What is Digg?Sponsored by Dragon Age: Origins
Can't get enough Dragon Age: Origins? Check out new footage. view!
DragonAge.BioWare.com - EA presents BioWare's new dark fantasy epic Dragon Age: Origins. '9/10' from Game Informer.
134 Comments
- slappy83, on 08/24/2008, -14/+101Honestly, why the hell do we have the tax system we do anyway? All it does is lead to excessive government spending and people being unable to afford health care or a real education for their children.
- fahrvergnuugen, on 08/25/2008, -1/+81Anyone who beats the IRS deserves a medal.
- jsd8cc, on 08/25/2008, -10/+54Vote libertarian and we can finally get rid of the IRS for good.
- galeninjapan, on 08/25/2008, -3/+45"I think it's important that taxpayers' rights be protected," he said. "We should have had a Boston Tea Party over this."
Can I get an AMEN! - edstate, on 08/25/2008, -3/+38Why do you think the Government just bailed out reckless mortgage borrowers? TAXES.
Because of the mortgage mess Munis are about to get hit BIG, and then there's the credit cards and heloc mess coming home to roost. And together with the abuse of the tax system being called out, like this case, many local and state governments are going to quickly become insolvent.
They have simply promised too much (of our) money to people in order to get elected. And elected again.
It's going to be a fun ride. Strap in, sit back, and light up. - inactive, on 08/25/2008, -8/+38***** THE IRS
- UniqueJewelry, on 08/24/2008, -3/+29Nice to hear someone beat the IRS, maybe someone will beat CRA too.
- inactive, on 08/25/2008, -3/+25@jknevitt:
Libertarians mainly want to eliminate the federal income tax, which isn't even used to pay for a lot of things you mention, such as roads.
I believe it was Ron Paul that mentioned that if we eliminated the federal income tax, government would still have the same amount of money to work with as they had in 1996 or so.
I love how people panic and yell "OMG LIBERTARIANS ARE LOONY!" before they even have all of their facts straight. Reminds me of Bill O'Reilly bitching about the "loony" left. - Neoanarchist, on 08/25/2008, -0/+16The top 1% of earners pay 21.20% of all taxes paid at an average rate of 24%, the top 2 - 5% of earners pay 14.55% of all taxes at an average of 18% (Top 5% pay @36% of all tax) The bottom 50% pay 3% of all tax collected at an average rate of 2.98%.
This of course doesn't account for those who dodge taxes but it is safe to say that they wouldn't be included in these statistics anyway because, well, they don't pay taxes :D.
Source: http://www.taxfoundation.org/taxdata/show/250.html - govsucks, on 08/25/2008, -1/+17spot on slappy. We have a tax system so politicians can live the good life.
- peaceninja, on 08/25/2008, -1/+16how about we stop employing so many bureaucrats and just simplify the tax code, which will eliminate many loopholes. accountants are becoming just as bad as lawyers..the tax system is so complex that its straining the lower-middle class who are less likely to have hired CPA's to be able to take advantage of every single loophole available to them. i think eliminating all income tax is a bit extreme despite the fact it was originally unconstitutional.
- inactive, on 08/25/2008, -2/+17I'm libertarian, however, I know that either a democrat or republican will win. So it's a choice of whether I want to spend all my tax money on wars and death, or domestic services such as ( potentially ) universal healthcare, etc.
Which seems the lesser of two evils? - Waiting2awake, on 08/25/2008, -3/+18I know a bunch of those guys. Not one is a decent guy. Extortion is extortion - why is it a crime when the mob does it, but when the government does it all is "legal"? ....
Yet we aren't supposed to even question it? - Sinnic, on 08/25/2008, -0/+13My first guess would be 'less military adventures', as we already devote an irrational amount of money to the public 'defense'.
- inactive, on 08/25/2008, -1/+14Federal Income tax doesn't pay for roads, police or fire services.
Or schools. - scubajim, on 08/25/2008, -0/+13He won and that is great. My great grandfather fought the IRS on a tax issue (different issue) and he eventually won. However, every single year after that he got audited. The IRS basically made his life hell. He was running a legit business and everything was above board.
- slappy83, on 08/25/2008, -1/+14Comments like that show how uninformed people in this country are.
- funk13, on 08/25/2008, -0/+12Good timing on the IRS' part, though, with the statue of limitations coming up on amended tax forms, it is akin to them saying, "We may have been wrong by taking your money but it is ours now because you haven't asked for it back in a timely manner." You really can't win with these *****.
