Pay those taxes..

[Steff]

http://www.wcpo.com/news/2005/local/11/03/taxes.html

 

Woman Who Owed $1.16 In Back Taxes Arraigned

Combs case sent to county court (10/21/05)

 

 

Reported by: 9News

Web produced by: Mark Sickmiller

Photographed by: 9News

First posted: 11/3/2005 11:05:26 AM

The Loveland woman arrested for failing to pay $1.16 in city was arraigned Thursday morning.

 

The prosecution of Deborah Combs has gained national attention.

 

Combs says she has been "mostly unemployed" since 2000 and didn't realize she had to file returns until the city notified her in February.

 

By that time, Combs owed 200 dollars in late fees.

 

"I really am shocked that this had happened over $1.16. There isn't a principle involved over $1.16," Combs said Thursday.

 

The prosecutor says it's a pretty simple case.

 

"Thousands of other residents of Loveland have paid their taxes. We simply want Ms. Combs to do what every other resident is doing and pay her taxes," said prosecutor Joe Braun.

 

Combs is scheduled to be in court again later this month for a pre-trial hearing.

[kapkomet]

This typlifies government abuse to a "T".

[southsider2k5]

Someone needs to fire the IRS's quantititive accountant.

[Balta1701]

This is what happens when the IRS is casually instructed to give equal weight to prosecuting any tax frauds, no matter how large the problem is.

 

Now, let's just think for 1 second about who might be the biggest beneficiary of the time that these IRS agents have spent on the case of the person who owed $1.

 

There is a reason for this.

[sox4lifeinPA]

I blame George W Bush.... he invented taxes

[Chisoxfn]

This typlifies government abuse to a "T".

Talk about a serious waste of allocating our money. Why in the hell should we have prosectuors and the government wasting there time on a little over a buck in back taxes. Of course the fees add up, but considering she's unemployed and probably doesn't have the money they are going to waste tons of resources to get very little money back.

 

Freaking stupid and its just a microcosm of the crap that goes on in the government. Non government related, but this also stems for my hatred of 99% of all attorneys and all the billions that people spend on frivolous lawsuits that they have to defend just because some stupid idiot thinks they have the right to sue when they don't.

 

TORT REFORM....TORT REFORM.

 

How I went from a government rant to tort reform, I'll never know, but it needs to be done. If you had a really good tort reform policy (one that will never get passed) you'd see the economy skyrocket and businesses do so much better. I don't even think I want to know how much money is spent on lawsuits that should never get started and how much business have to pay to defend this phony lawsuits and the problem is the people suing are the types of people you'll never be able to collect your own attorney fees from (in the case you win).

 

Its a total joke that your better off to settle most of the time (when your the right party) as opposed to putting it in the jury's hands and going through all the legal feels.

 

Find a politician that can get this passed, and wow would you see business revenues skyrocket.

[Texsox]

Let's write a new law. How small of a bill should they prosecute? $20, $50, $100? Basically, as soon as you come up with a number, in theory, every tax payer could short their bill that amount. Multiply that by millions of tax payers, and you will have a better understanding why there isn't a minimum before prosecuting.

[mr_genius]

Let's write a new law. How small of a bill should they prosecute? $20, $50, $100? Basically, as soon as you come up with a number, in theory, every tax payer could short their bill that amount. Multiply that by millions of tax payers, and you will have a better understanding why their isn't a minimum before prosecuting.

 

 

Good point.

[YASNY]

Let's write a new law. How small of a bill should they prosecute? $20, $50, $100? Basically, as soon as you come up with a number, in theory, every tax payer could short their bill that amount. Multiply that by millions of tax payers, and you will have a better understanding why there isn't a minimum before prosecuting.

 

Yes, it's a good point. It's also a waste of taxpayers money to be prosecuting this case. They don't have to advertise the fact the overlook certain trivial amounts, but common sense suggests that they should overlook them.

[The Critic]

STRING THAT NO-GOOD TAX DODGER UP!!!!

SEND HER AWAY FOR A GOOD LONG TIME, MAKE AN EXAMPLE OF HER!!!!!

Doesn't she know what GOOD USE the government could make of that buck-sixteen????

 

What the story doesn't mention is if and how the state tried to collect the $1.16 from her before prosecuting. I assume they tried to, but she SAYS she didn't know about a tax being overdue until February. Given the f***tardery in every level of government, I don't find that all too difficult to believe.

 

If they DID notify her when they should have, and in the proper ways, and she somehow refused to pay it, then yeah, she should go through the inconvenience/cost/penalties of defending herself.

If they did NOT try to collect from her before prosecuting, then this court case is petty, stupid and wasteful.

Edited November 8, 2005 by The Critic

[Texsox]

Yes, it's a good point.  It's also a waste of taxpayers money to be prosecuting this case.  They don't have to advertise the fact the overlook certain trivial amounts, but common sense suggests that they should overlook them.

 

But you cannot run any organization as large as even a city government without written rules. Imagine the fun of bringing a case for $850 and having the lawer say they didn't prosecute this person for $905, why are they prosecuting my client? Well your honor we have 10,650 agents and they each use their common sense, luck of the draw, this agent prosecutes.

 

I understand and agree that prosecuting a small amount seems like a waste of time, but if this case sends a message to 100,000 other taxpayers who each owe $2.00 that the government isn't going to let it slide, and they send in payment, wasn't it worth it?

 

As someone who has had some disagreements with the IRS, I can assure you they are very good at making certain you have received the notices and have had plenty of time to respond.

[YASNY]

But you cannot run any organization as large as even a city government without written rules. Imagine the fun of bringing a case for $850 and having the lawer say they didn't prosecute this person for $905, why are they prosecuting my client? Well your honor we have 10,650 agents and they each use their common sense, luck of the draw, this agent prosecutes.

