312,000 US Federal Workers Owe $3.5 Billion in Back Taxes, Up 11.5% From Prior Year

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 11, 2013 1:13 PM GMT
    http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2013/03/312000-federal-workers.html
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 11, 2013 2:01 PM GMT
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/irs-federal-workers-retirees-owed-35-billion-in-back-taxes-in-2011-up-slightly-from-2010/2013/03/08/0100825a-882e-11e2-b412-2e8596e7c927_story.htmlOverall, the 9.8 million workers included in the data had a delinquency rate of 3.2 percent. That’s better than the general public. The IRS says the delinquency rate for the general public was 8.2 percent.

    The Department of Housing and Urban Development had the highest delinquency rate, at 4.4 percent. The Treasury Department, which includes the IRS, had the lowest, at 1.1 percent.


    Somehow federal workers are supposed to be held to a higher standard, and they meet it, at least in having a lower tax delinquency rate.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 11, 2013 2:09 PM GMT
    q1w2e3 said
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/irs-federal-workers-retirees-owed-35-billion-in-back-taxes-in-2011-up-slightly-from-2010/2013/03/08/0100825a-882e-11e2-b412-2e8596e7c927_story.htmlOverall, the 9.8 million workers included in the data had a delinquency rate of 3.2 percent. That’s better than the general public. The IRS says the delinquency rate for the general public was 8.2 percent.

    The Department of Housing and Urban Development had the highest delinquency rate, at 4.4 percent. The Treasury Department, which includes the IRS, had the lowest, at 1.1 percent.


    Somehow federal workers are supposed to be held to a higher standard, and they meet it, at least in having a lower tax delinquency rate.


    That makes it better in your mind? These people are already better paid than the general public as well. Given their employer is the general public through the government, there's a pretty strong argument there really shouldn't be any.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 11, 2013 2:13 PM GMT
    It's even worse when members of the Administration who have argued for greater government power and expansion don't pay their taxes (all the while while claiming that the rich don't pay their "fair share" of taxes):

    http://news.investors.com/politics-andrew-malcolm/012612-599002-obama-white-house-staff-back-taxes.htm
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 11, 2013 2:18 PM GMT
    riddler78 said
    q1w2e3 said
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/irs-federal-workers-retirees-owed-35-billion-in-back-taxes-in-2011-up-slightly-from-2010/2013/03/08/0100825a-882e-11e2-b412-2e8596e7c927_story.htmlOverall, the 9.8 million workers included in the data had a delinquency rate of 3.2 percent. That’s better than the general public. The IRS says the delinquency rate for the general public was 8.2 percent.

    The Department of Housing and Urban Development had the highest delinquency rate, at 4.4 percent. The Treasury Department, which includes the IRS, had the lowest, at 1.1 percent.

    Somehow federal workers are supposed to be held to a higher standard, and they meet it, at least in having a lower tax delinquency rate.

    That makes it better in your mind? These people are already better paid than the general public as well. Given their employer is the general public through the government, there's a pretty strong argument there really shouldn't be any.

    Why don't you confine your governmental opinions to Canada, if that's really where you live? And keep your nose out of the US, which seems to be your sole obsession, full of falsehoods and half-truths. I'd ask a US citizen to defend a statement like "These people are better paid than the general public" (did you borrow that from the Romneys?), but since you aren't a US citizen, and our government is none of your business, STFU. Thank you.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 11, 2013 2:21 PM GMT
    ART_DECO said
    riddler78 said
    q1w2e3 said
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/irs-federal-workers-retirees-owed-35-billion-in-back-taxes-in-2011-up-slightly-from-2010/2013/03/08/0100825a-882e-11e2-b412-2e8596e7c927_story.htmlOverall, the 9.8 million workers included in the data had a delinquency rate of 3.2 percent. That’s better than the general public. The IRS says the delinquency rate for the general public was 8.2 percent.

    The Department of Housing and Urban Development had the highest delinquency rate, at 4.4 percent. The Treasury Department, which includes the IRS, had the lowest, at 1.1 percent.

