes”.

        Rangel was accused of failing to report income from his rental of a beachside villa he owns in Punta Cana in the Dominican Republic. A three-bedroom, three-bath unit, it has rented out for as much as $1,100 per night in the busiest tourist season.

        Labor lawyer Theodore Kheel, a principal investor in the resort development company and frequent campaign contributor to Rangel, had encouraged him to purchase the villa. Rangel purchased it in 1988 for $82,750. He financed $53,737.50 of the purchase price for seven years at an interest rate of 10.5%, but was one of several early investors whose interest payments were waived in 1990.

        In September 2008, Rangel’s attorney, Lanny Davis, disclosed that Rangel had failed to report on his tax returns or in congressional disclosure forms $75,000 in income he had received for renting his Dominican villa. That month, Rangel paid $10,800 to cover his liability for the related back taxes. He had owed back taxes for at least three years. The Ways and Means Committee writes the U.S. tax code, and as such his failure to pay taxes himself led to heavy criticism.

        […]

        On September 15, 2008, it was disclosed that: a) Rangel had omitted from his financial reports details regarding his sale of a Washington, DC home; b) discrepancies existed in the values he listed for a property he owns in Sunny Isles, Florida (varying from $50,000 to $500,000); and c) inconsistencies appeared in his investment fund reporting. He apologized, saying “I owed my colleagues and the public adherence to a higher standard of care, not only as a member of Congress, but even more as the chair of the House Ways and Means Committee.” Republicans called for his removal as chair. Rangel said there was no justification for that, as the mistakes were errors of omission, that would not justify loss of his position.

        In August 2009, Rangel amended his 2007 financial disclosure form to report more than $500,000 in previously unreported assets and income. That doubled his reported net worth. Unreported assets included a federal credit union checking account of between $250,000 and $500,000, several investment accounts, stock in Yum! Brands and PepsiCo, and property in Glassboro, New Jersey. Rangel also had not paid property taxes on two of his New Jersey properties, which he was required by law to do.

        The ethics issues led by December 2008 to some loss of standing for Rangel, to Republicans trying to tie him to all Democrats, and to some Democrats privately saying it would be best if Rangel stepped down from his Ways and Means post.[128] In late 2008 and again in September 2009, the government watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington named Rangel one of the 15 most corrupt members of Congress. Media pieces compared Rangel’s woes with those of ethically challenged past Ways and Means chairs Wilbur Mills and Dan Rostenkowski. Pelosi, a long-time friend of Rangel’s, withheld any possible action against Rangel pending the House Ethics Committee report. Rangel evinced impatience with that body, saying “I don’t have a complaint now, except that it’s taking too goddamn long to review this thing and report back.” On September 3, 2009, The Washington Post called on Rangel to resign his chairmanship of the House Ways and Means Committee, given the ethical issues that had surfaced. Another Republican resolution was put forth to force him out of his chairmanship. However, Rangel stayed in place and mostly maintained his role in House leadership and policy discussions, including the Obama health care reform plan (opposition to which, he suggested, was partly due to racial prejudice against President Obama).

        Neither of these guys is in jail next to Wesley Snipes.

        1. You mean some people who may have broke the tax laws were not prosecuted? Say it ain’t so! That happens all over the place. The point is you said pols are not prosecuted for breaking the tax laws, you were wrong. Duke’s not the only one who saw time for such, you know about google, use it.

          1. Interestingly, since you are attempting to be a jerkface, I never wrote what you are implying that I wrote. I didn’t say that every politician gets away with it, only several.

            And the Cunningham example is piss-poor anyway, as tax evasion was the most minor charge he was sent to prison for.

      3. Cunningham was a Republican – the law applied to him.

  27. I is for IRS Employee
    “You are the middle class! I’m helping you!”

    I am not middle class, but homeless.
    I could be in a country with a 60% to 70% tax rate and do better than I have under the state and federal tax collectors of this country.

    “Ridicule and despise” doesn’t even come close to the contempt I have for you IRS agents. 5 felony attacks of federal buildings (Portland OR & Seattle WA) and it should be clear to the US gov’t that I’d much rather be in jail than to suffer under the IRS/Treasury Dept.

    In the mid 1980’s I got slapped-up with 6 paper audits in one year. I got run into the ground as an employee when I was an employer, run into the ground as an employer when I was an employee. The IRS was even hitting self-employed with audits and fines for rounding down on $0.50 (rounding off on nearest dollar). That was under the administration of the Tax-Tinkerer-From-Hell, Ronald Reagan, who brought us the absolute most chicken-shit and treacherous tax collectors possible. After Reagan’s term, immigration OUT of the U.S. was my main reason for working.

    Throughout my lifetime, the gov’t bean-counters have routinely insisted on counting my beans before I make the beans.

    With the current national debt, it looks to me like the US government is counting everyone’s beans now, and long before they’re even made.

  28. My favorite line? The ineffably snotty “I’m not sure what to hate the most.”

  29. Sorry, I’m going to defend this guy. It’s pretty clear that a fair reading of this could be paraphrased as “If you are in the middle and lower classes you benefit from taxes more than they cost you, when those who pay a big chunk of those taxes evade their taxes this negatively impacts you, my job is to stop that, therefore don’t be mad at me.”

    1. That’s not a defense, that’s a rationalization.

      1. How so? It’s a fair reading of the paragraph sans the IRS or taxation=teh THEFT!!!! hate.

        It’s plain that is what he is getting at: taxes benefit you; the rich try to avoid paying them; I go after that; ergo I’m on your side.

        1. I’m not saying he’s right btw, his entire argument rests on that critical first premise (that the average person gets more out of taxation than they have to put in). I actually imagine the line where that cut off occurs is different than what he imagines it to be, but this roughly what he is arguing.

          1. Bullshit. If he were honest, he’d say: ‘I am a total schmuck and i’m doing it because it’s a job. Don’t a lot of you out there do the same.’ And even though that’s kind of a lame excuse for what goes on, at least he’d not be overstating his importance. Not so long ago Matt Damon insisted that teachers teach because they love teaching and that money is not an issue. Bullshit.

    2. you benefit from taxes more than they cost you

      Now shutup and get back to your Walmart sponsored tractor pull while the rest of us smart people figure out how to spend your money!

      1. Lord you are stupid. He’s saying that the average joe gets back (in government services) more than he pays in doofus. That’s a totally different argument.

        1. Except he’s still a doofus, because the one thing he chose to call out as worth protecting is the mortgage interest deduction, which the poor don’t get. It overwhelmingly goes to the upper middle and lower upper class. It’s very tilted towards the wealthy.

          1. So you keep saying. We deduct our mortgage interest and we are not wealthy.

            Your argument with figures above goes like this: the mortgage deduction is something you get by itemizing, wealthy people itemize more, therefore the mortgage deduction helps wealthy people.

            Dude, you can’t see the flaw in that reasoning?

            1. It’s like saying:

              Student loans help people who correctly fill out the paperwork; wealthy people are more likely to fill out the paperwork; therefore student loans help wealthy people.

              1. In statements of probability, he is correct. I do not see the “density” of saying this.

            2. We deduct our mortgage interest and we are not wealthy.

              False consciousness!

            3. Rather like the flaw in the reasoning that because people with high incomes use government services more they must pay taxes at a higher rate?

          2. I say again, make a big salary and your deductions are phased out by the AMT.

            Try it. Make 200k a year in a high tax state like NJ, then try to deduct your mortgage. Most of it magically disappears when you put it in Turbo Tax or give it to your Accountant.

            1. You are absolutely correct. Interest deduction helps people who buy homes that they can’t possibly afford. AMT sets a deduction ceiling. Maybe just another contributor to overinflated home prices that created a certain bubble that burst?

        2. He’s saying that the average joe gets back (in government services) more than he pays in doofus.

          So now he’s the judge of what said average joe “gets back” in “government services” than what he pays in?

