Census

[thatmushroom]

So...I'd be interested to see a case where someone refuses to answer the Census on 1st Amendment grounds (with the "refusal" construed as an act of speech). Who knows, there's probably some good reason why such a case hasn't yet appeared, as I'm no Constitutional lawyer, but this potential contradiction in the Constitution has always intrigued me.

The 1st Amendment does not guarantee unlimited "speech" and there is a long list of Supreme Court cases that go into the details of what is prohibited such as yelling fire in a movie theater or advocating sedition. It looks like the penalty for refusing to answer, in theory, can be a fine of up to $100. For false answers, the fine can be up to $500. Trying to go Sovereign Citizen and claiming false protection under the Constitution usually doesn't get you very far in life. The government has a valid reason to collect the census data and can compel people to answer unless the people running the survey run afoul of other parts such as the 14a's equal protection clause. Likewise, police can ask you for identification if they have a valid suspicion that you are involved in an illegal activity. You have the 1a right to speak profanities in these situations, but still need to comply.

The Census Bureau has a site dedicated to the legality of the Census: https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys ... ution.html

In particular, the court case discussing the 1st Amendment ramifications starts on page 24 of this ruling: https://www.census.gov/dmd/www/pdf/morales.pdf

Finally, this is an excellent 1st Amendment resource: https://www.popehat.com/2015/05/19/how- ... roversies/
Elsewhere on the site is a discussion about how the 1st Amendment has broadened in scope in power over the last century, but I'm too lazy to look for it.
With luck, no one will ever use the phrase "fire in a crowded theater" ever again.

[Wentzl]

Hey Susan. Here is a hazard I bet your sister has not encountered.

This fence around a ranch that was on my rounds today!

IMG_0020.jpg

[susanjoypaul]

Hey Susan. Here is a hazard I bet your sister has not encountered.
This fence around a ranch that was on my rounds today!

Woah. Some people really don't want to be counted. Maybe skip that one

[ker0uac]

I am aligned with the argument that the government already has that information. How? Federal taxes. Now, the counterarguments:

- Some will say: that information is not enough. Why is it not enough? Why does the government need to know so much about my life? Some will say, "so that the government can improve services". No, thanks. But ok, if the information from tax returns is not enough, then why not include a census form with the tax return?
- Some will say: what about those that don't pay taxes. Well, should they be counted? They don't contribute to the government by evading taxes but they should still benefit from it? Imagine, a subscription service in which if you don't pay your dues, you can still receive the service.
- Some will say: not all government databases speak to each other. Well, that's a technology problem and not a valid argument. I assume coordinating the collection of ~300M responses seems like a much heavier undertaking.

Ultimately, there's no such thing as an efficient government. We file tax returns every year even though the government already has that information. If I am employed, my employer submits all my income to the IRS. If I have gains from investments, the financial institution reports that to the IRS. But I am sure there are exceptions that might require additional paperwork. Maybe if you are a contractor or have a more complex tax structure.

[Trotter]

I wonder how many of the people who don't want to answer it because they think the government will know too much about them, also use facebook, instagram, alexa, google home, etc.

If the government wants to know what you've been doing, and who you've been doing it with, they just wait 5 minutes for people to eagerly self report it online.

[Conor]

I am aligned with the argument that the government already has that information. How? Federal taxes. Now, the counterarguments:

- Some will say: that information is not enough. Why is it not enough? Why does the government need to know so much about my life? Some will say, "so that the government can improve services". No, thanks. But ok, if the information from tax returns is not enough, then why not include a census form with the tax return?
- Some will say: what about those that don't pay taxes. Well, should they be counted? They don't contribute to the government by evading taxes but they should still benefit from it? Imagine, a subscription service in which if you don't pay your dues, you can still receive the service.
- Some will say: not all government databases speak to each other. Well, that's a technology problem and not a valid argument. I assume coordinating the collection of ~300M responses seems like a much heavier undertaking.

Ultimately, there's no such thing as an efficient government. We file tax returns every year even though the government already has that information. If I am employed, my employer submits all my income to the IRS. If I have gains from investments, the financial institution reports that to the IRS. But I am sure there are exceptions that might require additional paperwork. Maybe if you are a contractor or have a more complex tax structure.

I think you're boiling down a bit too much and much too naive. For instance, up until recently, the individual was responsible for selecting a method for and tracking capital gains. Another example would be those with IRA's and it is the individual's responsibility to track and report their basis within for their IRA's. And a tax "return" is not legally required unless certain situations apply. While a majority of people do file tax returns, not all have to.

It seems as if you don't have much experience working with data. There are tons of issues. It's not just bringing 300MM (or 300m) lines of data together. It's literally merging 1000's if not 10,000's of databases (state, county, cities). You can now have duplicative data issues (which piece of conflicting information do we trust?), data integrity (why should we trust Yuma County in Arizona and their data?) and then the millions of formatting issues. I'm not saying it's impossible to literally merge all these databases, but you will always have lingering issues. Always. No system is perfect, but the census has a bit of tradition (Written into the constitution), people can lie, people cannot participate. I don't think it is a waste.

If you have the solution, I suggest you contact your representative and pitch merging of every database in the country. Meanwhile, I live in an unincorporated area and some online retailers are collecting sales tax for the city of Golden...so that's a simple "technology problem and not a valid argument" that is literally hundreds of dollars I am "literally" fighting right now. Thanks quickbooks.

