…in so many ways.
Well, there’s this thought, as April 15th is also National Buy-A-Gun Day (link in pic):
…wherein all sorts of shooty goodness is on display.
And a closing thought:
Category: Taxes and Theft
Timely Law, Catchy Title
From the U.S. Senate comes this little bit of commonsense:
Sen. Joni Ernst (R-IA) on Monday introduced legislation that would sell off millions of dollars of the Internal Revenue Service’s (IRS) firearms to pay for the national debt.
As America approaches Tax Day on Tuesday, Ernst introduced the Why Does the IRS Needs Guns Act to reform how the agency handles firearms. The Iowa senator introduced the legislation after reports from Open the Books have suggested the IRS would one of the top 50 largest police departments based on its headcount and stockpiling of firearms and ammunition.
“Since 2006, the IRS spent $35.2 million on guns, ammunition, and military-style equipment (CPI adjusted). The years 2020 and 2021 were peak years at the IRS for purchasing weaponry and gear. Just since the pandemic started, the IRS has purchased $10 million in weaponry and gear,” Open the Books wrote.
Since 2020, the IRS has spent at least $10 million on firearms and ammunition for its roughly 2,100 special agents.
Here’s Joni, outside D.C.:
And Rep. Barry Moore (R-AL) introduced the House companion legislation:
“Arming these agents does not make the American public safer. My legislation, the Why Does the IRS Need Guns Act, would disarm these agents, auction off their guns to Federal Firearms License Owners, and sell their ammunition to the public.”
Moore takes the cake with this exit quote:
“The only thing IRS agents should be armed with are calculators.”
As the old (and bitter) joke goes:
“Taxes are funds taken from citizens at gunpoint.”
“No, they aren’t!”
“Really? Try refusing to pay them.”
Bastards. Disarm them. All of them. Perhaps they’d be a lot less arrogant towards us if they were unarmed.
Nazzo Fast, Guido
I’m truly enjoying the havoc and chaos that Musk and his DOGE squad are inflicting on the Gummint.
I’m not so sure about this one, though:
Acting IRS Commissioner Melanie Krause felt slighted after Secretary of the Treasury Scott Bessent and Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem struck a deal for the tax agency to share data with DHS on illegal aliens. She decided to resign and take the government buyout that Trump offered.
Sources told the Washington Post that disagreements over the agency’s direction also factored into Krause’s decision to leave.
To be sure, I don’t give a rat’s ass about Krause — or pretty much any IRS apparatchik, fuck ’em all — but on reading further, her reason for quitting stuck with me:
Trump and Musk want to overturn the entire privacy regime that prevents the IRS from sharing data with other government agencies. They’re contemplating building a “cross-government data-sharing system,” reports the Post, “that would allow agencies to use personal tax information to hunt for fraud in social safety net programs.”
Nice goal, but I’m not so sure about that “cross-government data-sharing system” thing — most of all when it comes to tax-related data.
Remember the immortal words of John Cowperthwaite: “If I let them compute those statistics, they’ll want to use them for planning.” And no “statistics” are more deadly in government hands than financial ones.
I’m against giving government personal data, even in that most innocuous of functions, the decennial census. Financial data, that could be shared between government agencies (such as, for example, the FBI and ATF and not just Social Security)?
I don’t fucking think so.
The old joke was that the IRS didn’t care if you were a citizen or an illegal alien, as long as you paid taxes on your wages and earnings; while the INS didn’t care if you paid your taxes or not, as long as you were a legal resident. It was a joke back then, but it’s going to stop being a joke, in every way possible, if this “cross-government data-sharing system” becomes a reality.
And remember, while I may — may — trust that this Republican government is going to do The Right Thing with all this data that’s going to be shared (and that’s not a sure thing, by any means), I have no illusions about how this data is going to be used by any future government, no matter what its label may be.
It’s going to be used against us — you and me — for whatever purpose they may dream up.
The only way I might agree to this fuckery is if there’s an absolutely cast-iron guarantee that the IRS is going to disappear altogether in the (very) near future, to be replaced by a National Excise Office that would collect taxes exclusively from foreign governments (tariff fees) and merchants (end-user sales taxes) — i.e. when the godless 16th Amendment is nullified — and we all know that none of that is going to happen anytime soon.
I would stipulate that this sharing of tax data be limited strictly to root out corruption in the SocSec network — i.e. it’s a one-time, one-function application — but we all know that this stipulation would be ignored before the ink was dry on the paper, to await the arrival of a future government or government department which would use it as a tool to oppress and destroy our freedoms.
