Volunteer Service: The Art of Taxing without Taxing

Involuntary Servitude (docv-downinthemouth.blogspot.com)

New Jersey Assembly Bill , A.B. 4175, introduced on 23 November 2009 will require physicians, dentists, and nurses to complete 30 hours of volunteer service in their respective fields as a condition for biennial registration.

New Jersey’s state/local tax burden rate is the highest in nation by the Tax Foundation. Rather than run the risk of raising taxes, or registration fees, they simply use a different type of taxation with a much friendly tone.

The wording in the bill for the new tax on physicians, dentists, and nurses is “volunteer medical services.” Volunteer medical services has a much nicer ring to it than increased registration fees, unpaid overtime, or involuntary servitude.

DSCN3819It’s just nice and thoughtful of medical practitioners to volunteer their time to help the needy. LPN Training states that nurses in New Jersey make $23.83, multiply that by 30 hours and its $714.90 worth of “volunteer” medical services and thoughtfulness.

With voters angry over the current tax levels, government representatives are becoming adroit in the art of taxing without taxing. Just as mandatory purchases are a new venue for taxing, expect to see more of the community service types of taxation, as a new lane in the Superhighway to Serfdom opens.

Legislators may realize they are playing with fire in taxing hours instead of dollars. Its safer to tax dollars than hours of lives, because many people have a disconnect between money and the hours spent earning money.

Politicians risk alienating willing victims of taxation, the “it’s only money” people–the people that see money only as pieces of paper. This group tends to view freedom as having as much leisure time as possible. Holding onto money is seen as being selfish; but free time to live your life as you choose is their definition of freedom.

Once the “it’s only money” people start having their leisure time taxed, they might start to see the connection between hours of their lives and money. Once governments start mandating how time is spent instead of taxing, the illusion that taxing income is not an intrusion on freedom starts to fade.

It’s Only Money – Groucho Marx and Frank Sinatra

Share Button

If you take their money, you have to take their crap

There is a rule all of us know, but aren’t always consciously aware of: if you take their money, you have to take their crap. This is just how society works; it’s not written into law, but most us live by the principal every day without giving it much thought.

If you’ve ever asked a friend or relative for money, then you probably already know the rule. You may get the money, but with strings. “OK, here is the money, but I’ll expect to see you at the family gathering you usually avoid.” Or maybe even worse, “Here is the money, but I’d really appreciate it if you would return the favor and rub my foot corns.”

Sometimes the money comes with much larger strings attached. Taking money from someone else can lead to the person giving the money running your life. “Here is the money, but I’ll expect you to – stop smoking, go back to school, lose the facial piercings, start going to church, etc.”

Working for a living means you’ll take crap from your employer because they pay you. If you work the cash register or take payments at your job, you take crap from the customer. Even if you are self-employed, whoever you take money from has the unspoken authority to give you crap about your product or service.

Those who know the crap rule were not surprised to see the government complain about bonuses paid in the banks and auto industry. If you take money from the government, then it’s safe bet you’ll have to take some crap from them. The reverse of this is also true: politicians can expect to take crap from those who donate large amounts to their campaigns.

The rule works both ways most of the time – If you hand money to someone else, they have to take your crap. If you are at a restaurant and don’t like the service or food, you can freely complain or refuse to give a tip. If the service is lousy, you can threaten to take your business elsewhere.

There are some people who take your money and instead give you crap. Doctors, mechanics, and PC technicians have been known to take your money for service and turn around and give you crap about poor maintenance. People who ignore the unspoken crap rule do so at their own peril, because you can go and find someone else to take your money who will not give you grief.

In all the above examples, the person taking the money does a cost-benefit analysis. Is the crap I have to take for the money worth it? We all have our own crap-to-money calculations. As long we have some say in deciding how much crap we are willing to put up with, we usually play along. The crap rule is far from perfect, but at least it gives each person involved some limited control of the transaction.

The one area where the crap rule does not apply at all is between an individual and government. The rule here is that the government takes your money and gives you crap and you have no control. Government doesn’t have to play by the crap rule, because they have the power to take money from you without your consent.

Government takes money from you and then turns around and tells you you’re are too fat, greedy, lazy, stupid, ignorant, addicted, selfish, impatient, pampered, intolerant, unhealthy, unloving, fiscally irresponsible and to top it off, you complain too much. All these may be true; the point is, it’s a violation of the crap rule for the one who takes the money to give you crap!

When looking at government through the crap lens, it should come as no surprise that people are angry and fed up with governments in general. The little control we have in our daily lives is nonexistent when dealing with government. The natural rule of refusing to pay or seek service elsewhere just doesn’t apply when it comes to government, and that really is a load of crap.

Share Button

Hey Rangel: Would You be for Simple Tax Laws Now?

Charlie Rangel faces several charges of ethics violations and dodging taxes.