          Do you not realize how amazingly condescending and presumptious both of you sound? Probably not because both of you consider “government services” to be some holy artifact that without which our entire society would crumble.

          Fuck both of you and the horses you rode in on.

          1. Great Mohammed you are dense.

            First, I don’t necessarily agree with his premise, I’m just explaining it for dunces like yourself.

            Second, it is plain that government provides some things that otherwise you’d have to pay for in some way, he’s simply making the claim that for many people the worth of those services is greater than what they pay in.

            Third, what’s funny about is this is that conservatives and paleos like yourself actually acknowledge this fact when you bitch about all those people that barely pay taxes parasitically benefiting off the ‘stolen’ wealth of the few mighty producers.

            1. Sorry, I’m going to defend this guy.

              -followed later by

              First, I don’t necessarily agree with his premise, I’m just explaining it for dunces like yourself.

              Classic Mingey.

              it is plain that government provides some things that otherwise you’d have to pay for in some way, he’s simply making the claim that for many people the worth of those services is greater than what they pay in.

              Yes, and he has no fucking clue what he’s talking about. For instance, I’m paying for Social Security and at the current rate I would rather burn the money in a fire pit because then I could at least USE IT for something. It may be true that some people get services from the government that they don’t pay an equal amount for, but who the fuck is he (or you for that matter) to assume that this applies universally to all lower income groups?

              Third, what’s funny about is this is that conservatives and paleos like yourself actually acknowledge this fact when you bitch about all those people that barely pay taxes parasitically benefiting off the ‘stolen’ wealth of the few mighty producers.

              And to complete the trifecta you add a straw man to finish off your terrible arguments. Vintage Mingey!

              1. Ah, ah, ah, Tgirl, let’s not selectively quote!

                “Sorry, I’m going to defend this guy. It’s pretty clear that a fair reading of this could be paraphrased as”

                As the second part indicates what I’m defending is the mischaracterization of his argument. Not the same as saying his argument is correct. I know, one of those many subtle nuances that escapes the right wing mind…

                “It may be true that some people get services from the government that they don’t pay an equal amount for, but who the fuck is he (or you for that matter) to assume that this applies universally to all lower income groups?”

                Not all people are fundamentalists like your and your right-wing ilk my friend, people can generalize without things having to be universally and absolutely true. You actually admit all he needs right here: ” It may be true that some people get services from the government that they don’t pay an equal amount for”

                And then you top off the cherry of your sloppy sundae with this:

                “who the fuck is he (or you for that matter) to assume that this applies universally to all lower income groups?” when I had said long before you posted

                MNG|9.12.11 @ 5:47PM|#
                I’m not saying he’s right btw, his entire argument rests on that critical first premise (that the average person gets more out of taxation than they have to put in). I actually imagine the line where that cut off occurs is different than what he imagines it to be

                Lastly, are you arguing that it is a straw man to say that many paleos here don’t talk about “parasites” who via government live off of the ‘productive classes?” Cuz they have a search thingee in the upper corner that can supply that.

                Or is it that you don’t know what a straw man is, but you hear people refer to it on talk radio and thought you’d throw it out?

                1. Tgirl? Weak sauce mingey.

                  the second part indicates what I’m defending is the mischaracterization of his argument.

                  Because originally you think he’s right, about something I suppose. I’m guessing that it has to do with the idea that our fearless IRS warrior is protecting us from those evil rich tax cheats!

                  And then in the “second part” you say you don’t really agree with him. Make up your mind dummy.

                  I know, one of those many subtle nuances that escapes the right wing mind…

                  I’m not right wing, but since you refuse to argue anyone on the merits of something rather than argue their straw man representative, call me whatever you want if it makes you feel better.

                  people can generalize without things having to be universally and absolutely true.

                  In the context of our fearless warrior bragging how he saves us all from those evil tax cheats, it either IS true or it AIN’T. This sums up the stupidity of most of your arguments pretty well though.

