Some Days I Hate My Job

[Jeff Higgins]

Originally Posted by berettafan

if we can all agree that anarchy is not desirable then i see only one possible course of action here:

1-continue with tax collection activities as per tax code.
2-help this guy find assistance through charitable organizations

We have a winner!

[Christien]

Now that doesn't make any sense at all to me. It seems needlessly bureaucratic, and possibly a waste of resources. Basically what you're suggesting is that charities pay this guy's tax bill. Is that really what we want charities to do? I don't.

Why not have the IRS work out a payment plan with him now, rather than garnish his wages? (especially someone in the entertainment industry who would be able to hide wages better than many other people) Sure, they've tried in the past and he didn't respond, but perhaps now he's of a clearer frame of mind. Besides, garnishment could be the first step towards bankruptcy, in which case the IRS gets nothing. Something is always better than nothing, regardless of how it's come by.

Then the charities have that money to spend on people who likely need it more.

[KFC911]

When the IRS garnishes someone's wages, do they take it "all" (can't imagine that) or is there a "typical" percentage?

[Rick Lee]

No, they can't take it all. It's something like 25% of takehome. If they could take it all, there'd be no reason to show up for work.

[Christien]

Do you mean do the take the entire paycheque, or do they take the entire debt? Obviously I can't speak for the IRS, but here garnishments are for the entire debt, and are legally capped at a certain percentage of the paycheque - I'm not sure what it is, I believe it's 10 or 15%.

[Nathans_Dad]

Originally Posted by Jeff Higgins

This thread has has had a rather unpredicted, "unintended consequence" that I find a bit disheartening. It appears many of you hold fast to your own paradigms as to what constitutes a "liberal" or a "conservative", and are more than happy to pidgeonhole others into your pet definitions.

For my part, I haven't pidgeonholed anyone. My point was simply this. Many of the same posters who cried out about how unfair this situation was are the very same posters who talk about how the poor should pull themselves up by the bootstraps and rail against welfare. How are the two different? On one hand you (not specifically you, Jeff) decry people who milk the government for all it's worth and on the other you say it's unfair that this guy is getting his wages garnished for not paying his taxes. That just doesn't compute to me.

[Nathans_Dad]

Originally Posted by Christien

No, it really wouldn't be the equivalent. I think you misread my hypothetical situation. In it I suggested that the poor decision(s) was/were made under duress, not before or after duress had passed. Now that duress has passed the person needs to make things right, but not by being penalized to the full extent of the law.

Ok, I understand that, but who decides what amounts to duress? The man is still alive (as is his child) so I would assume they are still eating, drinking and have shelter. I wonder, do they have a car? A TV? Cable? How many of these things would he have to give up for it to count as duress to you?

My point is that once you reach the point of TRUE duress, you no longer owe taxes because your income is too low.

[Nathans_Dad]

Originally Posted by Christien

Do you mean do the take the entire paycheque, or do they take the entire debt? Obviously I can't speak for the IRS, but here garnishments are for the entire debt, and are legally capped at a certain percentage of the paycheque - I'm not sure what it is, I believe it's 10 or 15%.

Which is a payment plan, isn't it? It's a forced payment plan, but it's a payment plan.

[Rick Lee]

Originally Posted by Nathans_Dad

Many of the same posters who cried out about how unfair this situation was are the very same posters who talk about how the poor should pull themselves up by the bootstraps and rail against welfare. How are the two different? On one hand you (not specifically you, Jeff) decry people who milk the government for all it's worth and on the other you say it's unfair that this guy is getting his wages garnished for not paying his taxes. That just doesn't compute to me.

No. We simply don't know enough about this situation to say whether the guy is legitimately on the IRS's $hitlist. And if his self-employment status makes him owe 15%+ of some income, which would otherwise be way too low to have any fed. income tax liability, I think we can sympathize. It's one thing to be poor because you're lazy. It's quite another to be poor because the gov't. steals from you.

[Christien]

Originally Posted by Nathans_Dad

Ok, I understand that, but who decides what amounts to duress? The man is still alive (as is his child) so I would assume they are still eating, drinking and have shelter. I wonder, do they have a car? A TV? Cable? How many of these things would he have to give up for it to count as duress to you?

My point is that once you reach the point of TRUE duress, you no longer owe taxes because your income is too low.

I would agree with you there. Indeed it's a very difficult line to draw, and as soon as it's drawn, everyone will complain that it's either too strict or too lenient.

I also agree with your second point, however coming back to my hypothetical example, a year between tax returns is a long time - could be the year started off quite well and ended spending all the money (including that saved for the tax bill) under extreme duress. Are medical expenses in the US 100% tax-deductible? What about travel/accomodations/meals for medical? For example if the kid had something only treatable by specialists in one hospital on the other side of the country.

And yes, I do realize I'm really stretching to make the example here.

[Nathans_Dad]

Yeah Rick, but you don't know anything about how the poor got poor either do you?

