Wesley Snipes vs. IRS

[kornkob]

Common good is fine in certain instances, and I'm not taking an Ayn Randian approach---nor is my argument a strawman simply because I used a parallel example. But punishing people simply because they can withstand said punishment more than others is bound to lead to problems much worse than division of wealth.

I certainly don't see it that way at all. Making a fee or fine something that is trivial to one person and crippling to another is already a problem. Numerous examples exist in which a very rich person or a company is able and will to suck up a fine or series of fines or licencing fees because they can afford it but those same costs demolish a small business or private citizen's ability to stay solvent.



To use an analogy: Once up on a time sending a kid to their room was a punishment because there often wasn't jkack-all in their bedroom but clothes and a bed. These days with computers and mp3 players and tvs in bedrooms and the like, it's not a punishment--- it's just a change of venue. Thus the punishment is meaningless to a kid with lots of toys in their room but is pretty harsh for the kid who has jack all.

 

[Sir Humpsalot]

My first thought... Let's not confuse the well-paid with the wealthy. If you don't know the difference, I suggest not posting to this thread until you do. It's an important distinction.

Common good is fine in certain instances, and I'm not taking an Ayn Randian approach---nor is my argument a strawman simply because I used a parallel example. But punishing people simply because they can withstand said punishment more than others is bound to lead to problems much worse than division of wealth.

Think about it this way: The rich get more benefit from the government than the poor.

To explain why, let's first begin with a reminder: Just like the Romans, Greeks, Germans, Atlantians, the Russians, and the Cubans, we aren't living in the final government to grace the planet earth. All of those governments thought they would never end, of course, but they were toppled and someday, in some way, America will be overturned as well. You may think that is absurd, but I'm sure the Romans thought the same thing. Now, with that said...

Is this wealth redistribution at the point of a gun? Or is this insurance money to help protect against the inevitable? I'll tell you what... There are more poor people than rich people. When the revolution comes, it's going to be the rich who are targeted and the rich who are killed. The poor will probably be little better or worse off than they were before.

You don't want a homeless guy knocking on your door. Because, if he does, you don't know what his mental state will be like, you won't know his intentions. Similarly, if I was a multi-millionaire, I would have a very vested interest in living somewhere safe, keeping society's trash at bay, and not having to deal with a large segment of the population. In short, I would NEVER want them knocking on my door for anything.... for the same reason you don't want a homeless guy at your door. To him, you are a target for something, maybe it's just to borrow five bucks, but who knows? And to a middle class person, perhaps I am a target.

So if my government wanted me to pay more money to keep those guys in shelters, or keep them fed to prevent them from breaking into houses and committing violent acts, I would write the freakin check in a heartbeat. Money can buy a lot of things, but it can't buy society's adoration. If you are perceived as rich, you will be perceived as a target. It is in your interest to make everybody feel as though we live in a productive and civil society that works.

If I have to pay more money than you do so that I can keep my jet and my mansion, and you pay less and get to keep your trailer in the trailer park and it keeps us both happy, then I consider it a worthwhile investment to write that check.

Wealth isn't worth much once a currency is declared worthless. It's worth even less when people with torches and pitchforks are at your door.

 

[Sir Humpsalot]

Wow! That post really makes me sound like a paranoid loon, eh?

Anyway, my point still stands. Society costs money and the rich have more to lose than the poor.

We need the poor to have enough money so that they don't get too restless or lose hope, but we need to have them poor enough that they don't retire before putting in 40 or 60 years of hard work. Give them enough to live on, not enough to save, and make sure there's a safety net in place in case they suddenly find themselves unable to work.

The alternative to that would be to increase minimum wage so that a thrifty person on the bottom rung of society would be able to save money and actually continue to support himself should he lose his job or his ability to work. As it is now, I really don't think that's possible on $6.85 an hour.

Now, if that guy were making $12 an hour, maybe he'd have some savings, or would at least be CAPABLE of having some savings. In that case, I wouldn't feel so bad about reducing government benefits (and thereby reducing taxes).