                  You actually admit all he needs right here: ” It may be true that some people get services from the government that they don’t pay an equal amount for”

                  And then ignore the rest of what I said “who the fuck is he (or you for that matter) to assume that this applies universally to all lower income groups?”, meaning plenty of people pay more to the government than what they get back, and some of them are in lower classes. But this won’t make sense to you because you consider my mere existence a result of the benevolent hand of centralized redistribution.

                  his entire argument rests on that critical first premise (that the average person gets more out of taxation than they have to put in).

                  So do you agree with it or not?

                  I actually imagine the line where that cut off occurs is different than what he imagines it to be

                  So he may be wrong but you don’t know for sure, you just “imagine” how wrong he might be? Put some fucking pants on man and make a goddamn point already. Jesus.

                  Lastly, are you arguing that it is a straw man to say that many paleos here don’t talk about “parasites” who via government live off of the ‘productive classes?”

                  I have never made that argument so when you accuse me of doing so you are creating a “straw man” with which to argue. And the reason why is because you are such a giant pussy when it comes to committing to an argument.

                  Agree with him or don’t, but don’t argue with points I’m not making and don’t pretend you can abandon your argument with some bullshit excuse of “unfair characterization.”

        3. He’s saying that the average joe gets back (in government services) more than he pays in doofus.

          …and that’s what’s known in rhetoric as a baldfaced lie.

          -jcr

    3. Except that he called out the mortgage interest deduction as the one thing worth saving, which doesn’t benefit the lower classes, and benefits the middle class a lot less than the upper middle and lower upper class.

      So he wasn’t talking about the lower classes at all, but about how some wealthy professionals should be upset that other wealthy professionals cheat on their taxes, because it might endanger the first set of wealthy professionals’ tax breaks.

      1. Honestly, AMT pretty much knocks this loophole out or maybe allows a taxpayer without a fair amount of other write-offs get close, to, or over AMT. Simply put, Mortgage Interest Deduction is ‘helping’ fewer and fewer taxpayers reduce their tax liability.

    4. Tax Policy Center on “Who Itemizes”

      More taxpayers claim the standard deduction than itemize: Tax Policy Center estimates that about 70 percent of taxpayers will claim the standard deduction on their 2010 tax returns.
      Taxpayers in higher tax brackets are more likely to itemize than those in lower brackets (see table). Just 3.9 percent of taxpayers in the 0 percent bracket and 16.2 percent of taxpayers in the 10 percent bracket itemize. In sharp contrast, 70.9 percent of taxpayers in the 33 percent bracket and 89.4 percent of taxpayers in the 35 percent bracket itemize.

      IRS dude is not aiming his argument at the middle and lower classes. He’s defending one group of the wealthy’s tax breaks from wealthy tax cheats.

  30. OK, if it ain’t you, who is the guy who will levy my account for $450 on 9/15 even though I’ve proved – with cancelled checks – that the IRS got the withheld taxes within five business days as required?

  31. Is it just me or is the IRS even more despicable after reading that fuckstick’s quote?

    1. Oh my goodness, gobby has a new name!

      Sooooo adorable!

      1. Sooooo adorable!

        So’s your “Chocolate Starfish”!

  32. I’d say the appropriate phrase is economic illiteracy.

    The metric of who is and isnt’ stealing from someone else is whether the total taxes that person pays on an absolute dollar basis is a higher or lower amount than the absolute dollar value of government services that person has personally received calculated on a prorated user fee basis.

    It doesn’t have anything to do with who expensed what or not on their tax return.

    1. There’s a reason why we have different words for taxation and stealing, just like we have different words for football and basketball. If you want you could look at just the similarities between the latter two and call them both “team sports played with a ball.” Likewise taxation and theft. But there are differences that can be important. Not many thieves I know give their victim an equal say in what, if any money should be taken and to what uses it should be put to, only do what the majority of them say, and then use it for services ostensibly meant to serve their fellow citizens.

      1. Well its’a another day and we get another invalid analogy from MNG.

        Par for the course.

        1. Can you point out how the analogy is inapt, or are you just poppin’ in to say “oh yeah, well you’re wrong!”?

          1. Inept.Not inapt.

          2. There are only two pieces of information I need to to determine it’s invalid.

            One: you are MNG.

