IRS says they own all your money

[snopes]

Comment: I remember from the Reagan years a rumor (and likely legend) that
the IRS in their internal communications, refers to the money taxpayers do
not pay in taxes as "goverment grant" or "subsidy." In other words, the
internal language used at the IRS suggests that all the money you make
belongs to the government and the government graciously allows you to keep
85% of it (the number depending on your tax bracket). This story
obviously reflects a distrust of the IRS and its attitudes.

[A Turtle Named Mack]

Such descriptions - those specifically and others to similar effect - are often used around Congress and by certain policy wonks. I think it makes it easier to justify policy arguments concerning taxes: after all, if letting a person keep any money at all is government largesse, then it is easier to justify manipulating people by the tax code.

[Recklessmess]

Originally Posted by A Turtle Named Mack

Such descriptions - those specifically and others to similar effect - are often used around Congress and by certain policy wonks. I think it makes it easier to justify policy arguments concerning taxes: after all, if letting a person keep any money at all is government largesse, then it is easier to justify manipulating people by the tax code.

I feel so manipulated every time the government takes my hard earned money to fix a pothole, or build schools, or, say, I don't know, support the army. I'm sure the politicians think about that all the time.

My company works hands on with the IRS publishing all of their boring documents, and, I've got to say, I've never heard this either as a joke or seriously.

I can tell you that most IRS (or, for that matter, most government) documents are subject to the FOIA. As a result, I'm skeptical that any administration, especially Reagan's, would allow any document to refer to taxes in any way that would make the government sound more oppressive than it has to, even if they did to "justify manipulating people by the tax code."

[Il-Mari]

I've heard similar claim in the past, many of them linked to law against defacing currency (which the person then claims means that this is because all the money is really the property of the government).

Defacement of currency is a violation of Title 18, Section 333 of the United States Code. Under this provision, currency defacement is generally defined as follows: Whoever mutilates, cuts, disfigures, perforates, unites or cements together, or does any other thing to any bank bill, draft, note, or other evidence of debt issued by any national banking association, Federal Reserve Bank, or Federal Reserve System, with intent to render such item(s) unfit to be reissued, shall be fined not more than $100 or imprisoned not more than six months, or both.

Defacement of currency in such a way that it is made unfit for circulation comes under the jurisdiction of the United States Secret Service.

http://www.moneyfactory.gov/document.cfm/18/104

Then again, in my experience the kinds of people who spread those kinds of stories are the paranoid libertarian types who buy Liberty Dollars.

- Il-Mari

[lord_feldon]

Do those people not understand that "money" and "currency" are different things?

[Ali Infree]

Or the concept that the government issues the currency and like your mail box, it prefers to keep some control over these pretty pictures.

Ali "dead presidents's portrait collector" Infree

and no, I don't collect Ben Franklins', I spend 'em when they come my way.

[Lainie]

Originally Posted by A Turtle Named Mack

Such descriptions - those specifically and others to similar effect - are often used around Congress and by certain policy wonks.

Can you cite any examples?

[A Turtle Named Mack]

Originally Posted by Lainie

Can you cite any examples?

I have been intending to find examples of politicians referring to tax cuts or credits as 'expenditures' or similar language, but with work and helping kids with homework, I have been unable to search through Google results. I might be able to this evening. Such talk has been so ubiquitous though, I really am surprised that there would be any question about it, at least from anyone who lives in the USA

[Lainie]

Originally Posted by A Turtle Named Mack

I have been intending to find examples of politicians referring to tax cuts or credits as 'expenditures' or similar language, but with work and helping kids with homework, I have been unable to search through Google results.

When I'm too busy to back up a claim, I don't make it.

I might be able to this evening. Such talk has been so ubiquitous though, I really am surprised that there would be any question about it, at least from anyone who lives in the USA

Well, I haven't heard it, so I'm not sure how "ubiquitous" it's been.

[Chloe]

I haven't heard it either, and would be interested in some examples.

[Bill]

Originally Posted by snopes

Comment: I remember from the Reagan years a rumor (and likely legend) that
the IRS in their internal communications, refers to the money taxpayers do
not pay in taxes as "goverment grant" or "subsidy." In other words, the
internal language used at the IRS suggests that all the money you make
belongs to the government and the government graciously allows you to keep
85% of it (the number depending on your tax bracket). This story
obviously reflects a distrust of the IRS and its attitudes.

It's often said that "tax deductions are a matter of legislative grace" (authority will be provided if requested); that is, that income (not otherwise "excluded" from income) is taxable unless the legislature has chosen to grant you a specific deduction. Could this have been what the person was thinking (that all your income is *taxable* [not confiscated 100%] in the absence of a specific deduction)?

Thanks.

Bill

[Nonny Mouse]

Originally Posted by A Turtle Named Mack

Such talk has been so ubiquitous though, I really am surprised that there would be any question about it, at least from anyone who lives in the USA

If it's ubiquitous, searching for it shouldn't be that much work.

Nonny

[Bill]

Originally Posted by A Turtle Named Mack

I have been intending to find examples of politicians referring to tax cuts or credits as 'expenditures' or similar language, but with work and helping kids with homework, I have been unable to search through Google results. I might be able to this evening. Such talk has been so ubiquitous though, I really am surprised that there would be any question about it, at least from anyone who lives in the USA

"Tax expenditures" has a specific meaning other than the spending of tax money by the government. It also refers to "revenue losses attributable to provisions of the Federal tax laws which allow a special exclusion, exemption, or deduction from gross income or which provide a special credit, a preferential rate of tax, or a deferral of tax liability."

http://www.house.gov/jec/fiscal/tax/expend.htm

For example, the Earned Income Tax Credit is a tax expenditure. It's not conceptually related to income tax (e.g., it's not like a tax refund); it's a payment by the government, using the tax system, to serve the goal of helping low-income working people. Or, a tax credit or deduction for a specific industry, with the intention of helping that industry, would qualify.

Thanks.

Bill

[Flyer22]

I'm quite honestly not sure what planet some of you are on. It is VERY common for politicians, bureaucrats, and liberals in general to talk about the "costs" of tax cuts, as if allowing people to keep more of their own money is somehow a sacrifice on the part of government. I did a Google search on "tax cut costs" and found these examples.

http://www.cbpp.org/1-31-07tax.htm
http://www.cbpp.org/2-14-06tax.htm
http://www.ronpaul2008.com/articles/...ernment-money/
http://www.wvgazettemail.com/News/200803040692
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washing...-31-tricks.htm
http://dir.salon.com/story/news/feat...5/29/tax_cuts/
http://www.brookings.edu/opinions/20...mics_gale.aspx