Do democrats pay taxes?

[bascule]

Just not all democrats and just not all of their taxes. C'mon at the very least this whole tax troubled Obama appointee recurrence is nothing if not a comedy of errors.

 

Well, I could just as easily phrase as question like "Do Republicans avoid sodomizing their pages?" and the answer is "Yes, just not ALL Republicans" as well...

[jackson33]

Which is largely why I find the idea of these two parties being distinctly different almost laughable. I highly doubt that over 300 million people's opinions can be funneled and compacted into these two camps. I think 80% of america isn't being represented, they just think they are.

 

But lawmakers are to be held to a higher standard Jackson. I appreciate your sentiment, giving folks a benefit of the doubt, I actually like to see that out of our fellow man - but these are lawmakers. These are the guys implicitly responsible for those tax laws. To see them error is fitting.

 

Does it not speak more about the ridiculous complexity of our tax code than to demonstrate rich lawmakers can't even get it right?

 

If anyone has the resources and knowledge to get it right, it should be them. I have no mercy for these people. Destroy them. They have destroyed the insignificant for decades, mercilessly for similar mistakes and self interested avoidance. They deserve to know what it feels like to be on the business end of the IRS - they are the lawmaking body that created it and gave them the power to harrass citizens about their income.

 

They pass laws left and right without concern for the complexity that they create and the augmented insult in requiring citizens to comb through that mess and punish them when it isn't right.

 

No, I say give them mercy when they show mercy.

 

Each State has different rules for entering Parties onto their ballots. The

2008 General Election had 14 (think right), but not in every State. People, the electorate have chosen the two majors, so have to assume they feel are represented. I would agree, their are some folks that feel disenfranchised, but based on some personal or impotent to them, agenda.

 

It would be nice to THINK some people are morally or in some way better than the rest. However we don't have an aristocratic segment of society. We all go to school, live in and adjust to the society that exist. Obama, did drugs (self admitted and illegal) we elected him, Bush had problems in his youth, as probably every other elected or high office holder in the country, including those in the business field. IMO, this means we elect people, our piers and this is a good thing. Frankly the origin of US Law, comes from the least experienced of these people (House).

 

I agree, the US Tax Code is far to complex for 100% compliance and agree those that created the mess are (in part) their today. To punish a few however for what others have created seems to me, counter productive. Keep in mind, to begin with IRS, has only your forms to deal with. Nothing can be verified or found wrong, unless your report does not agree with secondary reports (Employer/Banks etc). Dashiles auto/driver, was probably reported as an expense, not found on his tax forms. By law, the person that furnished the car/driver, should have sent him a statement of income, as does your bank, employer etc... I would bet he did not and no less guilty than Dashile.

 

Not showing mercy, comes from the IRS, not those that pass law. Your really dealing with common folk here and no less than you would from your local police or City Government. For the record, I have probably gone through as many audits, paid as many fines as any person you know, all in the past. Does this disqualify me for holding a Federal Office, by itself.

[ParanoiA]

Well, I could just as easily phrase as question like "Do Republicans avoid sodomizing their pages?" and the answer is "Yes, just not ALL Republicans" as well...

 

Yep...

 

Not showing mercy, comes from the IRS, not those that pass law. Your really dealing with common folk here and no less than you would from your local police or City Government. For the record, I have probably gone through as many audits, paid as many fines as any person you know, all in the past. Does this disqualify me for holding a Federal Office, by itself.

 

Yes, I think it does disqualify you. We either make laws that we fully believe is reasonable and intend to see them all the way through, or we don't have a consistently just government - and that's a principle I'm not willing to compromise. Just like the discussion on cameras monitoring our every move and punishing us for every little infraction is not a good argument to advocate that law not be strictly enforced. The law is either reasonable and realistic, or it isn't.

 

In other words, forcing them to reconcile their actions with the system they created is the law. If we think that's unreasonable, and in terms of the tax code I believe it absolutely is, then we retract the law - we don't argue to "kind of" enforce it.