            Two: you have out forth an analogy.

      2. But there are differences that can be important.

        Like, say, the difference between an anarchist and a rioter?

        1. Wow, long, bitter memory there. Tiny and impotent sure, but long and bitter.

          But yeah, I was right on that too; it’s common for people to refer to rioters as anarchists, any google search can show that.

          1. It’s also common for people to use the word “loose” when they should have used the word “lose”.

            Those people are only slightly more stupid than people who call rioters demanding more government services “anarchists”.

            If tomorrow there’s a riot led by people demanding the construction of internment camps nationwide to hold Muslims, would those rioters be “anarchists”? Only if you’re a fucking moron who’s too stupid to live.

            1. Anarchism does not have some immutable meaning existing in some Platonic universe.

              People commonly refer to those who seem in a situation to be violently resisting “authority” as “anarchists.” Groups of people numbering likely more than those in the libertarian ring club call themselves anarchists and think outside of your definition about themselves, and this has been true for a long time (Rosa Luxemburg for example). Just because you and 1% of the population have decided that is the label for your political movement don’t get all butthurt if the rest of us don’t follow your magic lexicon. You can jump up and down and say “but I say it means X”; historically, contemporarily and even philosophically it has meant Y as well…

              1. People commonly refer to those who seem in a situation to be violently resisting “authority” as “anarchists.”

                “People” are incorrect in their interpretation much of the time. Citing an incorrect observation does not buttress an argument.

                For example, a riot in favor of increased government benefits (or against austerity measures) has little to do with “anarchy”, as the rioters may be “fighting authority”, but are not attempting to remove authority in general.

                They are looking to overthrow the current authority and replace it with a new authority that will resume payments.

      3. There’s a reason why we have different words for taxation and stealing

        For the same reason we have different words for “enhanced interrogation techniques” and “torture”? “War” and “Humanitarian Kinetic Nonintervention”?

      4. Most thieves leave you alone after they steal from you. They don’t return and demand more.

      5. Thieves don not claim they are not stealing. They are honest in their theft. The tax collector, however, claims you have entered into a contract that says he, as a representative of the public, is here to collect such and such amount of your money/property. You have no choice. Pay up or leave. The tax collector will try you in his courts.

        1. But this theory of our government is wholly different from the practical fact. The fact is that the government, like a highwayman, says to a man: ‘Your money, or your life.’ And many, if not most, taxes are paid under the compulsion of that threat. The government does not, indeed, waylay a man in a lonely place, spring upon him from the roadside, and, holding a pistol to his head, proceed to rifle his pockets. But the robbery is none the less a robbery on that account; and it is far more dastardly and shameful. The highwayman takes solely upon himself the responsibility, danger, and crime of his own act. He does not pretend that he has any rightful claim to your money, or that he intends to use it for your own benefit. He does not pretend to be anything but a robber. He has not acquired impudence enough to profess to be merely a ‘protector,’ and that he takes men’s money against their will, merely to enable him to ‘protect’ those infatuated travellers, who feel perfectly able to protect themselves, or do not appreciate his peculiar system of protection. He is too sensible a man to make such professions as these. Furthermore, having taken your money, he leaves you, as you wish him to do. He does not persist in following you on the road, against your will; assuming to be your rightful ‘sovereign,’ on account of the ‘protection’ he affords you. He does not keep ‘protecting’ you, by commanding you to bow down and serve him; by requiring you to do this, and forbidding you to do that; by robbing you of more money as often as he finds it for his interest or pleasure to do so; and by branding you as a rebel, a traitor, and an enemy to your country, and shooting you down without mercy, if you dispute his authority, or resist his demands. He is too much of a gentleman to be guilty of such impostures, and insults, and villanies as these. In short, he does not, in addition to robbing you, attempt to make you either his dupe or his slave.-Lysander Spooner

      6. Not many thieves I know give their victim an equal say in what, if any money should be taken and to what uses it should be put to, only do what the majority of them say, and then use it for services ostensibly meant to serve their fellow citizens.