 

[SuperiorBrew]

What about the some of the lower income people who don’t want to work overtime because then their income will be too high and they will lose some of their free government benefits? There is no incentive for them to advance if they are happy with what they have.
I do think the wealthy should pay more but there has to be realistic limitations or pretty soon there will be no incentive for people to advance their income, rich or poor. If the rich make more and the government takes more of it to give to the poor making it easy for them to live on a small income and get free heating fuel in the winter and free health care, food etc.
There has to be a better way to do it with just a little bit of common sense and a lot less government waste.
As I type this I am looking out the window at what used to be a run down old house, but the man that owns it does not work, he collects disability although I have known him for years and there is nothing wrong with him. He gets his fuel paid for during the winter, he just had new siding, windows, insulation and a well put in his house and only has to pay for 50% of the bill (in small monthly payments) and brags at the local pub that he will never live long enough to pay it off even though his house is free and clear of any liens.
He has two grown daughters that live with him and they both have good jobs, they all drive nice cars, go out to eat, take vacations etc. Why shouldn’t that government money go to a family that really needed it rather than one that obviously just knows how to get around the current crappy system?
Some small business owner could have paid less in taxes if it were not for people like this guy and re-invested it in his business therefore creating more jobs and more tax money…..

 

[Sir Humpsalot]

What about the some of the lower income people who don’t want to work overtime because then their income will be too high and they will lose some of their free government benefits? There is no incentive for them to advance if they are happy with what they have.
I do think the wealthy should pay more but there has to be realistic limitations or pretty soon there will be no incentive for people to advance their income, rich or poor. If the rich make more and the government takes more of it to give to the poor making it easy for them to live on a small income and get free heating fuel in the winter and free health care, food etc.
There has to be a better way to do it with just a little bit of common sense and a lot less government waste.
As I type this I am looking out the window at what used to be a run down old house, but the man that owns it does not work, he collects disability although I have known him for years and there is nothing wrong with him. He gets his fuel paid for during the winter, he just had new siding, windows, insulation and a well put in his house and only has to pay for 50% of the bill (in small monthly payments) and brags at the local pub that he will never live long enough to pay it off even though his house is free and clear of any liens.
He has two grown daughters that live with him and they both have good jobs, they all drive nice cars, go out to eat, take vacations etc. Why shouldn’t that government money go to a family that really needed it rather than one that obviously just knows how to get around the current crappy system?
Some small business owner could have paid less in taxes if it were not for people like this guy and re-invested it in his business therefore creating more jobs and more tax money…..

Fraud is a different issue than social policy. But if you want to talk about "getting around the system", then how is that guy any different from the folks who can pad their politicians' pockets enough to create tax loopholes?

Sure the system is corrupt. That's where laws come in. Every man does what he feels is in his own best interest (at least when dealing with the government). So long as everybody is "cheating equally" it all works out. There will be some very risk averse people who shy away from these things. There will be other people who push too far and (figuratively) get their hand chopped off. So there is a balance there and I don't think it's completely unfair. Let's face it, there will always be a little bit of cheating here or there. As long as we keep it to a reasonably small level, we as a society just have to accept it. It is impossible to create a system that doesn't allow for a few cheats.

Anyway, with all this said, yes I am a libertarian who supports a drastically reduced federal government. I think we'd all be better off if half our taxes went to the Fed and half went to our own state, rather than this 80-20 system like we have now.

 

[EdWort]

As I type this I am looking out the window at what used to be a run down old house, but the man that owns it does not work, he collects disability although I have known him for years and there is nothing wrong with him. He gets his fuel paid for during the winter, he just had new siding, windows, insulation and a well put in his house and only has to pay for 50% of the bill (in small monthly payments) and brags at the local pub that he will never live long enough to pay it off even though his house is free and clear of any liens.

This guy should be in jail for fraud. He's an idiot too, thinking that he won't have to pay it off after he dies. His estate will pay it for him and he's cheating his daughters. I'd video tape the SOB moving around doing yard work and send it to the authorities.

Do you enjoy paying for his heat, and his other fraudulent claims that hit the taxpayer in the wallet?