Archive for the ‘Income Taxes’ Category
Does The IRS Scandal Go Beyond Scrutiny Of Conservative Organizations Right Down To Individual Donors?
Posted on: May 26, 2013
Here is an interesting observation. Just a couple of days and less than a week after one of the most significant political scandals in modern American history, the IRS scandal involving conservative organizations, the episode seems to have blown over already. Not one major media outlet had any mention of it on their front page this morning. Only Fox News had a story on the front page and it was down at the bottom.
Why do I bring this up?
Because nobody at the congressional hearings has asked or seems to be asking the question that is lurking at the back of everyone’s mind regarding the IRS Scandal, “Did the IRS obtain lists of donors to the conservative organizations which they scrutinized and did The IRS harass those individual citizen donors?” Or, “Did the IRS attempt to harass and intimidate individual donors to those conservative organizations?” I think we all know the IRS routinely targets conservatives, but to use a list from one of the conservative organizations would have a chilling effect on donations to those organizations. Perhaps that is the intent of this entire scandal, to do just that, frighten donors who give to conservative organizations.
Nobody is asking that most significant question, more significant than all the others, “Did The IRS harass known individual conservatives?”
That is THE QUESTION at the back of everyone’s mind. Unfortunately, I think we all know the answer to that question. Obviously we are not going to get the truth.
Copyright © William Thien 2013
Sign up to receive updates. It’s easy and safe. Just go to the upper right hand corner of this page and add your email address.
The Same-SEX Marriage Debate: How to Deal with The High Cost of Political Morality Play
Posted on: May 4, 2013
One of the big debates going on at the state level in many states right now involves the decision to legalize “same-SEX marriage.” One side thinks legalization of “same-SEX marriage” is only fair for those who choose an alternative lifestyle and the other says it is immoral or against religious values. Then of course there are those who really had no opinion on the matter, which is where I resided until something occurred to me.
If you read my essays and observations regularly or have signed up to receive my updates, you will have concluded by now that I am a conservative, more conservative than that political party which often attempts to ally itself with conservative measure but is frequently no more conservative than the other side of the aisle in the comparison of many nowadays. Many conservatives believe that same-sex marriage should not be legal. That is not my sentiment, even though many believe my political or belief system falls within the realm of “true conservatism.”
Instead, I approach the subject of “same-SEX marriage” from the same perspective as I approach that of abortion, which I believe as a “true conservative” should be legal. “What?” You inquire? “How can that be, “same-sex marriage” and abortion are not even closely related?” Well, it is not that they are closely related, which as you will see later that they are in a way very closely related, it is that I view “same-SEX marriage” and abortion using the same method I use to view whether or not I believe as a “true conservative” that abortion should be legal, something many in the conservative hall are opposed to with vigor.
I believe that abortion should be legal because a woman can’t raise a child on her own unless she is independently wealthy or has government support, with government support being money from taxpayers, which by default means larger government and more taxes, something to which a “true conservative” is opposed, particularly now when taxes are approaching all time high levels and more people receive government entitlements than ever before.
“OK, so you are for legal abortion because you believe it helps to keep the size of government in check, what’s that have to do with “same-SEX marriage?”” You are asking.
Well, instead of approaching the subject of same-sex marriage from the perspective of whether it is a moral issue, I believe we should apply a certain approach to the subject that merely asks the question, “Will “same-SEX marriage” raise taxes for the taxpayer?” If the legalization of same-sex marriage results in an increase in taxes to the taxpayer, then perhaps it should be reconsidered. But if the legalization of same-sex marriage will result in a decrease in taxes, then perhaps it should be considered. You see, like abortion, you have to examine the behavior. The two, “same-SEX marriage” and abortion are indeed very closely related because they involve the subject of “SEX” and the product of “SEX!” In the case of “same-SEX marriage,” the subject of discussion is the subject of “SEX,” sex by people of the same “SEX!” And if legalization of “same-SEX marriage” results in an increase in taxes to pay for the legalization of a type of sexual activity, or “SEX,” then by the definition of any conservative, not just a “true conservative,” it should probably not be considered for legalization. Just like abortion, which deals with the result of “SEX,” or a fetus, “same-SEX marriage” deals with the subject of “SEX!” And in America we are already dealing with the substantial cost of “SEX” from unwed pregnancies at an alarming rate. Just in 2011 forty-one percent of children born were born to out-of-wedlock mothers who almost all certainly obtained a substantial amount of support from the taxpayer to enable such sexual inequity.
It is by the same method then that I believe we should approach the subject of “same-SEX marriage” as that of outlawing abortion, asking the question, how will it affect the burden of taxation upon the taxpayer? If legalization of same-sex marriage increases taxes for the taxpayers, then perhaps it should not be legalized as it is believed that outlawing abortion would increase taxes, substantially.
