Albert Crenshaw reports that the IRS may begin using private bill collectors to collect back taxes. He seems to think it's a bad idea. I frankly don't see what the fuss is about.
A little-known fact is that when the IRS wants to collect unpaid taxes, they don't use law-enforcement agents. Collectors for the IRS are simply bill collectors, in most cases. They are subject to most of the same laws, and use the same exact procedures, as regular bill collectors. Surprisingly, they are even, for the most part, subject to your state's collection laws. They have some special priviledges, but not as many as you'd think. Unless they've got proof of fraud or willful failure to file, their hands are as tied as any other bill collector's. You can even declare bankruptcy on them--it's harder than with normal debts, but you can.
Even if they want to seize your assets, they have to sue you just like anyone else you owe a lot of money to. Indeed, they have to sue you in state court, and follow most of your state's rules for asset seizure. You can fight them in court the same way you fight anyone you owe a lot of money to.
You can't be arrested or charged with any crime for failure to pay taxes--unless they have proof of willful intent not to file or not to pay. Simply failing to pay is not, as it turns out, a crime. No moreso than failing to pay any other debt.
So, in short: IRS collectors are no different than any other collectors. They don't carry guns, they don't break into your house, they don't cart you off to jail. All they do is send you nasty notes, call you at home, maybe knock on your door, same as anyone else you owe money to. They can't harass you any more than anyone else you owe money to.
That being the case, it seems like a no-brainer to me: They're no more frightening or powerful than any other form of bill collector. And if they can bring in more money, well, why not?
Private bill collectors to work for the US Internal Revenue Service. You've gotta love the irony of all this if you're a libertarian or objectivist...
Actually, if we need to have a US Internal Revenue Service at all -- and Thomas Jefferson and James Madison would indeed have considered this question debatable, then we ought to consider a fundamental revamp of the way they conduct their operations.
I'm talking about an IRS that would deal with just 50 taxpayers. These would be the secretaries of the departments of revenue of each of the states. These agencies alone would collect from their residents, and would be much easier to deal with, because they are smaller and more localized bureaucracies. And the first rule of dealing with bureaucracies is to try to do so with the smallest agency at the most local possible level.
The staff of the IRS, under such an arrangement, would then be limited to whatever number of accountants they would need to determine the costs of defending the United States and maintaining its government, and the share to be collected from each state. Among other benefits is that taxpayers would have to deal solely with a single agency.
I already have (lightly) discussed this both with local IRS and Wisconsin Department of Revenue staffers. Yes, it could be made to work. And no, no state could refuse to pay its correctly apportioned share of collected taxes. That's why God created the United States Army, as was shown in 1865.
Arnold Harris
Mount Horeb WI
Oh, I have long thought that an ideal tax system would work much like that.
Alas, it would make too much sense.
Dean,
If Sam Adams, Tom Jefferson, George Washington and the boys with the muskets at Bunker Hill, Lexington and Concord had just said "Alas" about their crummy taxation problem and gone home to swig a pint, you'd be saluting a Union Jack, singing God Save the Queen, and trying to get the National Health to give you some decent medical care today.
Besides driving up the wrong side of the road, calling some uniformed kid "leftenant", and butting a football with your head while wearing short pants.
So, if you think revamping the IRS makes sense, go get 'em, tiger. And for once, make the bureaucrats say "Alas".
Arnold Harris
Mount Horeb WI
I didn't realize that garden variety bill collectors could attach your paycheck - especially not before proving a claim. But perhaps when garden variety bill collectors go after someone who a) failed to pay taxes for most of their life and b) suddenly started making bales of cash in the music industry, they do.
Yes, in fact, garden variety bill collectors can attach your paycheck. You just have to owe more than a certain amount of money to them. This varies by state, and, as it is expensive for them to go to court for permission to do it, practical considerations are also at issue.
Like I said: the IRS uses your state collection laws on almost all these things. Funny, huh?
Ye Gods, Federalism spotted in the 21st Century!
In my experience, the IRS has a lot more power than an average bill collector. They have the power to levy your bank account without any necessity going to court and can put liens against your real estate, again without going to court. While they cannot jail you for failing to pay, as such is patently unconstitutional, it is a crime to fail to file your taxes, which, in itself is a major pain in the butt, and it is a crime to intentionally misrepresent the figures in your tax filing. I am not an accountant, nor am I an expert on tax law, but as I have actually been actively targeted by IRS collectors for several years, I do know, firsthand, what they can do and will do.
In my opinion, Income Tax is "for the birds." It is an onerous form of taxation that taxes the legitimate workforce at the source. Many of the lower end wage earners are unable to afford housing, food and other necessities for their families because the taxes are taken out prior to the payment of any bills. Gray market and black market laborers and retailers: flea market vendors, drug dealers, and the like, do not have any public income, so do not pay tax on such income.
The Income Tax was sold to Americans following WWI when there were a lot of government debts associated with the war effort. The proposal was that the governemnt would take 1% of the income from the top 1% of the wealthiest people to assist in paying the costs of the war. Even the top 1% agreed that was not a bad idea. It was unconstitutional to do so, so an Amendment was proposed to allow the government to do it. So, how did it get to be that even the bottom 25% are paying 20-30% of their income to the government? Because the government sold us a bill of goods, as usual. The whole scenario of taxing income is akin to share-cropping, only the government does not provide 40 acres and a mule. Whatever you call it, it is involuntary servitude .... which is slavery, which is unconstitutional.
Repeal the Income Tax. Enact the National Sales Tax, but this time, establis the cap on the rate at 20%. Taxing expenditures promotes savings and investment, and provides a person with their full paycheck in order to pay for the necessities of their family. Maybe, with a bit more of their money in hand on pay day, they really could afford nicer living quarters.
irs can seize property/cash with notice or without notice assuming the 90 day period to go to tax court has expired. You people are dangerous idiots.