See that's where the BS meter pegs. You are completely content to make arguments based on stereotypical "poor" people yet once you actually hear a case of someone who may qualify as poor, you seem to go the other way.

[Christien]

Originally Posted by Nathans_Dad

Yeah Rick, but you don't know anything about how the poor got poor either do you?

See that's where the BS meter pegs. You are completely content to make arguments based on stereotypical "poor" people yet once you actually hear a case of someone who may qualify as poor, you seem to go the other way.

Bingo.

[Rick Lee]

Originally Posted by Nathans_Dad

Yeah Rick, but you don't know anything about how the poor got poor either do you?

See that's where the BS meter pegs. You are completely content to make arguments based on stereotypical "poor" people yet once you actually hear a case of someone who may qualify as poor, you seem to go the other way.

I've made no argument about how anyone got poor. I have no idea how Byron's buddy got into the jam he's in. It could be a result of serious medical issues, a layoff, no idea. I will say this though. Someone who is self-employed and files as such should know about their different status wrt payroll taxes. I think it sucks, but ignorance is not much excuse there.

Christien, I believe medical expenses are tax deductible in any amount above 7% of AGI. Not sure if it's the same for self-employed. But if your AGI is $50k, you have to eat $3500 in medical expenses before the next dime becomes deductible.

[jwasbury]

CPA and former full-time tax professional here...(also formerly moonlighted as professional entertainer).

I've followed this thread with interest. While this is a sad story, it doesn't sound like the gov't is screwing the little guy to me. As others have stated, a garnish doesn't just happen. The IRS will give plenty of warning beforehand. If the taxpayer has failed to take all available deductions, then he/she can file an amended return and reduce the assessed tax. If you don't have the cash, the IRS will set up a payment plan.

I've seen this kind of thing many times, especially with indy contractors. So many people fail to understand that they need to set aside $$ since there is no withholding. No matter the circumstances, its an uncomfortable situation and I hope that the person in question can work through it successfully.

Originally Posted by stuartj

Prima facie, we all have a responsibility- a citizens responsibility- to pay our tax in accordance with the equitable application of the law of the land.

I tend to agree with this thread's antagonist "stuartj" in concept.

Originally Posted by stuartj

And before any one starts says "you dont live here" Im speaking generically, but I have in the past, and will again, filed US tax returns.

I take it from this and other's comments that stuartj is not a resident of the USA. I'd like to point out that US citizens are required to file tax returns and pay US tax on their worldwide income even while living abroad. There are mechanisms in the tax code to mitigate the problem of double taxation, but any US citizen living abroad must continue to file annual returns. If you are a US citizen stuartj and have not been filing returns while abroad, you may be cheating on your taxes.

[Jeff Higgins]

Originally Posted by Nathans_Dad

Yeah Rick, but you don't know anything about how the poor got poor either do you?

See that's where the BS meter pegs. You are completely content to make arguments based on stereotypical "poor" people yet once you actually hear a case of someone who may qualify as poor, you seem to go the other way.

I think we are all guilty of speaking in generalities at times. Or maybe "guilty" is too strong of a word; "prone" may be better. I get the impression when folks decry "stereotypical poor", and their bilking of the taxpayer (through our gubmint) for sustinance, they are refering to the life-long, or at least long-term poor that make no apparent effort to help themselves. Ever. It has even reached the point where it is a cultural thing that spans generations. We have this class of citizen (and non-citizen) here in the U.S.; those are the "stereotypical poor" to whom we refer when speaking in such generalities.

Specific cases may or may not fit into that class of poor. There are indications that Byron's friend does not. Our social programs are meant to help these kinds of folks on a temporary basis. I. for one, will never have any hard feelings towards some one who uses them in that manner. I won't judge folks who fall on hard times, regardless the reason (even if it is their own "stupidity"). If and when it becomes apparent that they are settling into a "victim" lifestyle, constantly on the public dole, "unable" to help themselves (when they are clearly physically, intellectually, and emotionally able), then my assesment of them changes dramatically. Then I begin to view them as lazy, irresponsible cheats taking advantage of the system.

It seems a few folks here fast-forwarded to that conclusion right out of the gate. They seem dissapointed with the "conservatives" that did not immediately join them in their rush to try and convict this guy on some very scant information.

So, yes, it is easy to shift gears between a position held based upon some generalizations, and one held based upon a specific case. I will readily admit to some bias here as well. I am likely to judge folks seen living in certain urban neighborhoods, or in certain rural areas, that have a certain "look" to those areas. I think we all do. We are also prone to be somewhat less judgemental with some one introduced by a friend or acquaintance. To some degree, that is simple human nature. But it does seem to be reinforced by life experiences.

[Christien]

Jeff, that's a really good summation, and hard if not impossible to argue with.

