11

Reporting people for evading taxes is good when there is legitimate evidence to back up such accusations. However, this #ThotAudit movement has simply gone too far. It has reached a point where it's being used to harass those who have done nothing wrong. Roosh V. is accusing Brittany Venti of tax evasion without any sort of legitimate evidence. The only "evidence" he gave, to summarize in my own words, was that "she locky her accounty hehehehe." Not only that, but he's encouraging his followers to report her to the IRS. This is pretty much the fiscal equivalent of swatting in the sense that it is people misusing the IRS reporting system in bad faith. And I honestly condemn anyone who is misusing the IRS or any other government system, service, or agency as a harassment tactic. Zero respect for those kinds of people.

Reporting people for evading taxes is good when there is legitimate evidence to back up such accusations. However, this #ThotAudit movement has simply gone too far. It has reached a point where it's being used to harass those who have done nothing wrong. Roosh V. is accusing Brittany Venti of tax evasion without any sort of legitimate evidence. The only "evidence" he gave, to summarize in my own words, was that ["she locky her accounty hehehehe."](http://archive.is/23JDd) Not only that, but he's encouraging his followers to report her to the IRS. This is pretty much the fiscal equivalent of swatting in the sense that it is people misusing the IRS reporting system in bad faith. And I honestly condemn anyone who is misusing the IRS or any other government system, service, or agency as a harassment tactic. Zero respect for those kinds of people.

21 comments

[–] ScorpioGlitch 1 points (+1|-0) Edited

Three points, to be honest.

  1. The government operated without income taxes before then. It is perfectly capable of doing so again.

  2. Your comment seems to imply that "that's just the way it is." It doesn't need to be. How's the saying go? After long enough, a slave is happy living on their knees. It could always be worse, you know. They could be dead.

  3. 10% was enough for God. Yet 25%+ for the government.

[–] E-werd 1 points (+1|-0)
  1. The country was barely civilized by modern standards at that point. The transcontinental railroad was only about 50 years old at the time and we were just starting to see cars in favor of horse-drawn carriage. Costs to run the country were significantly lower at the time, before the wars and before the social policies of the New Deal. This continues to be a problem with stagnant wages and steady inflation.

  2. It doesn't need to be, but it works well enough. You seem to be implying we're not getting what we're paying for, and I disagree. I like having good roads--exact quality varies, but the vast majority of roads are incredible compared to the rest of the world. I like having police. I like having schools. I like having watchdog agencies like the FDA to make sure we're not being overtly poisoned or otherwise hurt by witch doctors and various other quacks. I like knowing we're not going to be invaded by foreign militaries. I like that laws are enforced that protect us in the workplace, on the roads, etc. Point is, there's a TON that is funded by out tax dollars that we absolutely take for granted. It's not by choice, but it would never work if it was.

  3. I won't disagree that some costs could certainly be pruned.

[–] ScorpioGlitch 1 points (+1|-0)

I'm not sure that "civilized" makes as much as a difference as you think it does. That's not to say that I don't think that the differences between today and then doesn't make any difference. I'm just not convinced that it makes quite that much of a difference. These branches of the government such as the FCC, , FAA, railroad authorities, and so forth generally get money from people who avail themselves of their services. For example, if I want to fly a drone, I have to pay a fee. If I use said drone for commercial purposes, I have other fees. Phone companies pass FCC fees on to customers which means that the phone companies are indeed paying the FCC for something, yeah? So these things don't need to be funded by taxes. Taxes take from everyone whether or not you use or benefit from those things. The companies should eat those fees but when/if they pass them on to the consumer, that's still more honest because then you actually directly pay for federal services you consume. There's absolutely no reason why I should pay for something I don't use.

I'm not saying we don't get what we pay for (except in cases of regulatory capture and public education). I'm saying that we get taxed for things we don't use. Furthermore, the lowering of tariffs encourages rampant trade which upsets local economies. Free Trade is why farmers in certain other countries stopped producing food and switched to growing drugs (poppy, etc). They couldn't compete on any level. The US happens to subsidize US farmers for growing certain crops which comes from me and you. Limiting trade and employing tariffs in a manner for which they were intended (to limit trade and protect local producers and companies) not only ensures that local companies don't get shafted but also gives the government that money that would otherwise come from taxes.

A LOT of government costs could be eliminated.