Pumpkin Spice Milkshake
2 weeks ago
Wednesday, October 31, 2007
TNT
Trunk o Treat - I would like some feed back on this one. Trick o Treating has gone on for who knows how long. I am sure someone will look it up and let me know in comments. Here we go kids hang on. So this year’s trunk o treat left me with some mixed feelings. Usually, I am all for the lazy way to trick o treat. Go to a parking lot and BAM! 30 min later the kid is loaded up and good to go. Last night as I sat pondering what I was doing on the tailgate of our lovely Durango I realized that this had become a tradition that may be sending a mixed message. First of all trunk o treating is usually for the Mormon families. Although, everyone is invited, and if nonmembers show up they will not be asked to leave. However, I didn't invite a nonmember. I wasn't assigned to pass out flyers. Thus, this could portray exclusion to the community. Second, there are those that do not have the ability to attend a trunk o treat event. I am speaking of the elderly, sick and disabled; those who may really enjoy, and look forward to the kids coming around each year. Now our trunk o treating was the day before Halloween, and I'm sure the intent was to provide kids the opportunity to trick o treat traditionally. However, why not just eliminate the trunk o treat and go back to the traditional way? Why do we need to have a separate night for trunk o treating? Was it for safety? I do recall a few years ago a scare that people were poisoning candy. I am sure we have all heard of the razorblade in the apple. After careful review of my son's candy I noticed it was all in a sealed package and store bought. So do we really need to substitute trick o treating?
Friday, October 12, 2007
And that is why I vote against taxes.
WASHINGTON — What if the government tried to give American taxpayers some of their money back, but the taxpayers didn't seem to want it?
That's what happened this year, as taxpayers collected only about half the $8 billion the IRS expected to pay them in its phone tax refund, the most far-reaching refund in the agency's history. The telephone excise tax was created in 1898 to fund the Spanish-American War. After losing several lawsuits disputing the legitimacy of the tax, the IRS created a program to refund the 3 percent tax paid on long distance or bundled service from March 2003 to July 2006.
The tax agency estimated the one-time refund would affect 145 million to 165 million taxpayers.
But, as of August, the IRS had repaid just over half of the over collected tax, according to the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration.
The inspector general report cited two main reasons for the lower-than-expected refunds:
_Many taxpayers, following the advice of the IRS, didn't want to bother searching for old phone bills to calculate exactly how much they were owed, and took the standard $30 to $60 refund instead, refunds that were based on the number of exemptions claimed.
_Despite what the report said were generally good efforts by the IRS to communicate the program to taxpayers, many remained uninformed. As of June 9, about 87.6 million, or 71.5 percent, of the 122.6 million individual income tax returns filed had made a phone tax refund claim.
The report recommended that the IRS identify demographics that had relatively low rates of claims and provide additional information to these taxpayers on how they might still claim the refund.
Separately, the Government Accountability Office issued a report concluding the IRS loses money because of problems in managing its paper case files.
The GAO, the investigative wing of Congress, cited several District Court cases where the IRS lost more than $40,000 in revenue because it could not locate the case file.
It said the IRS could not find 10 percent to 14 percent of case files requested in two prior GAO audits, and that the IRS could not come up with 19 percent of the case files when the Treasury Inspector General, in an audit, asked for a random sample of tax records.
"This is not a new problem," said Senate Finance Committee ranking Republican Charles Grassley of Iowa, who requested the study with committee Chairman Max Baucus, D-Mont. "The GAO's findings should be an embarrassment to the agency."
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071012/ap_on_go_ot/irs_phone_tax
Generally speaking taxes are a necessary evil. The government does need an operating budget of some kind or nothing would be accomplished. I highlighted this article to demonstrate the long-term destructive power that taxes can have on our society. While voting for the telephone excise tax in 1898 to fund the Spanish-American War was probably very patriotic at the time; it should be a strong lesson to those with voting power that just because it feels good doesn't mean it is good. This tax, although very small in comparison to may other taxes, has over stepped the bounds by which it was created. Why then is it so hard to remove such a tax? Once the overall purpose is served a reasonable person would conclude the "government" would repeal the tax and pay back the money not used. In our country it is my opinion that we do NOT have a tax collection problem we have a tax spending problem. I sure wonder what other taxes I am currently paying that are not going toward their originally designed purposes. Is it really responsible to vote for tax increases? Now let's stretch this discussion a little further and see where we end up. The modern day application of this tax should worry many of you. Originally only the rich had phones and thus a tax on the rich equals a tax on only a few. However, now everyone has a phone, and if you are poor, on government assistance, desperately seeking a job you MUST have a phone. Therefore, a poor person paid this tax for many years. Where were the Democrats on that one?
That's what happened this year, as taxpayers collected only about half the $8 billion the IRS expected to pay them in its phone tax refund, the most far-reaching refund in the agency's history. The telephone excise tax was created in 1898 to fund the Spanish-American War. After losing several lawsuits disputing the legitimacy of the tax, the IRS created a program to refund the 3 percent tax paid on long distance or bundled service from March 2003 to July 2006.
The tax agency estimated the one-time refund would affect 145 million to 165 million taxpayers.
But, as of August, the IRS had repaid just over half of the over collected tax, according to the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration.
The inspector general report cited two main reasons for the lower-than-expected refunds:
_Many taxpayers, following the advice of the IRS, didn't want to bother searching for old phone bills to calculate exactly how much they were owed, and took the standard $30 to $60 refund instead, refunds that were based on the number of exemptions claimed.
