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




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 »


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 »


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 »


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 »


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 mel? who is this tard?

5 Agrees | 11 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


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 »


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 »


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 »


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 »


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 »


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 »


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 »


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 »


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 »


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 »


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 »


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 »


Jun-19-13 11:11 AM

Never said I was an expert.

2 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jun-19-13 11:12 AM

Go to the Wikipedia page (let alone source material) for the 5th and you'll find quite a long read. It might prove to be quite a struggle for some of the posters here.

3 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jun-19-13 1:52 PM

Lone, you brilliant so-and-so, you! I'm pleased those classes at Prendergast Library learning how to use Wikipedia have paid off and you are showing such amazing progress.

I have no rhetoric of anarchism - I support the opposite in contrast to Snowy's position.

You do not understand the words you have pasted. I don't have any belief that there should be centrally owned means of production.

While I applaud your extending the use of your two (or is it three now?) brain cells, your googling of socialism and libertarian to reach the first item in the Google search clearly did not serve you well.

Again, I do encourage you to work on your reading comprehension. And, like our buddy Credence, you spend more time deflecting the real question instead of articulating your position.

6 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jun-19-13 2:43 PM

Wow. Just, wow. There has been no shortage of brick throwing by glass house owners here, that's for sure.

For one, I have not the foggiest idea why Lois Lerner decided the 5th was in her interest, and neithr do any of you. We may never know.

On reviews only hurting the conservtive groups, that's a joke. Several much less thin skinned liberal group have come forward, and the story is the same: plenty of questions to answer and years getting approved.

This is really an issue of staffing (too few to do the job) and failure to provide guidance. Yet, there is something here to see, but not what you think. It's a case of one party hating government so much that it systematically attacked it, primarily by defunding it.

In short, you get what you don't pay for.

4 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jun-19-13 5:57 PM

"Why do you think Lois Lerner took the fifth?"

To freak out some of the crazies in this country. If she did it for that reason, she did a bang-up job! I'm not afraid to admit I know little about the scandal; perhaps this is because I cancelled my subscription to "Spood-Fed Nonsense by Pundits Monthly".

4 Agrees | 6 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jun-19-13 5:58 PM

"How can you possibly incriminate yourself by claiming you have a staffing problem?"

If she can't incriminate herself, then why are you so concerned she took the 5th? hahahahahaha...

4 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jun-19-13 8:44 PM

I think that this discussion illustrates the point that the IRS needs to be once and for all abolished. Why should any group or citizen have to answer questions to the government about what they make, who they meet with, what books they read and what prayers they say. This is so ant-thetical to a nation of freedom. What does the IRS have to do with liberty and liberty with the IRS?

5 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jun-19-13 8:48 PM

Phar, the Fair Tax may not fit your idea of fairness but what is more fair than Fair Tax for fairness? You say it is 30%. The figure I've seen is 24% Where do you get your figure from? You call it regressive, but how regressive is it when everyone gets a pre-bate up to the poverty level to cover the basic necessities like food and clothing?

5 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Showing 25 of 34 comments Show More Comments

Post a Comment

You must first login before you can comment.

*Your email address:
Remember my email address.


I am looking for:
News, Blogs & Events Web