What's the Opposite of Tax Evasion?
Katherine Mangu-Ward | April 16, 2007, 4:11pm
Illegal immigrants are showing up in droves this year to pay their taxes. Several of the amnesty proposals under consideration in Congress link amnesty and taxes--requiring payment of back taxes before amnesty can be granted, for example.
The New York Times explains how people without Social Security numbers can still be law-abiding taxpayers:
Illegal immigrants do not have Social Security numbers, but the Internal Revenue Service allows them to file taxes by assigning applicants individual taxpayer identification numbers. The numbers were introduced in 1996 to encourage noncitizens with United States income, including foreign investors, to file returns. It is generally accepted that most of the 11 million numbers issued since then have gone to illegal immigrants.
The Washington Post opts for practical analysis paired with a warm and fuzzy take on the story:
"Having their taxes done is a benefit to them. . . . Generally, when something opens for immigration, they will ask if you have tax returns for the past two or three years. Some of them ask for proof if they have been in the country for 10 years. What better proof is there than having tax returns for 10 years? That says a lot," [tax consultant Hank] Azais said....
Josefina Gutierrez Calucho, 37, a self-employed cleaning woman originally from Bolivia, said she has paid her taxes for the past six years to comply with the law and to support the public education of her 10-year-old daughter, Talia.
As her accountant was filing out her forms, the Dale City resident smiled and said, "I like this country."
The I.R.S. is charmingly ecumenical about the whole thing: “We want your money whether you are here legally or not and whether you earned it legally or not,” said Mark W. Everson, the commissioner of the I.R.S.
Earlier, I wrote about how some illegals are also using their ITIN's to open bank accounts, perhaps to save some cash for their tax bill, or to deposit their refund check once it comes in.
kevrob | April 16, 2007, 6:40pm | #
Quite a bit of imperialism was done off the tax books. The Dutch had an East Indian Company, as did the English. The
Company of Scotland famously took a bath on the attempt to plant a colony on the Isthmus at Darien. The Darien scheme's failure was one of the proximate causes of the 1717 Act of Union. The French had their
Mississippi Company, masterminded by a Scot, John Law. That one exploded, too.
Several U.S. states, notably Pennsylvania, started out as proprietary operations.
The merchant companies weren't bastions of free enterprise. They were created by royal charter, and the sovereign or the state were often heavy investors, or took a kickback for the monopoly granted. At the outset, these companies raked it in, as the sole source of natural resources extracted from areas previously outside the world trade system. As they became destinations for colonists they took on the features of pseudo-governments, along with the attendant expenses. When this became a losing proposition, lands administered by these companies were eventually converted into colonies directly under the authority of the government.
"Fixing" Mexico by annexing it is, I presume, a joke. Anybody want to price extending the "equal protection of the laws" as it would apply to transfer payments? We couldn't afford to annex Canada, as far as that goes.
The IRS "profiting" from illegal activity is nothing new. Gamblers are required to report all their winnings, even those from illegal wagers. The same is true for income from the illegal drug trade. It is a lovely Catch-22, whereby your 5th Amendment right against self-incrimination doesn't apply unless you exert it at the appropriate places on your
tax return.
I only wish out resident Lunatic were as Solitary as his odd posting style implies.
Kevin
Tseren | April 16, 2007, 11:18pm | #
OK, I haven't read all the comments, but knowing this board, I think I know where most of the people fall. On the side of open borders and the like. I have read a few and if I'm wrong, hey, sue me.
Personally this sickens me.
I think there is often a disconnect between ideal libertarianism and anarchism (I can't spell or use dictionary.com).
I have no problem with completely open borders. I don't. But if we are going to have open borders and apply our standards of life to every single person in the entire world. Then everyone else in the entire world MUST play by the same rules.
I think one of the biggest problems with most libertarian ideology is that it is not applied evenly.
In society, everyone must agree to play by the same rules. If not playing by the same rules were not a requirement, then why not extend the rights we have as humans to the rest of the animal kingdom.
After all, why can't a monkey, lion, or slug enjoy the same rights we do. Why? Because those of us that live in this society all agree to live by a lot of the same rules an regulations.
Also, as libertarian, we must be above the fray in saying that just because I believe it, it must be law. If you take this interpretation to its logical conclusion of what libertarianism means, then it is perfectly alright for people who follow Islam to beat and rape their women, so long as it's private and doesn't cost the state anything. But I don't think that there is one person who thinks that would be a good idea. But for some reason when it comes to immigration, we throw up our hands and say, hey, this is our theory and we cannot move away from it.
Anyway, I need to go. I think I stirred up enough troule, so please discuss.