        So if the bandits from The Magnificent Seven come to your town and steal everything, including every last item of your property including all your clothes, and while you’re standing there naked they’re laughing and shooting guns in the air and dancing around sombreros they’ve thrown on the ground, Eli Wallach says that he’s going to give all of the victims of the bandit gang a gift and let them either all have a shot of tequila paid for out of the bandit proceeds OR they each get to rape you up the ass once, he’s no longer a thief?

        1. And people complain about my analogies.

          Why not try addressing my actual post?

          Both basketball and football are team sports played with a ball, but they are also different enought that most people can tell them apart. Likewise taxation has some things in common with theft and other things not in common. What I offered as being different was 1. seeking your consent/direction as an equal 2. not collecting the money for their own personal enrichment but to be used for the community) and then you go and construct an analogy with none of those aspects.

          If this doesn’t show the visceral origin of your taxation=theft meme I don’t know what would…

          1. 1. seeking your consent/direction as an equal 2. not collecting the money for their own personal enrichment but to be used for the community

            Neither of those happens in practice, and #2 wouldn’t make it any better.

            I support the existence of taxation as a necessary evil, but let’s not whitewash the evil part. Oh, and for every $1 in taxes spent on police and firefighters, there is $10 spent on TVA or California Coastal Commission type activity.

      7. There’s a reason why we have different words for taxation and stealing, just like we have different words for football and basketball.

        Choco ration’s gone up! Doubleplusgood, eh?

      8. “There’s a reason why we have different words for taxation and stealing”

        Burglary, Mugging, Carjacking: these all have different features but they share one thing in common. They are all involve something being taken from you against your will. Hence, despite having disparate features, they are all forms of theft. Taxation is no different.

        And the reason you hint at is that people have been programmed to believe it’s not theft simply because the state does it. Giving something a different name does not change what it is. It used to be called a Tribute, but was it something different then?

        1. “Burglary, Mugging, Carjacking: these all have different features but they share one thing in common.”

          Er, yeah, like baseball, football and basketball all have different features but have one thing in common: they are all played with a ball! By your logic they must be the same thing!

          1. You are on to something! Yes, they are all sports and the idea is that someone wins and someone loses. I think you kinda got it now.

          2. The set of whales and the set of mammals are not the same thing, but it is correct to say that a whale is a mammal.

        2. Looks like MNG’s belief in linguistic relativism upthread was short-lived. Now language is the absolute determinant of essence.

          1. He doesn’t appear to get the concept of categorization.
            Tables, chairs, sofas. These have different features, but what category do they belong to, MNG?

      9. Mongo,

        The definition of theft is taking someone else’s money without their consent. Taxation is theft, and getting all long-winded about it won’t chance that obvious fact.

        -jcr

        1. Let me be clear: it’s not without their consent! If you don’t want to pay taxes, don’t work.

        2. No. Property is theft!

          Now let’s go smash some windows!

  33. What people don’t understand about my job is that chances are you are not the person I’m examining. I examine doctors who expense three Cadillacs, insurance brokers who claim jet skis for business use only, and real estate agents who haven’t paid taxes in eight years. The public doesn’t realize that tax auditors are the only people between a balanced effective tax rate among all social classes and the bourgeoisie stealing what isn’t bolted down

    I actually believe this is relatively accurate.

    Just like Nick Gillespie claimed in one of his videos, I’m one of the nervous, cloistered tax simpletons who doesn’t take all the deductions I probably could because I simply don’t want the hassle of an audit. But when I cast a slightly wider gaze, I am shocked at what some people claim as deductions.

    I have no doubt that there are Doctors and other high-earning professionals who play it nigh fast and loose with what they claim.

    The problem is the tax code, not that we have auditors trying to enforce it.

    Unfortunately, if we had Paul’s Patented Tax Code, these doctors and insurance brokers wouldn’t be able to take these crazy deductions… AND our dear underappreciated auditor probably wouldn’t have a job at all. So be careful what you wish for, IRS employees.