I think this same method, asking the question, “What burden will it place upon the taxpayer?” should be applied to all such similar circumstances, particularly those involving sexual behaviors. They are consensual behaviors generally and don’t harm anyone until they become issues which affect taxation when then they directly impact the taxpayer. I think the method I discuss here is an excellent way to deal with the political morality play, the political theater and misrepresentation that goes on with such matters of consensual behavior. And though I recognize the biblical origin and position of religious leadership on the matter of “same-SEX marriage,” I don’t think it is as much of a religious matter as it is an economic issue.
Why?
Because it is time American taxpayers should be free from having to pay for others to have sex on a bed made of taxpayers’ dollars.
Copyright © William Thien 2013
Sign up to receive updates. It’s easy and safe. Just go to the upper right hand corner of this page and add your email address.
Did you know that two million (2,300,000) illegal immigrants received a tax refund? That’s fine if two million paid taxes on their income but in fact many work for cash. Furthermore, they are claiming relatives that don’t even live here and the refunds total close to $4.2 Billion.
How do they do it? The IRS says everyone must file a tax return. Illegal immigrants are given an Individual Taxpayer Identification Number. When they file they claim an Additional Child Tax Credit (ACTC) often for children living in a foreign country or across the border. Seventy-percent of the claims using the ITIN use the Additional Child Tax Credit. One tax preparer-whistleblower said they’d seen often as many as 10 and 12 dependent claims on a return.
The law says they have to file a return and the IRS doesn’t have the authority, since they are not citizens, to do anything about it.
By the way, that’s $1826 per refund if you average it out. Just thought you’d like to know.
Copyright © William Thien 2013
Sign up to receive updates. It’s easy and safe. Just go to the upper right hand corner of this page and add your email address.
I am currently reading a book titled Those Dirty Rotten TAXES, The TAX REVOLTS that BUILT AMERICA, written by Charles Adams, published by The Free Press, a Division of Simon & Schuster Incorporated. I highly recommend the book. Were I a book reviewer I’d give it five stars. The book is available at bookstores and online.
In the book Adams discusses the five main tax revolts in the history of The United States. It’s fascinating reading and the book demonstrates some of the necessary mechanics required in a tax revolt.
Adams describes the variety of tax revolts and how the citizenry viewed various taxes in the day. The country’s founding fathers long after the formation of The United States often and generally referred to taxes as “legalized theft.” And they were really often only talking about a few pennies. Perhaps they’d be turning in their graves if they knew what we pay today.
I would like to compliment Mr. Adams and The Free Press and Simon & Schuster Incorporated on such a fascinating book.
William Thien
Recently I had a conversation with a colleague on the subject of tax deductions. The conversation meandered from one deduction to another and then proceeded to the topic of The Dependent Child Tax Deduction. He also being a single tax payer, I asked him what he thought about the deduction? His reply was the standard fare for someone who might have designs on a political career or in other words was basically afraid to speak what he actually thought, so he said he thought that the deduction and any such tax assistance which helped families were a good thing. Personally, I didn’t believe he actually thought that for a second. Others were listening and he was well aware of that fact. Who can disagree, I thought to myself? Families need help. It sounds great. Who would hurt families?
It’s a bogus deduction, really, as the deduction is merely a redistribution of wealth. As I myself have stated though, I don’t have a problem with the deduction, being single and not eligible to take it. And agreed, any tax assistance families can get is a good thing. The problem is that “families” to me are composed of a mother, father, and children. But nearly half of all children born today (41% in 2011) are born to single mothers (not single fathers, by the way, but single mothers). And you know what? Single mothers also take the dependent child tax deduction. So, a tax deduction meant to help families, families by definition having a mother, father, and children is being used by single women, single mothers who are not married and don’t even have any children, yet! No family there to begin with, just a woman having sex who want’s to get pregnant really, perhaps so she herself can then be eligible for medical benefits for the duration of the child’s life through adolescence. Otherwise birth control would have been involved in the sexual ordeal. Would it not? Of course she would have used birth control if she didn’t want to have a child. It’s everywhere. They give contraceptives away free all over the place, even in schools! Yes, that’s right! People are popping babies out everywhere left and right at your expense and your only defense against the cost of it is to offer free contraceptives everywhere?! Get rid of the damn tax breaks! Come on people!
Now, not only are single people and those who have not had children, not only are they paying for the dependent child tax deduction for families, they are paying for single women, often only girls really having children out-of-wedlock as well, women who just a few short years ago would have been called a few unsavory names. The dependent child tax deduction is therefore by default, discriminatory. Yes, single fathers are probably taking it. But how often really does that happen? It’s a statistical anomaly, I’m sure. So, as a matter of numbers, the deduction is by definition sexually discriminatory. Well, you might say, men are not supposed to complain about that type of thing, only women. OK. Let’s move on now that I’ve made the observation. We can always come back to it.
