A Joke about the IRS (warning: PG-13)

The IRS sends their auditor to audit a synagogue. 

The auditor is doing all the checks, and then turns to the Rabbi and says, “I noticed that you buy a lot of candles.”

“Yes,” answered the Rabbi.

“Well, Rabbi, what do you do with the candle drippings?” he asked.

“A good question,” noted the Rabbi. “We actually save them up. When we have enough, we send them back to the candle maker and every now and then, they send us a free box of candles.”

“Oh,” replied the auditor somewhat disappointed that his question actually had a practical answer.  So he thought he’d try another question, in his obnoxious way. “Rabbi, what about all these matzo purchases?  What do you do with the crumbs from the matzo?

“Ah, yes,” replied the Rabbi calmly, “we actually collect up the crumbs, we send them in a box back to the manufacturer and every now and then, they send a box of matzo balls.”

“Oh,” replied the auditor, thinking hard how to fluster the Rabbi.

“Well, Rabbi,” he went on, “what do you do with all the foreskins from the circumcisions?”

“Yes, here too, we do not waste,” answered the Rabbi.  “What we do is save up all the foreskins, and when we have enough we actually send them to the IRS.”

“To the IRS ?” questioned the auditor in disbelief.

“Ah, yes,” replied the Rabbi, “directly to The IRS …And about once a year, they send us a little prick like you.”

Read Full Post »

Sugar Nazis Want Higher Taxes on Soda and Snacks

A report at CBSnews.com highlights the growing interest among politicians and bureaucrats in new taxes on sugary drinks, including sports drinks such as Gatorade. This is a reprehensible example of nanny-state intervention, of course, but it shows the risk of having government involved in health care since politicians then assert the right to tell us how to live:

…one of the proposals put before the committee received a nod of approval from health officials today: taxing soda. The [Senate Finance] committee — the last congressional panel expected to produce its own recommendations for health care reform – listened to arguments earlier this year both for and against imposing a three-cent tax on sodas as well as other sugary drinks, including energy and sports drinks like Gatorade. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that a three-cent tax would generate $24 billion over the next four years, and proponents of the tax argued before the committee that it would lower consumption of sugary drinks and improve Americans’ overall health. …CDC chief Dr. Thomas Freiden said increasing the price of unhealthy foods “would be effective” at combating the nation’s obesity problem… The American Beverage Association, which strongly opposes the tax, told the Wall Street Journal the tax would hit poor Americans the hardest.  

The Los Angeles Times, meanwhile, has a similar report about politicians wanting a tax on foods that supposedly lead to obesity. The reason for their interest, not surprisingly, is that a 10 percent tax on such foods may lead to more than $500 billion, which doubtlessly is leading to lots of salivating on Capitol Hill:

Key among the “interventions” the report weighs is that of imposing an excise or sales tax on fattening foods. That, says the report, could be expected to lower consumption of those foods. But it would also generate revenues that could be used to extend health insurance coverage to the uninsured and under-insured, and perhaps to fund campaigns intended to make healthy foods more widely available to, say, low-income Americans and to encourage exercise and healthy eating habits. …a 2004 report prepared for the Department of Agriculture suggested that, for “sinful-food” taxes to change the way people eat, they may need to equal at least 10% to 30% of the cost of the food. And although 40 U.S. states now impose modest extra sales taxes on soft drinks and a few snack items, the Urban Institute report suggests that a truly forceful “intervention” — one that would drive down the consumption of fattening foods and, presumably, prevent or reverse obesity — would have to target pretty much all the fattening and nutritionally empty stuff we eat: “With a more narrowly targeted tax, consumers could simply substitute one fattening food or beverage for another,” the reports says. …Conservatively estimated, a 10% tax levied on foods that would be defined as “less healthy” by a national standard adopted recently in Great Britain could yield $240 billion in its first five years and $522 billion over 10 years of implementation — if it were to begin in October 2010. If lawmakers instituted a program of tax subsidies to encourage the purchase of fresh and processed fruits and vegetables, the added revenue would still be $356 billion over 10 years.

Read Full Post »