    Somehow federal workers are supposed to be held to a higher standard, and they meet it, at least in having a lower tax delinquency rate.

    That makes it better in your mind? These people are already better paid than the general public as well. Given their employer is the general public through the government, there's a pretty strong argument there really shouldn't be any.

    Why don't you confine your governmental opinions to Canada, if that's really where you live? And keep your nose out of the US, which seems to be your sole obsession, full of falsehoods and half-truths. I'd ask a US citizen to defend a statement like "These people are better paid than the general public" (did you borrow that from the Romneys?), but since you aren't a US citizen, and our government is none of your business, STFU. Thank you.


    Er, I've paid a lot of American taxes thank you very much. It's kind of the mark of the stupid when the best argument you can proffer is "STFU". But then again it's also ironic considering you've got that reputation as Hyacinth Bucket. icon_rolleyes.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 11, 2013 2:25 PM GMT
    riddler78 said
    Er, I've paid a lot of American taxes thank you very much.

    Doing what, sitting at your home computer all day surfing for articles critical of the US? Apparently that must pay well. Doesn't your own country of Canada provide anything for you to criticize?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 11, 2013 2:31 PM GMT
    http://news.investors.com/politics-andrew-malcolm/031113-647482-obama-aides-behind-in-income-tax-payments.htm

    "40 Obama White House aides owe the IRS $333,000 in back taxes"

    Better than last year I suppose...
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 11, 2013 2:57 PM GMT
    riddler78 said
    q1w2e3 said
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/irs-federal-workers-retirees-owed-35-billion-in-back-taxes-in-2011-up-slightly-from-2010/2013/03/08/0100825a-882e-11e2-b412-2e8596e7c927_story.htmlOverall, the 9.8 million workers included in the data had a delinquency rate of 3.2 percent. That’s better than the general public. The IRS says the delinquency rate for the general public was 8.2 percent.

    The Department of Housing and Urban Development had the highest delinquency rate, at 4.4 percent. The Treasury Department, which includes the IRS, had the lowest, at 1.1 percent.


    Somehow federal workers are supposed to be held to a higher standard, and they meet it, at least in having a lower tax delinquency rate.


    That makes it better in your mind? These people are already better paid than the general public as well. Given their employer is the general public through the government, there's a pretty strong argument there really shouldn't be any.


    I'm not saying it's better, I'm just saying that federal workers, being human, owe taxes less than the general public.
    While it's true that federal workers with lower education are paid more than in the private sector, that is not true for those with higher education. So unless you know which workers that are owing taxes have what education, you cannot make that blanket statement.
    42921-land-fedpay.png
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 11, 2013 3:08 PM GMT
    q1w2e3 said
    riddler78 said
    q1w2e3 said
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/irs-federal-workers-retirees-owed-35-billion-in-back-taxes-in-2011-up-slightly-from-2010/2013/03/08/0100825a-882e-11e2-b412-2e8596e7c927_story.htmlOverall, the 9.8 million workers included in the data had a delinquency rate of 3.2 percent. That’s better than the general public. The IRS says the delinquency rate for the general public was 8.2 percent.

    The Department of Housing and Urban Development had the highest delinquency rate, at 4.4 percent. The Treasury Department, which includes the IRS, had the lowest, at 1.1 percent.


    Somehow federal workers are supposed to be held to a higher standard, and they meet it, at least in having a lower tax delinquency rate.


    That makes it better in your mind? These people are already better paid than the general public as well. Given their employer is the general public through the government, there's a pretty strong argument there really shouldn't be any.


    I'm not saying it's better, I'm just saying that federal workers, being human, owe taxes less than the general public.
    While it's true that federal workers with lower education are paid more than in the private sector, that is not true for those with higher education. So unless you know which workers that are owing taxes have what education, you cannot make that blanket statement.
    42921-land-fedpay.png


    The following is from the report you pulled the graph from - so no, that's not the only way one can make a generalized statement that federal workers are paid more than the general public:

    http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/01-30-FedPay.pdf

    Overall, the federal government paid 2 percent more in total wages than it would have if average wages had been comparable with those in the private sector, after accounting for certain observable characteristics of workers.

