Thursday, February 03, 2011

What up with the IRS?...

For all of you who do your taxes, and mail out the 1099's, you may have noticed this year the addresses began with "Department of the Treasury, Internal Revenue Service, Kansas City, etc."

The DOT part is new. Why?

Maybe the IRS is getting techy about the cranks who claim they really, really aren't government officials.  I was unfamiliar with this particular conspiracy genre, so here's some disturbingly Beckian rant for your frigid morning.
The Internal Revenue Service is not an agency of the United States government. It is true that not only can it NOT be found in Title 31, but it is nowhere to be found in the entirety of Title 5 U.S.C.

Congress THOUGHT it created it but it didn't. Just look at the 1100 manual and it tells you so. Congress only created the Commissioner's Office. He then hired the private collection agency people and used them as the tax collectors. In fact, I defy you to find any IRS employee listed as an Employee of the United States Government with a United States Employee Identification number that has been hired by any District Director in the country. Now I suggest you look at 27 Code of Federal Regulations Section 250.11 and therein you will find the definition of "Revenue agent." That definition reads "Any duly authorized Commonwealth Internal Revenue Agent of the Department of the Treasury of Puerto Rico."

I now refer you to the "Secretary" described in 26 U.S.C. 6301. Does it not state, "The Secretary shall collect the taxes imposed by the internal revenue laws?" Yes it does. Now Congress mandated this by 68A Stat 775 and you cannot disagree. Does not 26 U.S.C. state that this "Secretary" may make a return based on the information he has if a person does not make a return? Yes it does. Does not 26 U.S.C. 6001, 6011 and 6012 refer to this "Secretary?" Yes it does.

Now, if the Revenue agent decides to prosecute, he approaches the Attorney General and this "Secretary" as noted in 26 USC 7401 to prosecute upon concurrence between both the Attorney General and this "Secretary," is this not correct? Yes it is and all the above is undisputable. Is it now contrary to any rational man that this "Secretary" can only be one person and not many. [And on it goes...]
This kill-the-taxman-and-our-problem-will-be-over thinking is a subset of the thoroughly disproven "starve the beast" strategy of curbing government spending.  As Drum points out it, actually makes spending easier.
Conservative Steve Chapman summarizes recent research showing that cutting taxes does not, in fact, "starve the beast." That is, it doesn't motivate the public to demand lower federal spending as deficits rise. In fact, it does just the opposite:
Forced to pay for everything they get, right away, Americans would undoubtedly choose to make do with less. But given the opportunity to party now and pay later — or never, if the tab can be billed to the next generation — they find no compelling reason to do without.
Think of it this way. If you want people to consume more of something, you reduce the price. If you want them to consume less, you raise the price. For most of the last 30 years, federal programs have been on sale, and they've found lots of buyers.
True enough. The Republican Party has basically taught Americans that deficits don't matter. We can have all the government services we want and there's no need to pay for them. Under the circumstances, who wouldn't want more government services? [More]
The larger problem for the IRS is budget cuts. I mean, who doesn't want to make tax evasion easier? 

Yeah, that will help close the deficit...

No comments: