Basic Stupidity

Several of you sent me this lovely little bit of governmental stupidity:

More than 140 people experiencing homelessness in Denver will each be provided up to $1,000 in cash a month for up to one year as part of a basic income program designed to help “lift individuals out of homelessness,” the city announced last week.

The $2 million contract with the Denver Basic Income Project was approved by the City Council and will provide direct cash assistance to more than 140 women, transgender and gender non-conforming individuals, and families in shelters.

Civic altruism and wokism, all subsidized by taxpayer dollars.  And I hate to break it to these Colorado morons, but “up to” a grand is going to lift precisely nobody out of poverty.  It will, however, encourage more people in similar circumstances to come to Denver…

Couldn’t happen to a nicer bunch of socialists.

Personal Recognisance

Is any government agency hated more than the IRS?  I don’t mean at any specific time, just in general.  Here’s their latest little escapade:

After an initial backlash over its facial recognition feature, the Internal Revenue Service said Monday it started a new option that will allow taxpayers to sign up for online accounts without the use of the controversial biometric data.

Taxpayers wanting to use its services online will still have to use to register, but people will have the option of verifying their identity during a “live virtual interview” instead of uploading a video selfie.

“This is consistent with the IRS’s commitment earlier this month to transition away from the requirement for taxpayers creating an IRS online account to provide a selfie to a third-party service to help authenticate their identity,” the IRS said in a statement. said in its own statement that the verification process with an agent will take from 5-10 minutes, not including the wait time for the next available video chat agent.

The IRS said taxpayers will still have the option to use facial recognition if they like through

Of course, this is just to help us, the victims of their godless theft, and would never ever cross-our-hearts be shared with any other Gummint Alphabet Agency, oh no.

Hey, instead of facial recognition, how about a simple digital signature?  Here’s mine:



“Well Kim,”  you may ask, “how was your trip to the tax guy yesterday?”

About the same as your dog getting its temperature taken for the first time:

What I love most about the tax code for retirees is that no matter how large the “contributions” you paid into SocSec, you don’t get enough to live on when you do finally retire;  then as a retiree, when you earn a little extra money trying to make ends meet, your SocSec income is taxed.

So how do I really feel?

“If You’ve Got Nothing To Hide…”

That was my reaction to this latest bit of Government bastardy:

The Biden administration has made clear its plan to beef up IRS auditing by expanding the agency’s funding and power. Biden’s latest proposal would require banks to turn over to the Internal Revenue Service bank account information for all accounts holding more than $600.

“There’s a 99 percent compliance rate on wages – because wage earners get their earnings reported to the IRS,” a fact sheet says that was handed out by the White House to lawmakers to sell them on the plan. “But the super wealthy who get their income from unreported sources are able to hide their income and avoid paying the tax they owe. In fact, each year the top 1 percent chooses not to pay more than $160 billion in taxes.”

Just out of curiosity:  if the “super wealthy” are not paying those taxes, how is the IRS able to put an actual number on that “uncollected” amount?  Or is it just an estimated, i.e. invented number?

I note that there’s been some pushback:

“While the stated goal of this vast data collection is to uncover tax dodging by the wealthy, this proposal is not remotely targeted to that purpose or that population,” the letter said. “In addition to the significant privacy concerns, it would create tremendous liability for all affected parties by requiring the collection of financial information for nearly every American without proper explanation of how the IRS will store, protect, and use this enormous trove of personal financial information. We believe that this program is costly for all parties, not fit for purpose, and loaded with potential for unintended and serious negative consequences.”

That’s telling them.  And it will be roundly ignored, as usual.

I don’t even want to talk about the intrusiveness of this motherfucking proposal because it just makes me want to sharpen my bayonet and oil the rope.  As it is, my bayonet is sharp enough and if I oil the rope any more, it’ll be too difficult to tie the knot.

(for information purposes only)

At what point do we say, “Enough is enough?”

Asking for a friend.  Read more

Death To The Death Tax

Leaving aside the universally-loathed (by taxpayers) the tax on wages (misnamed the “income” tax), the most unpopular piece of governmental theft is that of the inheritance tax.  And with good reason.

In the not-too-distant past, inheritance taxes were the only stream of tax revenue which actually cost more to collect than the revenue thus obtained.  (In 2005, as I recall, the cost of collection per dollar was $1.07, and prior to that it went as high as $1.13, before the IRS — with the willing aid of Congress — “improved” their tax collection ratio simply by disallowing many of the cutouts and exceptions.)

But what’s interesting about these taxes is that they were hated even by Americans who would never pay a dime after their parents passed away — the implicit unfairness of the tax’s rationale that the inheritor never “earned” that inheritance, and therefore it was “unfair” and should be redistributed confiscated by the State, was understood by everyone to be total bullshit (born of pure Socialist wealth envy).

Now try this little piece of bastardy, courtesy of President Braindead’s handlers:

Democrats in Congress have made no secret of their desire to slip all sorts of tax hikes into the various massive legislative packages that have thus far (thankfully) remained bogged down in the Senate. They would like to see a significant increase in the gas tax to pay for the liberal wish list known as “infrastructure.” There’s also a continued push for a so-called “wealth tax” on people who are considered by the Dems’ socialist wing to have “too much money.” But one of the most controversial of these plans is the call to greatly expand the inheritance tax, more correctly known as the death tax. However, describing it as either an expansion or an increase isn’t accurate. The New York Post took a look at the plan this week and revealed that what they really want to do is create an entirely new category of taxation for the estates of the deceased, treating the transfer of assets to survivors as a capital gains event.

And it gets better:

For those of you who are thinking that this is “somebody else’s problem” because it only applies to the rich and famous, think again. If you’ve ever read Thomas Stanley’s 2010 bestseller, “The Millionaire Next Door,” you probably understand how this works. If you work throughout most of your life, put money away into any sort of retirement plans, and own your own home, you can break the millionaire barrier without too much trouble by the time you are in your sixties. No, not everyone in the middle class manages it, but this applies to a lot more people than you might think.
If you are fortunate enough to live for a very long time after you retire, you may burn through a fair bit of that wealth. But if you unfortunately only make it to somewhere around the national American average life expectancy, in your mid-70s or even late-60s, you could still be sitting on a tidy sum to help your family along. But nearly 80% of that wealth would evaporate under Biden’s new scheme.

And to reiterate:

Good luck figuring out the arguments in favor of a system of governmental robbery like this. Aside from envy and a desire to eat the rich or “redistribute” everything, there aren’t many. But one of the most compelling arguments  against this capital gains concept is that we would be treating wealth held in individual estates the same as income. And all of that money and value  has already been taxed. Every estate tax represents a case of double taxation on the same income via renaming the fingers coming to pick your pockets. Don’t let them get away with it. Estate taxes should be repealed, not effectively doubled.

This would be my suggestion to stop them getting away with this new kind of theft, but no doubt someone will have a problem with it.