Tax Season

Mark Steyn

April 10, 2010 7:00 A.M.

Tax Season

For an increasing number of Americans, tax season is like baseball season: It’s a spectator sport.

We are nearing the climax of “tax season.” That’s the problem right there, by the way: Summer should have a season, and baseball should have a season, but not tax. Happily, like candy canes and Christmas-tree lights on December 26th, the TurboTax boxes will soon be disappearing from the display racks until the nights start drawing in and the leaves fall from the trees and tax season begins anew in seven or eight months’ time.

And yet for an increasing number of Americans, tax season is like baseball season: It’s a spectator sport. According to the Tax Policy Center, for the year 2009, 47 percent of U.S. households will pay no federal income tax. Obviously, many of them pay other kinds of taxes — state tax, property tax, cigarette tax. But at a time of massive increases in federal spending, half the country is effectively making no contribution to it, whether it’s national defense or vital stimulus funding to pump monkeys in North Carolina full of cocaine (true, seriously, but don’t ask me why). Half a decade back, it was just under 40 percent who paid no federal income tax; now it’s just under 50 percent. By 2012, America could be holding the first federal election in which a majority of the population will be able to vote themselves more government lollipops paid for by the ever shrinking minority of the population still dumb enough to be net contributors to the federal treasury. In less than a quarter-millennium, the American Revolution will have evolved from “No taxation without representation” to representation without taxation. We have bigger government, bigger bureaucracy, bigger spending, bigger deficits, and bigger debt, and yet an ever smaller proportion of citizens paying for it.

The top 5 percent of taxpayers contribute 60 percent of revenue. The top 10 percent provide 75 percent. Another 40-odd percent make up the rest. And half are exempt. This isn’t redistribution — a “leveling” to address the “maldistribution” of income, as Sen. Max Baucus (D., Kleptocristan) put it the other day. It isn’t even “spreading the wealth around,” as then-senator Obama put it in an unfortunate off-the-prompter moment during the 2008 campaign. Rather, it’s an assault on the moral legitimacy of the system. If you accept the principle of a tax on income, it might seem reasonable to exclude the very poor from having to contribute to it. But in no meaningful sense of the term can half the country be considered “poor.” United States income tax is becoming the 21st-century equivalent of the “jizya” — the punitive tax levied by Muslim states on their non-Muslim citizens: In return for funding the Islamic imperium, the infidels were permitted to carry on practicing their faith. Likewise, under the American jizya, in return for funding Big Government, the non-believers are permitted to carry on practicing their faith in capitalism, small business, economic activity, and the other primitive belief systems to which they cling so touchingly.

In the Islamic world, the infidel tax base eventually wised up. You can see it literally in the landscape in rural parts of the Balkans: Christian tradesmen got fed up paying the jizya and moved out of the towns up into remote hills far from the shakedown crowd. In less mountainous terrain where it’s harder to lie low, non-Muslims found it easier to convert. That’s partly what drove Islamic expansion. Once Araby was all Muslim, it was necessary to move on to the Levant, and to Persia, and to Central Asia and North Africa and India and Europe — in search of new infidels to mug. Don’t worry, I’m not so invested in my analogy that I’m suggesting the Obama-Reid-Pelosi shakedown racket will be forced to invade Canada and Scandinavia. For one thing, pretty much everywhere else got with the Big Government program well ahead of America and long ago figured out all the angles: Two-thirds of French imams are on the dole. In the Stockholm suburb of Tensta, 20 percent of women in their late 40s collect disability benefits. In the United Kingdom, 5 million people — a tenth of the adult population — have not done a day’s work since the New Labour government took office in 1997.

America has a ways to go in catching up with those enlightened jurisdictions, but it’s on its way. Rep. Paul Ryan pointed out recently that, by 2004, 20 percent of U.S. households were getting about 75 percent of their income from the federal government. As a matter of practical politics, how receptive would they be to a pitch for lower taxes, which they don’t pay, or lower government spending, of which they are such fortunate beneficiaries? How receptive would another fifth of households, who receive about 40 percent of their income from federal programs, be to such a pitch?

And what’s to stop this trend? Democracy decays easily into the tyranny of the majority, in which 51 percent of voters can empty the pockets of the other 49 percent. That’s why a country on the fast track to a $20 trillion national debt exempts half the population from making even a modest contribution to reducing it. And it’s also why the remorseless shriveling of the tax rolls is a cancer at the heart of republican citizenship.

Pace Max Baucus, this isn’t about correcting the “maldistribution” of income. What Mal Max is up to is increasing dependency. In the newspeak of Big Government, “tax cuts” now invariably mean not reductions in the rate of income seizure but a “tax credit” reimbursed from the seizure in return for living your life the way the government wants you to. With Obamacare, we’ve now advanced to the next stage — “tax debits,” or additional punitive confiscation if you decline to live your life in accordance with government fiat. Obamacare requires you upon penalty of law to make provisions for your health care that meet the approval of the state commissars. Unfortunately, as they discovered after passing it, the bill didn’t provide for any enforcement mechanisms. But not to worry. The other day Douglas Shulman, commissioner for the Internal Revenue Service, announced that, if you fail to purchase the mandated health insurance, he’ll simply confiscate any tax refund due to you from your previous twelve months’ employment withholding.