 

I understand and agree that prosecuting a small amount seems like a waste of time, but if this case sends a message to 100,000 other taxpayers who each owe $2.00 that the government isn't going to let it slide, and they send in payment, wasn't it worth it?

 

As someone who has had some disagreements with the IRS, I can assure you they are very good at making certain you have received the notices and have had plenty of time to respond.

 

Well, since they took the time and effort to generate all those notices, and mailed them out, never mind.

[Texsox]

Well, since they took the time and effort to generate all those notices, and mailed them out, never mind.

 

From the article

 

Combs says she has been "mostly unemployed" since 2000 and didn't realize she had to file returns until the city notified her in February.

 

According to her the city notified her in Feb, this is November. Maybe she never had a spare $1.16??

[Chisoxfn]

Let's write a new law. How small of a bill should they prosecute? $20, $50, $100? Basically, as soon as you come up with a number, in theory, every tax payer could short their bill that amount. Multiply that by millions of tax payers, and you will have a better understanding why there isn't a minimum before prosecuting.

That doesn't have anything to do with the fact that its a waste of money to prosecute this case. They are going to spend 1000 times the resources on this case than they will ever get out of it.

 

That makes zero sense to do. Thats the problem, they (the government) need to have some rule (on how much to prosecute a person for) instead of using common sense. A business would use common sense, but the government, it needs rules for every damn thing out there and because of that they are ran so god damn inneficient. I'm not saying some rules aren't necessary, but geeze, sometimes all you have to do is look in a mirror and go is this worth it (but they don't think that way because they essentially get an unlimited budget and are always spending there budget, if they don't, then they wouldn't get more money the next year).

 

Its why I stick to my theory that government needs to stay out of pretty much everything (aside from defense, and taking care of the interest rate, as well as schools, roads and that sort of stuff. Basically the essential infastructure).

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

That doesn't have anything to do with the fact that its a waste of money to prosecute this case.  They are going to spend 1000 times the resources on this case than they will ever get out of it. 

 

That makes zero sense to do.  Thats the problem, they (the government) need to have some rule (on how much to prosecute a person for) instead of using common sense. A business would use common sense, but the government, it needs rules for every damn thing out there and because of that they are ran so god damn inneficient.  I'm not saying some rules aren't necessary, but geeze, sometimes all you have to do is look in a mirror and go is this worth it (but they don't think that way because they essentially get an unlimited budget and are always spending there budget, if they don't, then they wouldn't get more money the next year). 

 

Its why I stick to my theory that government needs to stay out of pretty much everything (aside from defense, and taking care of the interest rate, as well as schools, roads and that sort of stuff.  Basically the essential infastructure).

 

 

I don't think anyone in government ever took a business class. Its called cost/benefit analysis.

 

:rolly

Edited November 9, 2005 by Chisoxfn

[Texsox]

That doesn't have anything to do with the fact that its a waste of money to prosecute this case.  They are going to spend 1000 times the resources on this case than they will ever get out of it.

 

That makes zero sense to do.  Thats the problem, they (the government) need to have some rule (on how much to prosecute a person for) instead of using common sense. A business would use common sense, but the government, it needs rules for every damn thing out there and because of that they are ran so god damn inneficient.  I'm not saying some rules aren't necessary, but geeze, sometimes all you have to do is look in a mirror and go is this worth it (but they don't think that way because they essentially get an unlimited budget and are always spending there budget, if they don't, then they wouldn't get more money the next year).

 

Its why I stick to my theory that government needs to stay out of pretty much everything (aside from defense, and taking care of the interest rate, as well as schools, roads and that sort of stuff.  Basically the essential infastructure).

 

It isn't the money it's the crime. If someone steals $50 from a person, should the government just give the victim $50 and not prosecute? Because it will cost more to prosecute the crime than what they could collect?

 

There is a cost to prosecute CRIMINALS, since when is there a cost/benefit analysis on prosecuting criminals? When did conservatives get so soft on crime? She admitted she knew in February she had to pay and refused to do so and Nuke is defending her? I feel like I'm in some Twilight Zone, the liberal wanting to prosecute and the conservativeforgiving the white collar financial crime, oh wait, maybe this isn't a Twilight Zone.

 

And again, if 100,000 taxpayers who owe less than $100 decided they better pay because of this, it even is a financial win.

[Chisoxfn]

Well I'm not saying anything about criminals here. I'm all about locking people up and I'm a very unforgiving person when it comes to thiefs, but especially when it comes to murders and child abusers, wife abusers, and worse of all child molesters.

 

I do see your point, but at the same time I think we need to look long and hard at some of the things the government spends its money on and the ways they go about certain things.

 

I hate how jurisdictions are handed money based on what they spent in previous years. All they ever want is increased money for their budget and the only way to go about that is to blow through there budget and demand more the next year.

 

How about instead you maybe set up some sort of incentive system to make people want to be as thrifty as possible (without hurting the end result). Obviously you'd have to come up with a good system, because the last thing you'd want to see is different sections not spending the money and areas that need to be taken care of not taken care of because they are so cheap (but a good middle ground would be nice).

 

But chalk that up as something else that will never happen (just like a real tort reform policy).

[Texsox]

Just to be clear, they did not sue her, they arrested her. This is a criminal case. I guess the alternative would be to write her a ticket and ask her to please pay the ticket, but since she didn't have the $1.16 for the taxes, I doubt she will pay the ticket.

 

I'm still surprised at the people that think not paying a small amount of taxes should not be a criminal offense. Stealing from the government doesn't seem to have the same thought as stealing from an individual.