    Those estimates do not show precisely what federal workers would earn if they were employed in the private sector. The difference between what federal employees earn and what they would earn in the private sector could be larger or smaller depending on characteristics that were not included in this analysis because such traits are not easy to measure. In addition, the estimated differences depend on how well the observable characteristics were measured in the samples of employees used by CBO and on other factors that are inherent in any statistical analysis.

    The span between the wages of high- and low-paid employees was narrower in the federal government than in the private sector, even when employees’ education and other observable traits were accounted for. The narrower dispersion of wages among federal employees may reflect the constraints of federal pay systems, which make it harder for managers to reward the best performers or to limit the pay of poor performers.


    When it came to benefits:

    Average benefits were 46 percent higher for federal employees whose highest level of education was a bachelor’s degree than for similar private-sector employees and 72 percent higher for federal employees with no more than a high school education than for their private-sector counterparts (see Summary Table 1). Among employees with a doctorate or professional degree, by contrast, average benefits were about the same in the two sectors.

    On average for workers at all levels of education, the cost of hourly benefits was 48 percent higher for federal civilian employees than for private-sector employees with certain similar observable characteristics, CBO estimates.


    Of course, this really understates the case of how well public sector employees have it given that the private sector and public sector really attract different sets of workers. It's quite unlikely that many in the public sector would be hired for the same amounts in the private sector just given structures and levels of bureaucracy, reduced job security that is seemingly independent of job performance that exist in the public sector.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 04, 2013 4:46 PM GMT
    riddler78 saidhttp://news.investors.com/politics-andrew-malcolm/031113-647482-obama-aides-behind-in-income-tax-payments.htm

    "40 Obama White House aides owe the IRS $333,000 in back taxes"

    Better than last year I suppose...


    Better than a lot of years, including Bush's. Where was the outrage then?

    http://www.politifact.com/ohio/statements/2013/apr/03/blog-posting/bloggers-say-obama-aides-are-delinquent-their-taxe/ In 2008, the last year of George W. Bush’s presidency, 50 employees of the Executive Office of the President owed $812,917, according to reporting in 2009 by Bell, WTOP Radio in Washington and others. That put the executive office default rate at 2.93 percent, slightly higher than the current rate.

    The previous year, 2007, had an Executive Office of the President delinquency rate of 2.21 percent, according to a 2008 Washington Post report that highlighted a number of other departments and Congress, too. That’s confirmed in the data the IRS gave us. The lowest rate for the president’s staff during all these years was 2010 (so this was Obama’s staff), when it was 2.01 percent, the IRS data show. But in dollar terms, that was also the year with the most money owed: $833,970. In other words, fewer people were delinquent, but they owed more.

    The lowest amount owed by the president’s staff during all these years was $188,304, in 2007 (Bush’s staff), with a delinquency rate of 2.21. Yet in three of Bush’s last five years in office, his Executive Office staff owed more than $627,000.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 04, 2013 8:28 PM GMT
    q1w2e3 said
    riddler78 saidhttp://news.investors.com/politics-andrew-malcolm/031113-647482-obama-aides-behind-in-income-tax-payments.htm

    "40 Obama White House aides owe the IRS $333,000 in back taxes"

    Better than last year I suppose...


    Better than a lot of years, including Bush's. Where was the outrage then?

    http://www.politifact.com/ohio/statements/2013/apr/03/blog-posting/bloggers-say-obama-aides-are-delinquent-their-taxe/ In 2008, the last year of George W. Bush’s presidency, 50 employees of the Executive Office of the President owed $812,917, according to reporting in 2009 by Bell, WTOP Radio in Washington and others. That put the executive office default rate at 2.93 percent, slightly higher than the current rate.