    1. When was the last time the UAW, SEIU, IBEW, or the Teamsters were audited?

      I bet Mr. IRS might find a few discrepancies there.

      1. Bet he’d be told that…”for the good of the nation”…and of course the “common man…you don’t see nothing!

  34. Mr. IRS man gets a regular paycheck, nice benefits and a secure retirement. He can expect nothing more.

    I’m self employed. I get to have my self-respect and the respect of my peers, along with whatever meager income I can figure out how to keep under your archaic tax code. Quit whining and live with your career choice.

  35. Another entitled fuckwad.

  36. Reminds me of the Dan Akroyd character where he made dangerous toys.

  37. The inappropriate use of the word bourgeoisie?

    It does not surprise me in the least that IRS employees are neck deep into Marxist style class warfare.

  38. Say there fellers, did I ever tell you about the 3 years I spent as an IRS Revenue Officer in the 1980’s?

    Hey – where’d everyone go? Awww…

  39. True Story:
    One of my friends is a criminal attorney for the IRS. One time he was in town and I met up with him and a couple of colleagues. One of them turned out to be his union rep (yep, IRS attorneys have a union). IN the course of ten minutes she not only proudly labeled herself as a socialist, but then laughed with delight of the story of a rather famous informer that the IRS then through in jail himself. “Informants,” she said, “they never tell the whole truth. We’ll see if a few weeks in jail won’t loosen his tongue.”

    I had never been more frightened of a government functionary until that point. Even more hilariously, later in the evening she started asking me about my business; that really made the hair stand up on the back of my head.

    1. “Me? I’m a International Brotherhood of Taxcheats union rep. Yeah, we’re affiliated with AFL-CIO.”

  40. Here’s my big beef with his statement:

    His examples.

    GE deducting billions in repugnant “green energy” credits doesn’t outrage this guy. Nickel and dime shit from professionals with small practices are what outrage this douche.

    Given the fact that corporations can deduct 80% of their expenses on meals and entertainment, I see no reason why sole proprietors (and as far as I am concerned every last one of us is a sole proprietor, even if some of us only sell one product – our labor – to one customer – our boss) shouldn’t be allowed to do the same thing.

    Since the people who write the tax code think it’s fair that corporations can deduct 100% of their rent but college students can’t – fuck’ em, let’s scam them all day long.

    Since I think the tax code’s distinctions between categories of taxpayer are BS, I don’t particularly care if upper middle class operators of what amount to microbusinesses try to deduct space alien repellent or what have you.

  41. “So if you’re one of those “Joe the Plumber” people who take time out of work to throw teabags at me on my way into the office in the morning: You are the middle class! I’m helping you!”

    You bet!
    It only cost me $5K in accountant and attorney fees to show the IRS their claims of my last audit were wrong and I owed them nothing!
    I’m really thankful for that help; I got to deduct ~1/3 of that from the next year’s tax bill. What a deal!

  42. Since there’s no edit feature, let me ass:
    What an asshole!

  43. I examine doctors who expense three Cadillacs, insurance brokers who claim jet skis for business use only, and real estate agents who haven’t paid taxes in eight years.

    You know what? None of those guys are picking my pocket. It’s the douchebags at the IRS who rob me.

    -jcr

  44. Being an IRS employee in collections, it saddens me to see class warfare being spouted by another employee. The middle class is great, and it’s no sin to own three or twelve cars if you can afford it and keep up on your taxes.

    1. Being an IRS employee in collections

      Let me be the first to heartily invite you to take a long walk on a short pier. Every dollar you take from someone who earned it is a dollar that helps to kill people.

      1. It’s a dirty job, but someone’s got to do it. Don’t hate the player, hate the game. Yes, I realize those are both cliches (where’s the Cliche Bandit when you need him?).

  45. Apropos of nothing much, but I play bass, was a model, worked in a library and studied heritage preservation. My husband did graphic design and studied philosophy post-grad instead of becoming an engineer. We never worked for the IRS, though, so at least there’s that.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.