- jeremyduffy, on 08/25/2008, -2/+13Now if they can get rid of the double-taxation problem on corporate stock earnings.
- TalksInMaths, on 08/25/2008, -0/+11I love the part where he used the IRS' own "Tax Payer Advocate Service" to beat them back the first time :)
Great story. - Moonkeeper, on 08/25/2008, -1/+12...and in a Libertarian society that would all still exist
- pathouston22, on 08/25/2008, -8/+19All these people hating on the IRS, yet will vote Democrat.
Irony! - macdady843, on 08/25/2008, -3/+14@jknevitt
You are an idiot if you think our infrastructure would crumble. Ever hear of the something called a State? If federal taxes were abolished the states would make up for it by finding their own way to raise funds. And guess what... the states can't run a deficit like the Federal Government can so we would all be better off as a country. (That dollar might just be a little stronger as a result)
The Federal Government has way too much control over what the states do and was never intended to be as big as it is today. If you don't believe me then look at how the Federal Government holds highway funds ransom if any state were to lower the drinking age below 21. You don't think that's a little shady? That's why they call it the "United States of America" not the Federal Authority of America and unfortunately the latter is what we should call it today.
As far as your argument that tolls would increase without bound that is just plain wrong. Ever driven on a turn pike?? We have one here in Ohio (which is privately maintained by state funds I might add) and the rates climb at a snails pace if at all.
So you decide what is better.. giving your money to a federal government that doesn't have to worry about running a deficit and misspends and misappropriates money OR give your money to the state where the funds are closer to home and problems are easier to deal with if a state governor decides to waste our money.
P.S. (its a lot easier to get rid of a governor doing a bad job than a congress full of idiots who could care less about you and me) - kingp, on 08/25/2008, -1/+12While this great, it doesn't benefit me at all right now. I just want my paycheck without stupid income taxes on it. It's my PERSONAL PROPERTY DAMNIT!
- eryximachus, on 08/25/2008, -1/+10It is certainly a consideration.
With most municipalities dependent upon property taxes, rapidly declining property values are destructive.
Many municipalities went bankrupt during the depression for this very reason. While the reasons for the bailout have been obfuscated, there is no question a major motivator was to prevent this from happening again. Chapter 9 of the bankruptcy code deals specifically with municipalities and was added during the depression.
So, learn some history. A word of advice: if you read something and think it doesn't make sense, instead of thinking the poster is crazy - read up on the subject. - methylamine, on 08/25/2008, -0/+9We spend 12 TIMES as much as the next biggest military spender, Russia.
We spend more than the rest of the world, COMBINED, on military "defense".
We have bases in 130 countries around the world.
We are the new Roman Empire, and we are suffering the same fate. - macdady843, on 08/25/2008, -1/+10@ jameslankford
Ever heard of State Taxes?? Is it that hard of a concept to grasp? - thedogfatherx, on 08/25/2008, -0/+7That's BS. If you make more money you pay more taxes. Simple as that.
- slappy83, on 08/25/2008, -2/+9Are you serious. The reason private schools are so expensive is because government school have a monopoly on the education market. And the reason people can't pay for their children to have a private education is because +20% of each paycheck goes to the government. You truly are a product of "The Nanny State" if you can't understand that.
- govsucks, on 08/25/2008, -1/+8No sir, Idiots, useful idiots.
- LaughingMan89, on 08/25/2008, -0/+7A flat tax system wouldn't have helped here, since the issue was over what is considered income, not how it is taxed. (unless you meant a flat sales tax and no income tax, then yeah it would help)
- dave122, on 08/25/2008, -5/+12So giving everyone the same rate is somehow giving rich people a break? I really think you have your interpretation backwards... Either that or you are retarded.
- Lucas123, on 08/25/2008, -0/+6Flat tax. Let me see, if I earn $10,000 per year and I'm taxed at 25%, I pay $2,500. If I earn $100,000 per year, I'm taxed $25,000. If I earn $1,000,000 per year, I'm taxed at $250,000 per year. Yeah, I can see how unfair a flat tax is.
- thedogfatherx, on 08/25/2008, -1/+7This guy deserves a gold medal, a plaque, and some hot strippers for the night.
- scarwars, on 08/25/2008, -0/+5right that's it!
No more coffee for you! - bigmac375, on 08/25/2008, -1/+6shut the ***** up god damnit.