    The previous year, 2007, had an Executive Office of the President delinquency rate of 2.21 percent, according to a 2008 Washington Post report that highlighted a number of other departments and Congress, too. That’s confirmed in the data the IRS gave us. The lowest rate for the president’s staff during all these years was 2010 (so this was Obama’s staff), when it was 2.01 percent, the IRS data show. But in dollar terms, that was also the year with the most money owed: $833,970. In other words, fewer people were delinquent, but they owed more.

    The lowest amount owed by the president’s staff during all these years was $188,304, in 2007 (Bush’s staff), with a delinquency rate of 2.21. Yet in three of Bush’s last five years in office, his Executive Office staff owed more than $627,000.


    You think that the outrage wasn't existent then? You think that makes it ok now? Why shouldn't these people be fired?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 04, 2013 8:44 PM GMT
    Show me some outraged posts from newsmax from 2008 and 2007 please. icon_lol.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 04, 2013 8:59 PM GMT
    q1w2e3 saidShow me some outraged posts from newsmax from 2008 and 2007 please. icon_lol.gif


    Look up porkbusters that preceded the tea party. They were very much agnostic when it came to party and criticizing government pork.
  • coolarmydude

    Posts: 9190

    Apr 05, 2013 2:09 AM GMT
    I remember a 2007 GAO report that stated that US Corporations owed more than $800 Billion in back taxes.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 05, 2013 2:33 AM GMT
    riddler78 said
    q1w2e3 saidShow me some outraged posts from newsmax from 2008 and 2007 please. icon_lol.gif


    Look up porkbusters that preceded the tea party. They were very much agnostic when it came to party and criticizing government pork.


    Nothing I could find. The site is kaput.
    In any case, why does it take politifact to dig this up to respond to "various bloggers"? Why isn't investors.com and your tax professor doing their due diligence in putting things in context?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 05, 2013 3:14 AM GMT
    q1w2e3 said
    riddler78 said
    q1w2e3 saidShow me some outraged posts from newsmax from 2008 and 2007 please. icon_lol.gif


    Look up porkbusters that preceded the tea party. They were very much agnostic when it came to party and criticizing government pork.


    Nothing I could find. The site is kaput.
    In any case, why does it take politifact to dig this up to respond to "various bloggers"? Why isn't investors.com and your tax professor doing their due diligence in putting things in context?


    You didn't look very hard.
    http://instapundit.com/archives/029532.php

    Where is the context required? As I recall, that site has published the numbers for as long as it's been available. It's really only you who thinks this is an Obama issue which strikes me as a bit defensive. It's more of an issue that should be resolved quite easily - and it's telling that despite making allowances for those who want to pay their taxes and have financial hardships, Democrats do not want to punish government workers who don't pay their taxes.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 05, 2013 4:21 AM GMT
    riddler78 said
    q1w2e3 said
    riddler78 said
    q1w2e3 saidShow me some outraged posts from newsmax from 2008 and 2007 please. icon_lol.gif


    Look up porkbusters that preceded the tea party. They were very much agnostic when it came to party and criticizing government pork.


    Nothing I could find. The site is kaput.
    In any case, why does it take politifact to dig this up to respond to "various bloggers"? Why isn't investors.com and your tax professor doing their due diligence in putting things in context?


    You didn't look very hard.
    http://instapundit.com/archives/029532.php

    Where is the context required? As I recall, that site has published the numbers for as long as it's been available. It's really only you who thinks this is an Obama issue which strikes me as a bit defensive. It's more of an issue that should be resolved quite easily - and it's telling that despite making allowances for those who want to pay their taxes and have financial hardships, Democrats do not want to punish government workers who don't pay their taxes.


    Am I missing something? That link says nothing about tax delinquency.

    I don't think it's an Obama issue. I don't think it's an issue in the bigger context of things, when a much lower tax delinquency rate is held up to be something terrible by the Right to be an Obama issue. You can say your last sentence about Republicans when Bush was president.