_Despite what the report said were generally good efforts by the IRS to communicate the program to taxpayers, many remained uninformed. As of June 9, about 87.6 million, or 71.5 percent, of the 122.6 million individual income tax returns filed had made a phone tax refund claim.
The report recommended that the IRS identify demographics that had relatively low rates of claims and provide additional information to these taxpayers on how they might still claim the refund.
Separately, the Government Accountability Office issued a report concluding the IRS loses money because of problems in managing its paper case files.
The GAO, the investigative wing of Congress, cited several District Court cases where the IRS lost more than $40,000 in revenue because it could not locate the case file.
It said the IRS could not find 10 percent to 14 percent of case files requested in two prior GAO audits, and that the IRS could not come up with 19 percent of the case files when the Treasury Inspector General, in an audit, asked for a random sample of tax records.
"This is not a new problem," said Senate Finance Committee ranking Republican Charles Grassley of Iowa, who requested the study with committee Chairman Max Baucus, D-Mont. "The GAO's findings should be an embarrassment to the agency."
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071012/ap_on_go_ot/irs_phone_tax
Generally speaking taxes are a necessary evil. The government does need an operating budget of some kind or nothing would be accomplished. I highlighted this article to demonstrate the long-term destructive power that taxes can have on our society. While voting for the telephone excise tax in 1898 to fund the Spanish-American War was probably very patriotic at the time; it should be a strong lesson to those with voting power that just because it feels good doesn't mean it is good. This tax, although very small in comparison to may other taxes, has over stepped the bounds by which it was created. Why then is it so hard to remove such a tax? Once the overall purpose is served a reasonable person would conclude the "government" would repeal the tax and pay back the money not used. In our country it is my opinion that we do NOT have a tax collection problem we have a tax spending problem. I sure wonder what other taxes I am currently paying that are not going toward their originally designed purposes. Is it really responsible to vote for tax increases? Now let's stretch this discussion a little further and see where we end up. The modern day application of this tax should worry many of you. Originally only the rich had phones and thus a tax on the rich equals a tax on only a few. However, now everyone has a phone, and if you are poor, on government assistance, desperately seeking a job you MUST have a phone. Therefore, a poor person paid this tax for many years. Where were the Democrats on that one?
Praying for Pets
Well boys and girls, my wife keeps bugging me to post something on our new blog. So I dedicate this special article to my loving wife. God bless you!
Two chickens arrived at St. John’s Episcopal Church Saturday — and calmly watched the service from a front pew. Several dogs sat in the aisles, thumping their tails against the wood floor. The smell of their wet fur hung in the air. A few cats peered out from carriers. All had come for the St. Francis of Assisi Festival, which remembers the friar known for his love of animals. The annual event invites parishioners to bring their pets for blessing. It is a tradition at Anglican churches worldwide.
“It’s a lot of fun for people,” said the Rev. Ruth Eller, who directed the service. “It’s a joy to do this service.”
Eller began the event by leading the congregation in reciting several prayers for St. Francis.
“Make us, ourselves, to be true friends to animals,” one hymn said.
Next, Eller prayed over a bowl of holy water and recruited a few children from the audience to help her carry it. The small group then went from animal to animal, blessing each. Eller would ask the owner for the pet’s name, then dip a silver wand into the holy water and touch it to the animal’s head. A few critters, like the chickens, were a little squirmy, so Eller just waved the wand in their direction. The pets didn’t seem to know quite what to make of it all. One large golden retriever named Gus backed up and panted as Eller splashed drops of holy water on him. The dog almost seemed to be expecting a game of catch. Gus’ owners, Nancy and Dyke Stiles, said they were pleased that he made it through the hour-long event without barking once. They’ve taken him to the service for eight years, and this is the first time he’s been so quiet. On Saturday, he was joined by a friend, a smaller golden retriever mix, Kajun, who was rescued from New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina. Kajun seemed to be enjoying herself.
“We all need blessings,” Nancy Stiles said.
“It’s good to remember St. Francis,” she continued. “He was a man who understood ecology. He understood that no part of the Earth can be seen as separate.”
Taking that approach, the service accepts “all creatures great and small.”
In past years, goats, rats, lizards, snakes, and a horse have joined in, although the chickens are a first. Melinda Hillegass and James Israelsen brought the laying hens — Katie and Spicy — because their children wanted them to attend.
“The chickens are a favorite right now,” Israelsen said.
The couple, both vets, also brought two dogs. The pair both have health problems. Their Australian shepherd, Bowser, is missing a front leg. Dhali, a Doberman, can’t walk on a rear leg, which he keeps raised. Though Hillegass and Israelsen were attending for the first time (they generally go to an LDS church), Israelsen said they will be back for the animal blessings next year.
“It’s a neat tradition,” he said.
http://hjnews.townnews.com/articles/2007/10/10/news/news01.txt
--
Honestly, I do not know what to say to this article. I have access to a buffalo I am thinking of taking to church with me this Sunday. It is important to renew all animal covenants made to God. Once upon a time people did parade animals into church, "as part of the deal", and guess what, they were certainly not prayed for but sacrificed on an alter. I am sure this rev., that has the holy priesthood - tongue in check, has left this little bit of information out as she offers up a prayer on behalf of Lassie.
I guess congregations are hard to come by these days, especially the family patrons, "alternative life style couples", haven’t worked; so what the heck bring on the animals! I would love to be a fly on the wall during the tithing lesson. Good thing this is a one year event.
Please feel free to post your comments.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