 

So, forcing them to face the monster they created would seem to provide the anecdotal experience I suspect is required to get them to destroy it.

Edited February 4, 2009 by ParanoiA

[waitforufo]

So, forcing them to face the monster they created would seem to provide the anecdotal experience I suspect is required to get them to destroy it.

 

Forcing them to face the monster is excellent entertainment too.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

We either make laws that we fully believe is reasonable and intend to see them all the way through, or we don't have a consistently just government - and that's a principle I'm not willing to compromise.

 

There is a name for governments that selectively apply the law. They are called tyrannies.

[jackson33]

 

Yes, I think it does disqualify you. We either make laws that we fully believe is reasonable and intend to see them all the way through, or we don't have a consistently just government - and that's a principle I'm not willing to compromise. Just like the discussion on cameras monitoring our every move and punishing us for every little infraction is not a good argument to advocate that law not be strictly enforced. The law is either reasonable and realistic, or it isn't.

 

In other words, forcing them to reconcile their actions with the system they created is the law. If we think that's unreasonable, and in terms of the tax code I believe it absolutely is, then we retract the law - we don't argue to "kind of" enforce it.

 

So, forcing them to face the monster they created would seem to provide the anecdotal experience I suspect is required to get them to destroy it.

 

 

In short, in the US no law fits all circumstances, or are the penalties involved. If you consider the laws of all States and/or Federal, we have no law that is clear cut or simple to all cases. What you are saying would disqualify probably every person that has run for President, Congress or been appointed to a high level office, worth his/her beans. I assure you Gates/Warren Buffet, or any prominent business person (Mitt Romney) has been audited and forced to pay additional taxes, many times for not including some income. To be fair, most of these people and Corporations request IRS representation while taxes are prepared or at least retired advisor's, not contesting their opinions. Your going to have to pick you Government from a group of school kids or those that know NOTHING of what they should be required to understand fully.

 

IRS, then is a cumulative set of laws/regulations over years of precedent, with added changes, functional to an interpretation of either management, attorney's, auditors or field workers if not all in one person. We don't send people to jail for making errors, we correct or contest and move on...

 

My guess would be, you promote some form of fair tax or maybe a National Sales tax to generate Federal revenues. I doubt there is a system, I haven't heard, but it always ends when State/Local Taxes get involved. States and local governments tax people far more than the Federal already and no amount of reconstruction of US Tax Code, will drop the end result to individual payers. Think you know you are even paying most Corporate Taxes, which is built into cost of operations and there is no revenue the government receives that in some manner is not collected from people.

 

Talk about fair, that fool just signed the 'SCHIP' Bill, which will tax those earning the least or on fixed incomes. A .25 per pack cost to produce, no less...will now cost at least another .61 per.

[DrDNA]

Viva la revolution d'impot!

......................

 

"Is it a rebellion?" asked Louis XVI.

 

"No, sire," came the reply. "It is a revolution."

[npts2020]

I tend to agree with ParanoiA that those who are responsible for making the law should not be above it. Trouble is that "the land of the free" has been accumulating laws at a far more prodigious rate than it has been repealing them for the past couple of centuries and few people (if any) can even keep up. At any given time there are hundreds of laws being suggested and very few repeals of laws ever even being considered. Maybe every law should have an expiration date?

[DrDNA]

At any given time there are hundreds of laws being suggested and very few repeals of laws ever even being considered. Maybe every law should have an expiration date?

 

 

Interesting.

I never considered that.

I think it's a great idea.

It gets my vote!

[ParanoiA]

I think the expiration date was offered by Jefferson already - a new constitution via a new revolution every 20 years.

[DrDNA]

I think the expiration date was offered by Jefferson already - a new constitution via a new revolution every 20 years.

 

I love that guy.

Unfortunately, if we tried that now, they'd squash us like ants.