• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Owe The IRS? Bill Would Suspend Passport Rights For Delinquent Taxpayers

Cool, does that include all federal workers who owe 1.3 billion in taxes? I think Buffett is behind too and better check out the Treasury Secretary again.
 
I like this bill as it has some room for exceptions "in the event of emergency or humanitarian situations or limited return travel to the U.S., or in cases when any tax debt is currently being repaid in a “timely manner” or when collection efforts have been suspended." This seems equitable. The fact is we have to pay our taxes and while I do not have a problem with tax avoidance, I do have a problem with tax evasion.
 
Cool, does that include all federal workers who owe 1.3 billion in taxes? I think Buffett is behind too and better check out the Treasury Secretary again.

What in the hell are you talking about? Can you link to this story?
 
What's next? If you can't afford to pay your taxes, you shouldn't be able to afford a place to live? You shouldn't be able to cross statelines? Own a vehicle? Have kids?

This is how tyrrany begins.

Or eat Hamburgers?

Own a barbecue?

cats-dramatic.jpg

Stop being so dramatic.

Preventing people who owe lots of money to the IRS from fleeing the US is hardly on par with your "any government act is one out of 1984" rantings.
 

It's not that simple.

Berkshire doesn't actually owe back taxes per se. They're referring to deferred tax assets, in my line of work known as DTAs. Some of these are timing differences between GAAP and Federal Tax that may or may not come due based on certain conditions. Furthermore, treatment of certain items may result in creation of permanent DTAs. What the article, and others like this one:
NetRight Daily » Warren Buffett

Are saying is that the firm's consolidated return is being audited and some of these DTAs may not withstand scrutiny resulting in a tax adjustment. Merely because Berkshire may have a billion in DTAs does not mean they owe a billion.

It's one thing to not declare income like Wesley Snipes and another to have tax treatment of items reduce one's tax bill and when audited may not be allowed. Granted, this is somewhat of a complex subject that I really can't expect people to grasp, but it's nowhere as simple as the article you posted makes it out to be.

As for Tim's problem, the author himself admits he forgot about it too. Expats actually have this problem on such a regular basis that every big four firm has a expatriot tax department. There's a girl in my office right now who does that as her entire job.

For those who owe, we should simply garnish their wages. After all, we do employ them.
 
It's not that simple.

Berkshire doesn't actually owe back taxes per se. They're referring to deferred tax assets, in my line of work known as DTAs. Some of these are timing differences between GAAP and Federal Tax that may or may not come due based on certain conditions. Furthermore, treatment of certain items may result in creation of permanent DTAs. What the article, and others like this one:
NetRight Daily » Warren Buffett

Are saying is that the firm's consolidated return is being audited and some of these DTAs may not withstand scrutiny resulting in a tax adjustment. Merely because Berkshire may have a billion in DTAs does not mean they owe a billion.

It's one thing to not declare income like Wesley Snipes and another to have tax treatment of items reduce one's tax bill and when audited may not be allowed. Granted, this is somewhat of a complex subject that I really can't expect people to grasp, but it's nowhere as simple as the article you posted makes it out to be.

As for Tim's problem, the author himself admits he forgot about it too. Expats actually have this problem on such a regular basis that every big four firm has a expatriot tax department. There's a girl in my office right now who does that as her entire job.

For those who owe, we should simply garnish their wages. After all, we do employ them.



Pre sa is different? Is that like kind of being pregnant? Buffett is fighting about owing these taxes. You either owe them or you don't.
 
Good. While I don't agree with how our current tax code is implemented if you don't pay you should experience a harsher penalty than is currently being enforced. This one sounds reasonable

I have a great idea-if you don't pay income taxes you don't get a passport or a right to vote

(oops, there goes the DNC ever winning another presidential election)
 
Actually, that works for me. Anyone who can afford to travel abroad can afford to pay their taxes. If I have to pay mine, everyone else has to pay theirs. It's a win-win. :)

I would think that a judgement or conviction of tax evasion could bring such a penalty... simply owing money should bring nothing more than the already existing interest and monetary penalties.
there should be no sanctioned punishment, in the form of rights infringements, unless there is a crime ...and due process is employed to convict.
 