No, this data-sharing thing is a bridge too far, and I don’t care how badly it’s needed — Musk has yet to prove that to me or anyone else — or how much easier it would make DOGE’s job.
My personal data doesn’t exist in order to make anyone’s job easier or more convenient. So leave it the fuck alone.
Great Idea, Never Happen
Turning Britishland into Singapore? It’s an intriguing concept, as explained here. An excerpt:
There is nothing new in the comparison between modern Britain and circumstances in Singapore when it gained independence in 1965. Like the UK following the Brexit referendum, Singapore was involved in a rancorous divorce from a much larger geopolitical entity that left it facing an uncertain path. For one island’s withdrawal from the European Union in 2016, read another’s split from the Federation of Malaysia 55 years ago.
As many a minister has pointed out in recent years, Singapore went on to conjure an economic miracle. In the space of a generation, it has transformed itself from a country where the average citizen was two and a half times poorer than the average Briton, to a hotbed of soaring prosperity where total economic output is now 70 per cent higher than in the UK.
Here’s what the Brits would have to do, though:
In a country where the average monthly salary is about S$70,000 (£40,000), [Singapore] residents pay income tax of just 7 per cent – less than half of the 20 per cent charged in the UK – while a salary equivalent to £46,000 would attract 11.5 per cent tax.
The individual tax ceiling is 24 per cent, payable only by those earning more than 1 million Singapore dollars; the equivalent rate in the UK is 45 per cent, a bracket that comes into play for anyone with a salary of more than £125,140 (about 217,000 Singapore dollars).
The country’s more favorable tax regime extends to corporation tax, which stands at 17 per cent in Singapore compared with 25 per cent in the UK. There is no capital gains or inheritance tax.
Cut and eliminate taxes? In Britain?
Hence the title of this post.
Yet Another Tax
So Britishland is going to implement a wealth tax — whereby one is taxed (annually) not just upon income, but upon one’s total “wealth”, including such things as property.
How do I know this? From this statement by their Labour Government:
A minister has opened the door to Labour introducing a wealth tax at some point amid pressure from backbenchers to change course ahead of sweeping welfare cuts.
Emma Reynolds said that the Government would reject demands for a 2 per cent levy “for the time being” but did not rule out such a tax at future financial events.
If you’re at all familiar with politician-speak, “did not rule out” means “we’re gonna do it, and sooner than you think”.
And lest you think this villainy is confined to places across The Pond, be aware that it’s a staple position among the Wealth Envious (i.e. most Democrats) Over Here as well.
Step forward, Sen. Pocahantas Warren:
The wealth tax is a cousin of the property tax, but it encompasses all forms of wealth: cash, stocks, jewelry, thoroughbred horses, jets, everything. Warren calls the policy her “Ultra-Millionaire Tax.” It would impose a 2% federal tax on every dollar of a person’s net worth over $50 million and an additional 1% tax on every dollar in net worth over $1 billion. Economists estimate it would hit the 75,000 richest households and raise $2.75 trillion over ten years.
The minute you hear the “t” word (“trillion”) applied to tax revenue, you can see the Socialists’ ears prick up.
Now here’s the fun part.
In 1990, twelve countries in Europe had a wealth tax. Today, there are only three: Norway, Spain, and Switzerland. According to reports by the OECD and others, there were some clear themes with the policy: it was expensive to administer, it was hard on people with lots of assets but little cash, it distorted saving and investment decisions, it pushed the rich and their money out of the taxing countries—and, perhaps worst of all, it didn’t raise much revenue.
Lest you think that this precedent would prevent socialists like Warren and the Labourites from initiating such a tax, you don’t know much about Socialism — where history (especially of failure) is always brushed aside with the airy comment of “But this time, we’ll do it better!”
After the loathsome Emma Reynolds’s little aside, that roaring you hear will be the sound of more (taxable) private jets being readied for takeoff on one-way flights out of the UK — although it should be noted that the roaring has been going on ever since Labour was returned to power last year.
Quote Of The Day
From our old buddy Senator Schmuckie Schumer (Soc-NY), talking about taxes:
“You know what their attitude is? ‘I made my money all by myself. How dare your government take my money from me?’ “
Couldn’t have put it better myself, asshole. And it’s not just “greedy business owners” who feel that way, either — something your Party Of Thieves is going to discover soon enough.