Federal money

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • UtahBlueDevil Durham, NC
    Nov. 13, 2013 12:13 p.m.

    What a farce... pretending this is about our grand kids money. Please. Where is that same worry that our grand kids have clean water, unpolluted places to raise their kids, that we preserve our natural lands so that they too can go camping, or even hunting? Where is the concern that we are burning more energy that we are developing new sources of energy?

    Its not about the kids, or grandkids money. Its about this generations desire to be able to have and use what it likes, and not worry about what the next generation has. Otherwise they would be equally worried about making sure their kids and grand kids had all the things they currently enjoy.

  • Owl Salt Lake City, UT
    Nov. 12, 2013 1:26 p.m.

    In 2016 the federal debt will be $20 trillion. Debts, by definition, are financial obligations that must be repaid. The government largess buys votes currently, but our as our grandchildren are saddled with this debt, they will be asking (What) Were they thinking?

  • 2 bits Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Nov. 12, 2013 1:02 p.m.


    How can a business only pass ~50% the tax to the consumer? You're new math must be amazing!

    IF the consumers don't pay the other 50%... WHO DOES?

    Maybe businesses have a magic money tree they use to pay the other 50%.

    I wonder where they REALLY get the money to pay the other 50% of their tax bill... If they don't get it from customers... where do they get it?

    This 50% theory makes no sense in REAL mathematics and real economics. We need to get over this delusion that businesses only have to pass along ~50% of what they pay in taxes to customers, and the delusion that the government can spend money they don't take from me and you (meaning all Americans combined) (that means "all classes" for those with a class-warfare mentality).

    Where the heck is a company supposed to get the money to pay their taxes if they don't get it from their customers?

    And where the heck is the government supposed to get money to pay their bills if they don't take it from US?

    Even IF they take it from businesses... they take it indirectly from us!

  • marxist Salt Lake City, UT
    Nov. 12, 2013 9:45 a.m.

    "Any 'tax'
    a corporation (or other company configurations) pays is passed to the consumer in the form of higher cost of goods produced and/or services rendered. " This is a sidebar, but how much corporate tax is passed on to consumers is a matter of debate. I always figured it was about 50%. That, of course, is a lot but it still leaves a substantial 50% landing on the corporation. More important is the personal income tax.

  • Ranch Here, UT
    Nov. 12, 2013 6:29 a.m.

    How much doe you want to bet that the people agreeing with Pati Sorenson gladly accept the money "taken" from those with no children that supports their own children in school?

    Can they spell "hypocrite"?

  • Ranch Here, UT
    Nov. 12, 2013 6:21 a.m.

    Selfishness: This letter's content.

  • Hutterite American Fork, UT
    Nov. 11, 2013 7:26 p.m.

    If you think the only services you should pay for are those you use then...you're correct. I don't imagine many people pay taxes in Somalia and they get what they pay for.

  • wrz Phoenix, AZ
    Nov. 11, 2013 7:25 p.m.

    "Of course, many would say it is just not fair to impose higher rates on higher earners and corporations."

    Did you know... corporations don't pay taxes... only people pay taxes. Any 'tax'
    a corporation (or other company configurations) pays is passed to the consumer in the form of higher cost of goods produced and/or services rendered. Furthermore, the high-end earners pay the lion's share of taxes. And about half (the lower half) of all wage earners pay no income taxes at all.

    "The second line is from an AP story in the New York Post, Nov 07, 2013 called, IRS refunded $4B to identity thieves."

    The answer to that dilemma is not that tough to come up with... (1) Reduce federal income tax withholding requirements resulting in few or no refunds needed to be claimed on the federal return. (2) Have the computers flag for review, all returns with the same address. These changes are elementary any third grader could come up with.

  • Grover Salt Lake City, UT
    Nov. 11, 2013 4:58 p.m.

    The problem with this entire discussion is that the proposed medicaid increases are not part of a zero sum game. We are already paying for the "free" care those folks are getting today. Each of us is paying an extra $1100 a year in insurance premiums to cover those costs. The proposed system would eliminate the need for those hidden charges and get most people covered at least for catastrophic illness.

    PS. How will the debt be up three trillion in two years when the deficit is currently $680 billion and going down as the economy grows and more people return to work? Remember it was Mountanman who predicted gas between $5 and $6 a gallon several days after the election twelve months ago went against his candidate.

