Sign In | Create an Account | Welcome, . My Account | Logout | Subscribe | Submit News | All Access e-Edition | Home RSS
 
 
 

Who Needs A KGB If You Have An IRS?

June 17, 2013

To The Readers' Forum: At a peaceful demonstration in front of the IRS office in Jamestown, a sign said, "If we were deer, it would be called poaching....

« Back to Article

 
 
sort: oldest | newest

Comments

(51)

lucky

Jun-17-13 1:56 AM

I think they should ban most tax exempt organizations. Pure charities are fine. No taxes, more money to give. Political and religious organizations should pay taxes. Churches use town,city,county and federal services and yet they don't pay for them. They are free to pray anyway they want but are unwilling to pay for that privilege. Tax free political org. don't pay taxes but believe they should be able to influence Federal laws to fit their agendas.

16 Agrees | 12 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

FedUpL8ly

Jun-17-13 6:02 AM

Great letter on a subject purposely being downplayed by the mainstream media. What the author failed to mention is a little history on Lois Lerner. Prior to the Obama Administration she was employed by the Federal Elections Commission. She purposely targeted a Republican Senatorial candidate in Illinois who was running against Dick Durbin. She proudly announced, and kept in the headlines of Illinois papers right up until the election, that her office was suing the Republican candidate for $1 Million. No charges were ever brought and she dropped the suit right after the election. Many were of the opinion that the Republican had stood a good chance of being elected but ,of course, he lost. In 2010, Dick Durbin was one of several Democratic Senators who wrote the IRS demanding special scrutiny be given to groups opposed to Obama policies.

14 Agrees | 6 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Jamestownite

Jun-17-13 6:48 AM

Blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah

5 Agrees | 17 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

troglodyte

Jun-17-13 7:06 AM

Rather than taxing struggling benevolent institutions which are vital, beneficial, and economically efficient, let's remove outright cash subsidies from pernicious, corrupt left activist organizations, unions, and huge commercial spectator sports corporations.

13 Agrees | 7 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

duckster

Jun-17-13 9:28 AM

To date : not one of those conservative organizations have been denied tax exempt status.. I wonder if this beacon of clear thinking knows that... I for one am more interested in Bengahzi and the NSA in this administration than this non scandal...wtf mel? who is this tard?

5 Agrees | 11 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Seadog

Jun-17-13 9:49 AM

"not one of those conservative organizations have been denied tax exempt status"

Not denied, but waited 1,2,3 years to get approved after a mountain of paper work not REQUIRED of the liberal groups. Barry's half brother was approved in three weeks for his status.

11 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Pharyngula

Jun-17-13 10:29 AM

Snow: Are you not biting the hand that grants you your tax advantage? If the IRS is abolished it might be replaced with something that respects the constitution, and raise the tax rates of "ministers of the gospel" in the process.

5 Agrees | 8 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

ironyoozesfromyouryap

Jun-17-13 11:56 AM

Lucky - the irony is, I bet this crooked Reverend is happy to get his tax exempt status so he'll be disagreeing with you.

7 Agrees | 12 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

ironyoozesfromyouryap

Jun-17-13 11:57 AM

If only the reverend paid as much attention to his flock and God's Commands as he did worldly rebellion. I was reading Ecclesiastes yesterday - let's see if I can find a very relevant passage for this very irrelevant pastor.

6 Agrees | 12 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

bluesman

Jun-17-13 1:19 PM

ductster-If the tax exempt status is denied, that group has the right to appeal the decision. It's much easier to just never act on the application in the first place. You can't fight a decision that has never been made.

6 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

bluesman

Jun-17-13 1:31 PM

I've asked the question a thousand times with no answer. If this was only about two low level morons in Cinn., why did Lois Lerner take the 5th? By law, you can only take the 5th if you think answering questions might get you thrown in jail.

6 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Lilrud

Jun-17-13 5:13 PM

"Conservative republican manager at IRS set aside Tea Party applications" Reuters. Could there not be a scandal? OMG!