My original premise on the topic of the dependent child tax deduction dealt with the unfairness of the tax to single people and empty nesters or those who are married and have never had children, but the realization that single women are using the tax deduction as well reveals that the tax is even more unfair and indicates that particular portion of the tax code is ineffective and is probably often being used to pay for the result of a night of illicit sex, seemingly in perpetuity. Yes, single women have sex, too. And you know what? They get pregnant! And once again, in 2011 forty-one percent of the children born were born to single females. Nearly half! That has to be costly in terms of government support and taxes as all of those women can’t afford to raise a child through term and continue to work without some form of assistance. I wonder in fact how many of them receive government (that’s taxpayer, by the way) support. I’d wager it is close to 100 percent that receive some form or another at one time or another.
To continue on the matter of the deduction indicating an ineffective tax code, families generally use more government services by default, sending children to public schools or getting school vouchers, using socialized medicine more frequently, you name it. But instead of billing families for use of those services, they are given a tax break in the form of the dependent child deduction while using the services no less, and the bill is passed on to another segment of society, single people, statistically to single men in particular as forty-one percent of the single women are getting pregnant. Do the math! The result is that there isn’t enough money to fix the roads or improve schools when needed because there are not enough single men to pay for all of the families and the nights of illicit sex had by single women (who just a short while ago were again called worse) who want to get pregnant and have a child out-of-wedlock and thus receive the tax break.
Politicians, instead of addressing the reality of a screwed up tax code (no pun intended but it works, doesn’t it?) for fear of not getting re-elected, simply attempt to cut school budgets again and again and let the roads go until you feel like you are driving on a road in a third world country. Afraid to cut social programs and tax breaks for women having children out-of-wedlock for fear of being labeled “anti-baby” by the media or for simply angering the media which make massive profits from single mothers sitting at home in front of the television, politicians don’t fix the dysfunctional tax code, which results in massive government debt and inevitable tax increases for everyone because a hoard of single women wanted to have sex and now the system says, “Hey, you want to screw around and get pregnant? We got a bunch of suckers who are forced to pay for it!”
Why did I pick that particular deduction to examine so thoroughly? The dependent child tax deduction is one that is most often used and so everyone has an idea of what it is and it makes a great follow through into the subject of deductions available within the tax code. The tax code is full of such deductions for many other things, for merely doing one type of business or another. The tax code is a sham. And what’s worse, as long as we continue to validate such deductions as the dependent child tax deduction, something even single women (not families) take as a result of the product of a night of illicit sex, the other truly unfair deductions and loopholes will remain. Ultimately, with regard to the dependent child tax deduction people are getting a tax deduction for the product of SEX! Yes, ladies and gentlemen, that’s how children are made!
I am sure there is someone out there, perhaps many, saying, “Oh, you can handle it. Yer a guy. Buck up!” OK. I have been doing just that.
What to do? What to do!
Where do I stand on this issue, then? I’m for lowering the general tax rates across the board and getting rid of the loopholes as much as possible and deductions across the board for everyone, corporations included, because the deductions unfairly strap particular segments of the population with the product of sex. That is exactly what the deduction does. It makes others pay for the result of someone’s sexual behavior.
Simple as that…
Copyright © William Thien 2013
Sign up to receive updates. It’s easy and safe. Just go to the upper right hand corner of this page and add your email address.
Abolish The Sixteenth Amendment!
Posted on: March 17, 2013
- In: conservatism | Conservative Thought | Income Taxes | Politics | Sales Taxes | Tax Revolt | Taxes
- 1 Comment
Amendment Sixteen is the “Income Tax” amendment which enables the levy of taxes on income. Enacted in 1913 the amendment enables the federal government to tax income in an almost arbitrary manner to pay for anything the government deems necessary. Prior to the income tax amendment the government raised revenues via tariffs (customs duties) and excise taxes. The founding fathers felt income taxes were more injurious to the tax payer than excise or customs taxes and so fought against them.
Here is the text of The Sixteenth Amendment:
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.
Clearly the text of The Sixteenth Amendment indicates such income taxation is arbitrarily determined based on Congressional whim.
It is my belief that the income tax is ruining the country’s small business climate as it has steadily increased over the last eighty years from under five percent for most to often now reaching into the thirtieth percentile. Since the income is taken from your weekly or periodic pay you do not have that discretionary income left (off it has gone to the government) to purchase small ticket items at the store which are made in the United States, where it often costs more to manufacture such items than Asia, for example, where the cost of labor is lower. Since you have less income due to the income tax you cannot afford “Made in America.” The gross effect is then that the income tax destroys American Industry. Small ticket items manufacturing is the bread and butter of American business as you purchase such items on a regular basis with receipt of your weekly pay, rather than a car or a house, for example. I’ve blogged on this in the past, click here to read the essay ==> Income Taxes: Serial Killer of American Small Business.