One of my problems with this issue is that many people tend to assume that all who take advantage of whatever social aides may be available are lazy, unwilling to work, irresponsible, etc. While I have no doubt that a number of such people are out there, I believe that the majority of people who do take advantage of social programs are not of that class. I have tried many times to dig up hard numbers on these people, both for the US and Canada, and I'll be damned if I've been able to.

To add some credence to it, however, I'll offer personal experience: when I was younger, my mother used to work for the Ministry of Communion and Social Services (not sure what the US equivalent would be, MCSS administers everything from welfare to group homes, drop-in centres, homelessness, disability etc.). From hearing years of her talking about her work and the people they help, there were very few people that were just "riding" the system. (and remember, this is Canada, where there is much more available from the gov't, and consequently the risk of abusing that system is much higher.) Of course there were some, but the vast majority of those in the system were there because of things like drug abuse, alcoholism and mental disease, usually varying degrees of schizophrenia. The one common link with the drug/alcohol people was almost always abusive parents. Something about abusive parents, whether it be verbal, physical or sexual, almost implants future substance abuse in kids - the rates are probably over 95%.

I suppose I'm getting a bit off-topic, but my point is that while there are definitely freeloaders out there, I think they're used as a scapegoat for people that would rather ignore a large segment of society. And this has nothing to do with any kind of "liberal" guilt of wealth, it has to do with being realistic.

[Racerbvd]

if we can all agree that anarchy is not desirable then i see only one possible course of action here:

1-continue with tax collection activities as per tax code.
2-help this guy find assistance through charitable organizations

Yes on one, no matter how the terrorist defending troll from down under tries to twist my words, I have never suggested that the taxes go unpaid, nore have I asked for any PPers to help pay his taxes, I posted to vent, that is all.

On #2, the CPA is working a plan with the IRS and I'll try and give my guy more work so he can get this behind him. Which, as all who know me is what I preach about pulling yourself up.

[mossguy]

Originally Posted by Racerbvd

Yes on one, no matter how the terrorist defending troll from down under tries to twist my words, I have never suggested that the taxes go unpaid, nore have I asked for any PPers to help pay his taxes, I posted o vent, that is all.

I can understand the reason for your post i.e, your need to vent. As I follow this thread, I am impressed with the thoughtful and mature posts and opinions. What I don't understand is your apparent need for name-calling, particularly when nothing in this thread suggests terrorist, terrorist-defending, and troll. The reference to "down under" seems gratuitous and irrelevant.

I find your opinions interesting and informative. I would find them even more-so, without the apparent pettiness.

Best,

Tom

[Nathans_Dad]

Originally Posted by Jeff Higgins

It seems a few folks here fast-forwarded to that conclusion right out of the gate. They seem dissapointed with the "conservatives" that did not immediately join them in their rush to try and convict this guy on some very scant information.

Despite Christien's opinion that your post is in-arguable...I'm going to argue

I don't think I jumped to any conclusion. My conclusion is simple. Everyone has to pay their taxes. If you don't pay your taxes then you must face up to the consequences.

I can understand and sympathize that almost everyone who makes a poor decision has a reason for doing so. Very few people will decide to not pay their taxes just because they don't feel like it.

As has been stated above, garnishment is not a knee-jerk reaction by the IRS. It is considered one of the last resorts. That means this person has had multiple opportunities to try and solve this issue. He either cannot or will not. Thus, he is now subject to paying 10-15% of his income as a garnishment until the tax is paid.

How is he getting screwed here? Everyone seemed to want to jump on the bad gubmint bandwagon, I just don't get that. The law is the law. You break it, you face the consequences. I don't get this argument any more than I get people who complain when they get caught speeding. The speed limit is a law, you break it, you pay the fine. If you choose to speed, that's your choice but don't cry about it when you get caught.

To me this is pretty simple, the man broke the law. He now has to face the consequences. Isn't that the core of personal responsibility? How is his situation any different than the people who build houses in flood plains without insurance and then expect the gubmint to bail them out when their house floods?

You talk about the stereotypical poor. This is apparently some imaginary person who sucks off the gubmint teat just because they want to. I would bet that if you actually talked to any of these people they don't think they are being lazy, they think they have legitimate reasons for being where they are in life. How is their situation any different? How can you deride people on welfare yet somehow decide this guy is getting screwed because he owes back taxes?

I'm just shaking my head here...

[KFC911]

Originally Posted by Nathans_Dad

Despite Christien's opinion that your post is in-arguable...I'm going to argue

...

Isn't that why this place is fun sometimes? Just to be clear once again, I've of the opinion that Byron's bud should pay his taxes, and deep down, I believe Byron does too despite his original post about "screwing the little guy". I do believe Byron was indeed just "venting" as he stated. I do have compassion for the guy though and I "know" you guys do too as I've read too many of everyones' posts over the years to reach any other conclusion. Have a great weekend everyone! I've enjoyed the exchanges in this thread...beats the heck out of politics anyday