What's next? If you can't afford to pay your taxes, you shouldn't be able to afford a place to live? You shouldn't be able to cross statelines? Own a vehicle? Have kids?

This is how tyrrany begins.

Yes, of course, that's exactly what's next. First a bill that proclaims anyone who cannot pay their taxes will be immediately evicted and their homes and personal possessions confiscated and sold. Next there will be a bill that says if you cannot pay your taxes you will be locked inside your state of residence, have your vehicles impounded and be sterilized against your will. Any children you currently have at the time will be immediately sold, and the proceeds applied against your back-taxes.

I can see it all so clearly now. :lamo
 
Yes, of course, that's exactly what's next. First a bill that proclaims anyone who cannot pay their taxes will be immediately evicted and their homes and personal possessions confiscated and sold. Next there will be a bill that says if you cannot pay your taxes you will be locked inside your state of residence, have your vehicles impounded and be sterilized against your will. Any children you currently have at the time will be immediately sold, and the proceeds applied against your back-taxes.

I can see it all so clearly now. :lamo

< looks at sarcastic post>

<looks at politicians in office>



yeah.... some of the stuff isn't much of a stretch for our leaders to shoot for
 
< looks at sarcastic post>

<looks at politicians in office>



yeah.... some of the stuff isn't much of a stretch for our leaders to shoot for

Little by little, they get us accustomed to it...
 
< looks at sarcastic post>

<looks at politicians in office>



yeah.... some of the stuff isn't much of a stretch for our leaders to shoot for

If you can support the silliness in the post I quoted, have at it! Me, I find it difficult to adopt a "sky-is-falling" attitude because folks who owe more than $50,000 in taxes will have to vacation in Aspin instead of Cabo or Paris. :mrgreen:

But if they do indeed get around to imprisoning folks in their own state, sterilizing them against their will, and selling their children, I'll humbly admit that you were right. :)
 
Last edited:
If you can support the silliness in the post I quoted, have at it! Me, I find it difficult to adopt a "sky-is-falling" attitude because folks who owe more than $50,000 in taxes will have to vacation in Aspin instead of Cabo or Paris. :mrgreen:

you don't have to be rich to be 50 grand in the hole with the IRS....it's not uncommon for a self employed person to be in arrears during the first few years of business.
.. i've heard many of my compadres tell tales of owing alot more than that.. and they aren't even close to "rich".

passports are also used to travel for business.... and travel for business is more common than vacation travel.

this law is ignorant, unjust,too broad, and will ensnare many people who are innocent of any crimes.
it is not a crime to owe taxes.... it is only a crime to evade taxes.


other than that, the only silly things you said in your post was about selling kids and forced sterilization.... the rest are punishments that are applied in many jurisdictions for various crimes.
 
What's next? If you can't afford to pay your taxes, you shouldn't be able to afford a place to live? You shouldn't be able to cross statelines? Own a vehicle? Have kids?

This is how tyrrany begins.


I'm usually not a fan of slippery slope arguments. If your best tactic is, "this, by itself, isn't that bad, but what if some other bad thing happens?" you don't have a very good argument.
 
you don't have to be rich to be 50 grand in the hole with the IRS....it's not uncommon for a self employed person to be in arrears during the first few years of business.
.. i've heard many of my compadres tell tales of owing alot more than that.. and they aren't even close to "rich".

passports are also used to travel for business.... and travel for business is more common than vacation travel.

this law is ignorant, unjust,too broad, and will ensnare many people who are innocent of any crimes.
it is not a crime to owe taxes.... it is only a crime to evade taxes.


other than that, the only silly things you said in your post was about selling kids and forced sterilization.... the rest are punishments that are applied in many jurisdictions for various crimes.