We are now not merely disincentivizing economic energy but actively waging war on it. If 51 percent can vote themselves government lollipops from the other 49 percent, soon 60 percent will be shaking down the remaining 40 percent, and then 70 percent will be sticking it to the remaining 30 percent. How low can it go? When you think about it, that 53 percent of American households props up not just this country but half the planet: They effectively pick up the defense tab for our wealthiest allies, so that Germany, Japan, and others can maintain minimal militaries and lavish the savings on cradle-to-grave entitlements. A relatively tiny group of people is writing the check for the entire global order. What proportion of them would need to figure out that the game’s no longer worth it to bring the whole system crashing down?

DOCTOR’S ORDERS

‘Obamacare’ cops: $1 billion to force new tax compliance

16,000 new IRS agents to be required under health-care reform


Posted: March 28, 2010
7:24 pm Eastern

By Jerome R. Corsi
© 2010 WorldNetDaily

 

Collecting taxes under the Democrats’ newly passed health-care plan will cost the federal government more than $1 billion a year in salaries alone, Republicans in Congress estimate.

The legislation will require the IRS to hire as many as 16,500 additional auditors, agents and other employees to investigate and collect billions in new taxes imposed on Americans, according to a House Committee on Ways and Means Committee Republican report prepared March 18 for ranking members Reps. Dave Camp, R-Mich., and Charles Boustany, R-La.

In March 2009, the federal government’s average annual salary was $42,035 for tax examiners, $91,507 for internal revenue agents and $63,547 for tax specialists, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics “Occupational Outlook Handbook, 2010-11 Edition.”

Averaging the three pay grade averages yields an estimated $65,696 per IRS worker hired, assuming an equal number of tax examiners, internal revenue agents and tax specialists.

Together, the 16,500 new IRS personnel needed to collect taxes under the new legislation will cost the federal government somewhere in the realm of $1.1 billion

The IRS media office objected that the Joint Committee on Taxation publication JCX-18-10 issued March 21, “Technical Explanation of the Revenue Provisions of the Reconciliation Act,” does not specify any number of IRS personnel that must be hired to implement the tax provisions of the bill.

Rep. Kevin Brady, R-Texas, disagrees.

“The Internal Revenue Service will see its largest expansion since withholding taxes were enacted during World War II to enforce the glut of new tax mandates and penalties included in the Democrats’ latest health care plan,” reads a statement on Brady’s congressional website.

Brady is the ranking Republican on the Joint Economic Committee.

“We need thousands of new doctors and nurses in America, not thousands more IRS agents,” Brady insists. “In addition to more complicated tax returns, families and small businesses will be forced to reveal further tax information to the IRS, provide proof of ‘government approved’ health care and submit detailed sales information to comply with new excise taxes.”

By 2016, the IRS will be required under the “Obamacare” legislation to monitor the health insurance status of individuals and businesses to determine if the insurance purchased as reported on tax returns meets the level of coverage required by the law. In cases of noncompliance fees and penalties are to be assessed.

The IRS could not give WND any indication how the Democrats’ new legislation would implement the “bounty hunter” program President Obama suggested would track down abusers and collect evaded taxes on all government health programs, including Medicare and Medicaid.

The IRS further did not respond by publication deadline to WND’s request for information regarding the likely number of additional personnel the IRS would have to hire to implement Obamacare, the immediate tax consequences the IRS would have to monitor and audit, and the likely cost to the IRS of implementing the new health legislation.

Taxes under Clinton 1999 Taxes under Bush 2007

After watching a focus group of democrats that watched the democratic debate the other day in Vegas, ….  For the most part, all of them bashed Bush over and over again on how he is out for his millionaire friends and the big oil companies and he has totally forgotten or disregarded the little guy.  So an ex-IRS employee, decided to look back on the tax tables to see if there is any truth to what they said and the media keeps stating as fact, “Bush is only out for the rich in this country.” Based on using the actual tax tables here are some examples on what the taxes were/are on various amounts of income for both singles and married couples.  So let’s see if the Bush tax cuts only helped the rich.
 Taxes under Clinton 1999                                      Taxes under Bush 2007
Single making 30K – tax $8,400                               Single making 30K – tax $4,100                             
Single making 50K – tax $14,000                             Single making 50K – tax $8,900
Single making 75K – tax $23,250                             Single making 75K – tax $15,150
Married making 60K – tax $16,800                          Married making 60K – tax $8,200
Married making 75K – tax $21,000                          Married making 75K – tax $11,600
Married making 125K – tax $38,750                        Married making 125K – tax $24,100
 If you want to know just how effective the mainstream media is, it is amazing how many people that fall into the categories above think Bush is screwing them and Bill Clinton was the greatest President ever.  If any democrat is elected, ALL of them say they will repeal the Bush tax cuts and a good portion of the people that fall into the categories above can’t wait for it to happen.  This is like in the movie The Sting with Paul Newman, you scam somebody out of some money and they don’t even know what happened.   Now this is effective marketing or maybe a better word is brain washing.