5 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

apologeticsnow

Jun-17-13 8:21 PM

No Phar, I'm not biting the hand that feeds me, but trying to loose the grip on big brother's hand that binds all of us who pay payroll and income taxes. The country was set up for us to have control over all that we earn so that we can determine fully what we spend and give. This corrupt system of taxation gives the government to power to take what it wants from us rather than leaving what we have alone. The Flat tax is sure better than what we have now, but even better is the Fair Tax which taxes indirectly on consumption and not directly as it does now on wages, earnings, capital gains etc. It's about freedom, not money.

4 Agrees | 7 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Hammond

Jun-17-13 10:26 PM

I thought it was hilarious when the commish referred to us as "customers." Customers are people who voluntarily spend money in return for a product or service they desire to have. The IRS does not have customers. Comments like that are indisputable proof that the government has completely lost touch with the people it is supposedly serving and is completely ignorant of its intended purpose for society.

5 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Lilrud

Jun-17-13 10:39 PM

Lone, there is no scandal. It's gov't employees doing their job. They profiled groups that are overtly political applying for tax exempt status under the guise of being politically unbiased. That they got that tax exempt status is the real issue here.

7 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Pharyngula

Jun-18-13 10:38 AM

Snow: You want a 30% national sales tax that would eliminate the tax advantage for charitable contributions and do away with the parsonage exemption? Can you explain how taking more from those with less wile allowing those with more to keep more is a increase in fairness?

3 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

bluesman

Jun-18-13 12:42 PM

Lilrud-OK #1001, If there is no scandal, and the IRS was only doing it's job, why did Lois Lerner feel that answering questions would get her thrown in jail?

4 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

bluesman

Jun-18-13 4:25 PM

At this point I would settle for a dishonest answer. Or in their case, a normal answer. Their silence is deafening. Surely they can at least blame Bush.

5 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

bluesman

Jun-18-13 5:35 PM

OK, maybe they can blame Dan Quayle, they haven't tried that one in a while.

4 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

HenryH

Jun-18-13 5:58 PM

Regressive taxation is not a fair system. Having a system in which rewards risk and utilization of capital is important. I agree with Snowy that simplification of the tax code and removal of loopholes is important. His complaint about the system is not a solution. I would rather have him pose a solution instead of implying anarchy is the only way forward.

Lone baby, you only sing one note! Why is it that everyone who disagrees with you or expects you to provide evidence and reasoning to your broad-brush statements is a 'leftie'. I still see no evidence you have any clear understanding of your own ontology. It would be fantastic if you could work on your articulation and that does not mean copy and paste of some random titbit.

Remember Lone, I agree with Snowy but disagree with the implied solution is removal of the IRS. The core issue is never addressed and it is just wrapped in the same old rhetoric. Not helpful if you want meaningful change.

4 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Lilrud

Jun-18-13 6:25 PM

I would think she took the fifth because it looks bad. Not illegal. Anything she said would have been twisted so you stop talking and don't give them ammunition.

3 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

bluesman

Jun-18-13 6:39 PM

One more time. You can't take the 5th because you have a sore throat. Or because you just don't feel like talking. Or you're afraid your words might get twisted. By law, you can only take the 5th if you think your answers might get you thrown in jail. What is she hiding.

5 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

ironyoozesfromyouryap

Jun-18-13 10:20 PM

Interesting how the Constitutional and Law scholars in this forum can do such a good job simplifying The Fifth Amendment. I also appreciate the very logical conclusions made. Bravo.

1 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Jhwinnyc

Jun-19-13 6:16 AM

Interesting that Lone suggests he use "libertarian" in lieu of "lefty" when the definition he copies and pastes aligns pretty well with his positions, along with those of snow, et al.

1 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Seadog

Jun-19-13 8:53 AM

ironyoozesfromyouryap - since you are an expert on any and all things, why don;t you explain the 5th amendment to us bumpkins???

4 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Showing 25 of 51 comments Show More Comments
 
 

Post a Comment

You must first login before you can comment.

*Your email address:
*Password:
Remember my email address.
or
 
 

 

I am looking for:
in:
News, Blogs & Events Web