This is the post I was responding to, with the ridicule it deserved:

What's next? If you can't afford to pay your taxes, you shouldn't be able to afford a place to live? You shouldn't be able to cross statelines? Own a vehicle? Have kids?

This is how tyrrany begins.


Congratulations. You have defended apdst's post and called my post silly. It's a two-fer, my friend. :mrgreen:
 
Pre sa is different? Is that like kind of being pregnant? Buffett is fighting about owing these taxes. You either owe them or you don't.

Did you put any effort at all into learning anything about what a deferred tax asset is?


If you're not going to bother to even pretend that you are remotely interest in honest debate, then I'm going to start treating you very, very, very, very badly.
 

Honestly, who is this really going to effect? Do you think Warren Buffett is not going be allowed to travel outside the country because of his delinquent taxes? He is the owner of many companies that are delinquent. When do they go after the owners of these companies that aren't paying their taxes?

There are two sides of the coin for those who aren't paying taxes.

1) They have the money, and the refuse to pay because they are a Buffett type.
2) They don't have the money to pay their taxes, so now they are going to travel abroad? I doubt it.
 
Of course we all know Buffet's CORPORATIONS are considered separate 'people' and thus Warren himself isn't the one on the hook for the tax money. To be a little clearer about Hathaway-Berkshire's tax issues the corporation PAID it's taxes but the IRS decided the bill should be higher.

Now this slippery slope argument, you can apply the same lament to getting speeding tickets as what next?, the death penalty for doing 10 over the limit?

Part of this 'responsibility' mantra is a need for constant vigilance, not hit it once and be done forever with it. Libertarians should know this.

$50,000 in UNPAID taxes is a rather high number for most of us. Most unpaid taxes are due to a miscalculation or taking a deduction the IRS rules isn't proper. That means for most of us have paid the bulk of out tax debt, just not ALL of it. I can see where a few try to be way too cute with their tax math and deductions and wind up in deep tax debt.

But the fix is easy, the IRS isn't vicious, they set up payment plans for most all who thought they could get away with calling the summer home a branch office... :lol:
 
I'm curious as to the actual goal of this bill....


What does traveling abroad have to do with paying taxes, in the first place? Someone else said this already, and I'll repeat it....you're either unable to pay those taxes, which is why you haven't paid them, which typically means traveling is out of the question for you....or you CAN pay them, but CHOOSE not to.

Of those, this bill seems like it wants to go after the latter....but the problem is, the folks that CHOOSE not to pay up, or also the ones with the most tools to get AWAY with not paying up. With the exception of, say, Wesley Snipes...

As mentioned before, since corporations are people....folks like Buffet don't have that tax liability....their corporation does. And I have yet to see a corporation at the ticket check line, or having their luggage checked, etc etc etc. Because F'ing corporations are not people, and don't travel.


Far more effective, I think, would be to say that business licenses should be suspending pending delinquent tax bills. Probably be much cheaper to enforce, too.
 
I'm curious as to the actual goal of this bill....


What does traveling abroad have to do with paying taxes, in the first place? Someone else said this already, and I'll repeat it....you're either unable to pay those taxes, which is why you haven't paid them, which typically means traveling is out of the question for you....or you CAN pay them, but CHOOSE not to.

Of those, this bill seems like it wants to go after the latter....but the problem is, the folks that CHOOSE not to pay up, or also the ones with the most tools to get AWAY with not paying up. With the exception of, say, Wesley Snipes...

As mentioned before, since corporations are people....folks like Buffet don't have that tax liability....their corporation does. And I have yet to see a corporation at the ticket check line, or having their luggage checked, etc etc etc. Because F'ing corporations are not people, and don't travel.


Far more effective, I think, would be to say that business licenses should be suspending pending delinquent tax bills. Probably be much cheaper to enforce, too.

I agree - but I think this is directly aimed at individuals, not corporations: they already have a series of things to respond to when/if they fail to fork it over as opposed to individuals who - well - face nothing except for paying interest.
 
Back
Top Bottom