A quick summary of the charges from The Washington Post article,  “Rangel is alone in punishment but not wrongdoing”

The ethics committee scolded him for taking corporate-funded trips to the Caribbean, but has not yet ruled on claims about Rangel’s fundraising, his rent-controlled apartments, the taxes on his Dominican beach place, and even his storing of a vehicle without license plates in a House garage.

Here is another summary from NBC:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GSdvbKsaimM

Rangel claims to have done nothing wrong, that none of the acts were intentional and are simply matters of forgetfulness and sloppiness. I want to assume Rangel is telling the truth and that they were all unintentional, because it makes a really good argument for making tax rules simpler. When someone who oversees the writing of tax laws can innocently break them, it’s a strong indication the laws are too damn complicated.

From the Cato Institute article 10 Outrageous Facts About the Income Tax.

  • The U.S. “tax army” is bigger than the U.S. army in Iraq.
  • 32 million IRS penalties assessed each year.
  • In 1913 there were only 400 pages in the federal tax rules, in 2003 the number of pages had risen to 54,846.

With fifty thousand plus pages of rules, anyone–even the person who writes the rules–could unknowingly violate the rules. I would not be surprised to find out all members in congress are in violation of at least one tax code. The tax code is to large to be comprehensible by a single person.

Expecting someone to not violate the massive amount of tax codes is comparable to a bad parent telling a child to behave, but not telling the child what constitutes good behavior. The bad parent only lets the child know the rules of good behavior once they have broken them.

The other reason I hope Rangel has done nothing wrong is that maybe Rangel will learn some compassion for others caught in the web he has helped weave. When an average citizen claims their were ignorant or forgetful or sloppy with the IRS, they have to prove their innocence. If those in congress feel the sting of being a mere mortal, then someday the tax codes might include an “innocent until proven guilty” clause.

Share Button

Hey Rangel: Would You be for Simple Tax Laws Now?

Charlie Rangel faces several charges of ethics violations and dodging taxes.

A quick summary of the charges from The Washington Post article,  “Rangel is alone in punishment but not wrongdoing”

The ethics committee scolded him for taking corporate-funded trips to the Caribbean, but has not yet ruled on claims about Rangel’s fundraising, his rent-controlled apartments, the taxes on his Dominican beach place, and even his storing of a vehicle without license plates in a House garage.

Here is another summary from NBC:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GSdvbKsaimM

Rangel claims to have done nothing wrong, that none of the acts were intentional and are simply matters of forgetfulness and sloppiness. I want to assume Rangel is telling the truth and that they were all unintentional, because it makes a really good argument for making tax rules simpler. When someone who oversees the writing of tax laws can innocently break them, it’s a strong indication the laws are too damn complicated.

From the Cato Institute article 10 Outrageous Facts About the Income Tax.

  • The U.S. “tax army” is bigger than the U.S. army in Iraq.
  • 32 million IRS penalties assessed each year.
  • In 1913 there were only 400 pages in the federal tax rules, in 2003 the number of pages had risen to 54,846.

With fifty thousand plus pages of rules, anyone–even the person who writes the rules–could unknowingly violate the rules. I would not be surprised to find out all members in congress are in violation of at least one tax code. The tax code is to large to be comprehensible by a single person.

Expecting someone to not violate the massive amount of tax codes is comparable to a bad parent telling a child to behave, but not telling the child what constitutes good behavior. The bad parent only lets the child know the rules of good behavior once they have broken them.

The other reason I hope Rangel has done nothing wrong is that maybe Rangel will learn some compassion for others caught in the web he has helped weave. When an average citizen claims their were ignorant or forgetful or sloppy with the IRS, they have to prove their innocence. If those in congress feel the sting of being a mere mortal, then someday the tax codes might include an “innocent until proven guilty” clause.

Share Button

Unintended Consequence of Bailouts? More say its OK to Cheat on Taxes

DEMCAD asks, “If you knew someone was cheating on taxes, would you turn them in?”

DEMCAD mentions an IRS oversight board poll in which 13 percent of those surveyed believed cheating on taxes is acceptable, which is up from 9 percent the year before. Then DEMCAD questions if one of the unintended consequence of the big bailouts may be justification to cheat on taxes.

The IRS Oversight Board is independent from the IRS. The board has seven members appointed by the President of the United States. Of the seven, one must be a full-time federal employee or a representative of IRS employees. I’d provide a link to the boards site, but my shrewish fear of government has kicked in.

Even though the board is independent from the IRS, its not independent from the government and that makes its polling suspect. I think its safe to say even though its a government poll showing an increase in acceptance to cheat on taxes, that there really has been an increase because there is so much disappointment with DC.

I can’t say for certain the cause for the increase is the bailouts, but I think it’s probably one of many things the government has done that has weakened the public’s perception that it acts responsibly when spending tax dollars. The Air Force One flyover of New York still pops into my mind each time the subject of irresponsible spending comes up. The flyover was a grand public display of wasting tax dollars, or what government should not be doing.

The cheating the cheaters attitude has increased, and the don’t give money to addicts attitude is increasing also.

Share Button