  • 2 bits Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Nov. 11, 2013 11:56 a.m.

    marxist's fallacy is what drives the left to just keep spending and spending and taxing and taxing.
    His fallacy is the hope that somebody ELSE will have to pay the bill.

    That's not the way the world works (for adults).
    We make our own decisions and pay our own bills.
    That's the difference between being "Self Reliant/Self Sufficient" and "Dependent" (on the Government/ parents/ siblings/ neighbors/ etc).

    The fact is... there's nobody else to pay the bill. We ALL have to pay the bill.
    The 1% can't carry the whole burden as Marxist pretends.
    We are going to need to pay our OWN bills.

    If you can give us an example where the Marxian view or the "Marxian econometric model" worked... please share it.
    Because I know dozens of examples where it was tried and it failed miserably (for the people).
    Not so bad for those in government and the black market... but misery for the common people.

    Of course in the Marxian view you must eliminate the 1%.
    But if that's your goal... why not just start the gas chambers and save some time?

  • 2 bits Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Nov. 11, 2013 11:37 a.m.

    We must understand this if we are ever to control Federal Spending...

    There is no "Federal Money". They don't have money tree, they have a printing press, but if they use that... our economy and your savings disappear.

    There is no Federal Money that wasn't taken from a tax payer. And I personally don't care if that tax payer was a middle-class guy or a rich guy. That money they spend has to come from someone. And we have already spent more than we could pay back IF we confiscated 100% of the proverbial 1%'s income. (and I complained about Federal spending under Bush too, so spare me the partisan attack)

    Even if we confiscated 100% of what the proverbial 1% make it wouldn't pay our debts. So obviously at least SOME of that money has to come from the middle-class.

    We need to get out of the mind-set that there is some magic money-machine for the Feds. There is no machine! WE are the machine that funds the Federal Government.

    There... do you see why I'd like it to be smaller? And more manageable? And more local?

  • J Thompson SPRINGVILLE, UT
    Nov. 11, 2013 11:01 a.m.


    How much of your home does your paperboy own? How much of your home does the guy own who mows your lawn or shovels your snow or the plumber who fixes your leaks or anybody else that you hire to help out from time to time? Why don't you give them equity as part of their pay package? Surely, you don't think that they should fend for themselves when you have a home and they don't.


    The letter writer is correct. The government cannot pay out money until it takes money from the private sector. Selfish people would tell us that they shouldn't be taxed, but that someone else, especially that "rich guy" that Obama tells us about, should pay for everything. Those people covet. There is no other word that describes what happens when you want something that belongs to someone else, something that someone else earned either through his labor or by putting his money at risk. When those who have done nothing to earn that "something", they covet.

    Personal welfare is not the responsibility of the Federal Government. Those words do not exist in the Constitution.

  • Irony Guy Bountiful, Utah
    Nov. 11, 2013 10:42 a.m.

    The USA has been in debt since 1776, except for a few months in 1837. Every generation has to shoulder its responsibilities. Personally, I've been paying humongous war debts all my life. I resent paying debts for stupid wars, but I don't mind debt to invest in the education and health of our children and our most vulnerable citizens. There's stupid, cruel debt, and then there's intelligent, charitable debt.

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    Nov. 11, 2013 10:40 a.m.

    I said that Romney attacked Obama for Obamacare being paid for in part by 700 billion in Medicare cuts. I didn't lie. You just read my statement wrong. (By the way, those cuts to Medicare were also in the Ryan budget).

  • Mountanman Hayden, ID
    Nov. 11, 2013 9:32 a.m.

    @ Mark. Sorry to have to be the one to inform you that it isn't the government's job to feed people! It is however, the government's job to protect our country from its enemies and tyrants. Its your job to feed yourself, not your neighbor's. Dependency is not freedom, its just another kind of slavery!

  • Mark B Eureka, CA
    Nov. 11, 2013 9:27 a.m.

    I wonder if Pati had any second thoughts about the cost of our new aircraft carrier? One of those eat enough tax money to feed a good number of people for a pretty long time.

  • Mountanman Hayden, ID
    Nov. 11, 2013 9:13 a.m.

    @ atl134. As usual you have your facts wrong. It was Obama that transferred $750 billion from Medicare into Obamacare. Please stop trying to deceive people and leave that job to Obama. He does it even better than you can!

  • Truthseeker SLO, CA
    Nov. 11, 2013 9:10 a.m.