Let’s do some basic math on the matter. If for example you made $1,000 a month in pay and your income tax was five percent (wow, that would be nice), your tax would be $50.00. But if your income tax on the same pay is twenty-five percent, you are taking home $750.00 instead of $950.00. That $200.00 a month is going directly to the federal government, perhaps for you on a bi-weekly basis! For what! What do you get really!? Nothing that benefits you in the long term in terms of property or rights. Nothing! With that $200.00 you could build your savings, buy a new car, you name it. But instead it is going to the federal government. What do you get for that $200.00 from the federal government? Over the last thirty or forty years you have seen an incredible attack on your rights to privacy and property with all manner of changes regarding search and seizure and surveillance of Americans. You are now a suspect, did you know that!
The income tax has many, many negative effects on Americans. The income tax undermines small business and industry, it effects people’s savings as they have less to set aside (it’s going to the government instead), it forces people to buy on credit more causing massive financial distress, and it allows foreign producers where labor is less expensive to overcome American industry.
It is time to abolish The Sixteenth Amendment! It is destroying America!
I’ve often thought what should The Sixteenth Amendment be replaced with? How about a Balanced Budget Amendment that requires Congress to keep its house in order instead of increasing income taxes when things get tough.
Copyright © William Thien 2013
Sign up to receive updates. It’s easy and safe. Just go to the upper right hand corner of this page and add your email address.
Quote on Firearms Ownership by Benjamin Franklin and a Related Analysis
Posted on: February 11, 2013
- In: conservatism | Conservative Thought | Gun Rights | Income Taxes | Politics | Sales Taxes | Tax Revolt | Taxes | William Thien
- Leave a Comment
“Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote.” ~ Benjamin Franklin ~
By “what to have for lunch” Benjamin Franklin is clearly talking about “taxes.” How else would the wolves pay for lunch? It is quite possible a contemporary example of one of the wolves to which Benjamin Franklin refers would be the “liberal” in that it is the liberal who believes every social ill can be addressed by big government, thusly, taxes. I use the term “liberal” literally and it is up to you to decide to which political party I refer.
I ask then, who is the other wolf?
Copyright © William Thien 2013
Sign up to receive updates. It’s easy and safe. Just go to the upper right hand corner of this page and add your email address.
Request to Rep. Issa: Call IRS Employee Lerner Back!
Posted by: William Thien on: May 26, 2013
When Lois Lerner made it public during a speech to a legal conference that The IRS was targeting conservative organizations with extra scrutiny she then in fact waived her right to plead The Fifth. She initiated this entire episode prior to the event even becoming a national matter, prior to The Congressional Hearing or any court commencement. In other words, Lois Lerner initiated the investigation herself when she disclosed the wrongdoing at said legal conference in a question apparently planted by The IRS itself. By taking the matter to court or to a Congressional Hearing, one can not suddenly plead the fifth. It is too late! It is no longer legally or in any other sense unreasonable to ask, “Hey, what did you mean by that?”
It is too late, Lois Lerner.
A change of venue does not change the chain of evidence or interrupt the line of testimony once an admission of guilt is made, nor do they change upon revelation of criminal behavior. By swearing in before Congress Lois Lerner only agrees to be truthful, that is all.
When Lois Lerner revealed the activities in The IRS Division of Tax Exempt Organizations during her speech at the legal conference, she admitted illegal behavior. This didn’t just slip out during ordinary conversation or off the record, she said it in an organized, pre-meditated way, most likely in an effort to head a larger scandal off at the pass that we may never discover. Lois Lerner meant to say what she said, we can be sure. It was no accident! Therefor, it is not beyond the legal scope of Congressional Investigation to make further inquiry. She can no longer plead The Fifth!
Then, during the Congressional Hearing itself she stated she was innocent of any wrong doing, once again negating her right to plead The Fifth. What wrong doing? So she admits there have been misdeeds! Again, it is too late now to plead The Fifth.
Could Lois Lerner’s revelation merely be an attempt by The IRS to prevent the discovery of the wider, more devastating scandal that has appeared in everyone’s mind, “Does The IRS investigate individual conservative donors?”
Our elected must work exhaustively on this and other such tax-related matters to ferret out all of the wrongdoing at The IRS so that Americans can feel free to contribute to whomever or whatever cause they feel necessary. This is one of the reasons why I have been calling for an end to Amendment Sixteen for some time, now. The IRS is simply too powerful, vindictive, and socially destructive.
Rep. Issa, call Lois Lerner back if you would please! Call her back!
Copyright © William Thien 2013
Sign up to receive updates. It’s easy and safe. Just go to the upper right hand corner of this page and add your email address.