- fyngyrz, on 08/25/2008, -0/+5Dood, the state of Montana can't run an intentional deficit because it's part of the state's constitution. Because we have SENSE:
Article VIII, section 9...
"Appropriations by the legislature shall not exceed anticipated revenue."
...that's just how easy it is, folks.
The feds are not just taxing us, they're setting up our kids for a huge fall; those kids are going to have to pay taxes for all the usual things, plus pay the principal back for all the ***** borrowing the feds do. If you gave your kid a credit card, and he ran up a bill larger than your annual income, what would you do? Well, the feds have done FAR worse than that.
And that, my two-party duckings, is just *one* of the reasons you ought to be voting third-party right across the board. The feds are not your friends.
And that whole roads thing... yeah, paid for by fuel taxes. To any extent they aren't, they should be. Users of a service should pay for a service, with the single exception of charity.
That's going to need to be restructured anyway as electric vehicles become more common. Pay by miles traveled, weight of vehicle with typical load divided by wheels on the ground... something like that.
Leave it up to the morons in the federal legislature and your kids will end up paying for that, too. - insomniac8400, on 08/25/2008, -0/+5I think we need to get rid of property tax for a primary residence. No one should have to pay taxes on their home. Just use income tax to pay for local services. And then people have the added benefit of not having to pay taxes while unemployed. I could never understand how someone retired or unemployed is supposed to be able to pay property tax without a pay check. And then all those working high school kids would actually be paying for their own education.
- SimmaDownNow, on 08/25/2008, -1/+6Yep, that's probably why I fell. Simple Google search would have set me straight. Stand corrected.
- Sherman901, on 08/25/2008, -0/+5***** the police!
wait.. hold on... oh - Stryder81, on 08/25/2008, -0/+5http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xuxc2rl38rg
Congrats to this victory, I hope more cases come fourth.
>:-I - AncientDude, on 08/25/2008, -1/+6http://www.fairtax.org is the ONLY way to go! Truly fair for everyone. All the time.
The flat tax still leaves far too many loopholes, deductions and credits allowing too many people to get around paying the taxes they owe. The FairTax eliminates ALL of these!!!!!!! - govsucks, on 08/25/2008, -1/+6Actually, I prefer people who beat the IRS WITH metal....crowbars, hammers, whatever.
- Lucas123, on 08/25/2008, -13/+18w00t! Here's to a flat tax system.
- sevvo, on 08/25/2008, -0/+5You can't take on the government and "win". Now the poor guy's going to have a "surprise stroke".
- psion01, on 08/25/2008, -4/+8Well, vote libertarian and you'll start making changes that limit the breadth of government. But even if you have a libertarian President, you'd still have to deal with a congress which is mostly populated with big-government types who see a bloated federal bureaucracy as the solution to everybody's problems. You'll need a libertarian President AND Congress before you'd see major changes, and I'm reluctant to wish for that since that kind of power always seems to lead to mayhem. I'd rather see libertarianism become the platform of a viable third party or start to heavily influence one or both of the mainstream parties.
- funk13, on 08/25/2008, -0/+4The statute of limitations refers to the amended tax forms which are the legal manner in which a citizen can request a change in their taxes for up to three years following the end of the tax season for that tax year.
Mind you, though, the IRS can audit your tax returns up to five years from that original tax year.
So, in essence, you only have three years to adjust your taxes, whereas the IRS can take up to five years to adjust your taxes (almost always for their benefit).
I'm by no means saying the IRS is justified in their tax legislation nor am I stating that they are in the right in this matter. I am stating, however, the impropriety between a citizen's rights when comes to taxes and the IRS' heavy hand. - evilbob333, on 08/25/2008, -0/+4I do think that they poor should pay taxes. And I think they should be paying taxes proportional to what a rich person pays. Aside from the fairness issues where all people are treated equally in the eyes of the law, it also gives them a reason to pause over supporting governments wasteful spending. Especially if it bites into their finances. That being said, I much prefer the fair tax as defined in the Fair Tax Book by Neal Boortz (I say that because people like to mis characterize the fair tax). That can be argued to hit the rich harder because they spend so much more of their money and more importantly does not tax the accumulation of wealth by the poor.
- falstaff, on 08/25/2008, -1/+5No, but it is mentioned in the 16th. People have tried to challenge it, but have never gotten anywhere.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 139 discussions
The Digg Toolbar for Firefox lets you Digg, submit content, and keep track of Digg even when you're not on the Digg site. Download the official 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is