    "According to its most recent estimates, the IRS reports that the individuals and businesses who don't pay what they owe rob the government (and the rest of us taxpayers, as well) of a whopping $385 billion per year. That's as of 2006, and the numbers have been rising over time."
    (Daily Finance)

    "Two decades ago, when the economy was a third smaller, the IRS staff numbered about 118,000. Now it numbers 95,000 and is on the way to about 90,000. The likelihood of a big company being audited has plummeted 50 percentage points from 72 percent in 1990 to 22 percent in 2010.

    IRS data show that auditors assigned to the 14,000 or so largest corporations found $9,354 of additional tax owed for every hour spent testing tax returns in the 2009 fiscal year. The highest-paid IRS auditors make $71 an hour. Based on a 2,080-hour work year, that works out to around $19 million of lost revenue annually for every senior corporate auditor position cut from the payroll."
    (David Cay Johnston)

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    Nov. 11, 2013 8:51 a.m.

    Remember when Romney went after 714 billion in Medicare cuts as a result of Obamacare? That's where a lot of it comes from. The rest comes from taxes and mandate fines. It's all fully paid for. That's why the CBO scored the Republians' repeal bill as adding around 100 billion to the deficit over 10 years.

  • Truthseeker SLO, CA
    Nov. 11, 2013 8:51 a.m.

    Republicans work hard to make sure govt. doesn't work.

    " Obama last year asked for the I.R.S. budget of $12.1 billion to be increased by more than $1 billion, to enable it to hire 5,100 employees. But Republicans, who oppose the health care program, succeeded in trimming the agency’s funds to $11.8 billion in the budget approved last month. To accommodate the cuts, the I.R.S. offered buyouts to 5,400 of its 95,000 employees.

    Although the health care initiative will not be fully in place for years, the report found that the budget squeeze has already affected I.R.S. operations — in part because the tax code, which is now more than 3.8 million words, has grown more complicated. In 2010 alone, the code underwent 579 changes — each of which had to be explained to the public, programmed into the computer systems and incorporated into the audit procedures used to examine returns."
    (NYTimes Jan 2012)

  • Mountanman Hayden, ID
    Nov. 11, 2013 7:32 a.m.

    We are currently over $17 trillion in debt and headed for $20 trillion in the next 2 years! Who's money is that? Why, its our grandchildren's money! But who cares about them, right? Just as long as I get MY entitlements! What coveting, what greed and what irresponsibility!

  • mark Salt Lake City, UT
    Nov. 11, 2013 2:05 a.m.

    This is from the oped in the DNews

    “. . . 655 refunds sent to a single address in Lithuania and 343 to a lone address in Shanghai.”

    “. . . 655 tax refunds to a single address in Lithuania, and 343 refunds went to a lone address in Shanghai.”

    The second line is from an AP story in the New York Post, Nov 07, 2013 called, IRS refunded $4B to identity thieves.

    Gotta love plagiarism.

    Anyway, from the same story:

    “ ‘The constantly evolving tactics used by scammers to commit identity theft continues to be one of the biggest challenges facing the IRS, and we take this issue very seriously,” the IRS said in a statement. “The IRS has a comprehensive and aggressive identity theft strategy that focuses on preventing refund fraud, investigating these crimes and assisting taxpayers victimized by it.’
    “Despite budget cuts, the agency said, agents have resolved more than 565,000 cases of identity theft this year, three times the number of cases resolved at the same time last year.”

    Yeah, the IRS, like any business has to deal with identity theft. Surprise.

  • marxist Salt Lake City, UT
    Nov. 11, 2013 1:38 a.m.

    "Federal money is not free, someone always has to pay and that is most often the middle class." True, the money has to come from someone, but it doesn't have to come from the middle class. In the 50's, 60's and 70's rates on high incomes and corporations were much higher, but such cannot be imposed today because both of the major political parties dare not do it.

    Of course, many would say it is just not fair to impose higher rates on higher earners and corporations. This is where the Marxian econometric model is critical. In that view wealth accumulates and the high end because labor is not compensated for all of the product it produces. In other words, our system is a gigantic engine of inequality (in addition to the other things it does) due to the exploitation of labor (typically lower earning people). So the model would justify higher rates on the high end.

    Of course the Marxian view is disputed by some of those who are acquainted with it, but it has to be part of the debate, and is not now.