[emgordon_II]

- Some will say: what about those that don't pay taxes. Well, should they be counted? They don't contribute to the government by evading taxes but they should still benefit from it? Imagine, a subscription service in which if you don't pay your dues, you can still receive the service.

All those tax evading babies

[ker0uac]

I think you're boiling down a bit too much and much too naive. For instance, up until recently, the individual was responsible for selecting a method for and tracking capital gains. Another example would be those with IRA's and it is the individual's responsibility to track and report their basis within for their IRA's. And a tax "return" is not legally required unless certain situations apply. While a majority of people do file tax returns, not all have to.

Federal taxes on most of distributions you receive (income, capital gains, retirement accounts, etc) are subject to what is called "federal witholding". Look it up, That means those funds reach you net of taxes. For instance:
- Capital gains come from buying/selling investments. Financial investments are held by financial institutions that either will collect taxes on your behalf upon distribution or will report your gains to the IRS.
- Employer-based IRAs, your employer will submit that information to the IRS as well because it comes straight from your paycheck.
- If you take a distribution from IRAs or 401k, the financial institution holding those accounts also report that income to the IRS.

HOWEVER, for other distributions not subject to federal withholding, or distributions that cannot be cross-referenced (e.g. you are contractor hired/paid to fix the plumbing of a restaurant), filing a tax return would be needed. But if you are not claiming credits & additional deductions, have only income already subject to withholding, and you hold only financial investment accounts, then the IRS already has all your information.

It seems as if you don't have much experience working with data. There are tons of issues. It's not just bringing 300MM (or 300m) lines of data together. It's literally merging 1000's if not 10,000's of databases (state, county, cities). You can now have duplicative data issues (which piece of conflicting information do we trust?), data integrity (why should we trust Yuma County in Arizona and their data?) and then the millions of formatting issues. I'm not saying it's impossible to literally merge all these databases, but you will always have lingering issues. Always. No system is perfect, but the census has a bit of tradition (Written into the constitution), people can lie, people cannot participate. I don't think it is a waste.

I do, which is why I know. You really think that these are hard to solve problems in today's big data world? It doesn't seem you understand today's technologies. But if you do, look up Facebook's Hadoop, you will be shocked. Does it take resources and funds? Hell yea. But Facebooks makes $70B/year and the US government makes $3T.

If you have the solution, I suggest you contact your representative and pitch merging of every database in the country. Meanwhile, I live in an unincorporated area and some online retailers are collecting sales tax for the city of Golden...so that's a simple "technology problem and not a valid argument" that is literally hundreds of dollars I am "literally" fighting right now. Thanks quickbooks.

I don't think it would be as easy for Businesses. I was referring to employed people, but perhaps some classes of contractors and pass-through entities could also have automatic filings.

[ker0uac]

- Some will say: what about those that don't pay taxes. Well, should they be counted? They don't contribute to the government by evading taxes but they should still benefit from it? Imagine, a subscription service in which if you don't pay your dues, you can still receive the service.

All those tax evading babies

Those are dependents, claimed on the tax return of their parents/guardians.

[montanahiker]

It seems as if you don't have much experience working with data. There are tons of issues. It's not just bringing 300MM (or 300m) lines of data together. It's literally merging 1000's if not 10,000's of databases (state, county, cities). You can now have duplicative data issues (which piece of conflicting information do we trust?), data integrity (why should we trust Yuma County in Arizona and their data?) and then the millions of formatting issues. I'm not saying it's impossible to literally merge all these databases, but you will always have lingering issues. Always. No system is perfect, but the census has a bit of tradition (Written into the constitution), people can lie, people cannot participate. I don't think it is a waste.

If we're just sticking to the constitutional part of the census there's no reason to merge 1000's or 10,000's of databases. I assume 99% of the population either a) files a tax return which includes their address and number of dependents or b) receives assistance from a federal program which would require them to identify their address and dependents. All you have to do is merge the IRS database and the federal welfare program databases (maybe just the largest one). I've just cut the number of databases from 10,000s to possibly 2.

[teamdonkey]

I am aligned with the argument that the government already has that information. How? Federal taxes. Now, the counterarguments:

- Some will say: that information is not enough. Why is it not enough? Why does the government need to know so much about my life? Some will say, "so that the government can improve services". No, thanks. But ok, if the information from tax returns is not enough, then why not include a census form with the tax return?
- Some will say: what about those that don't pay taxes. Well, should they be counted? They don't contribute to the government by evading taxes but they should still benefit from it? Imagine, a subscription service in which if you don't pay your dues, you can still receive the service.
- Some will say: not all government databases speak to each other. Well, that's a technology problem and not a valid argument. I assume coordinating the collection of ~300M responses seems like a much heavier undertaking.

Ultimately, there's no such thing as an efficient government. We file tax returns every year even though the government already has that information. If I am employed, my employer submits all my income to the IRS. If I have gains from investments, the financial institution reports that to the IRS. But I am sure there are exceptions that might require additional paperwork. Maybe if you are a contractor or have a more complex tax structure.

Hello friend, I'm a CPA and work on taxes every day for a living. There's an awful lot wrong here. It's fine that you don't have a strong grasp of income taxes - most people don't! But maybe resist the urge to sound so confident about your tax-related opinions. A few general responses to your comments:

- lots of people don't file tax returns. They are not "evading" taxes. In most cases they are not legally required to file. If your income is below a certain point you simply don't have to. The majority of the rest of the people should file, and have paid enough taxes in through their paychecks to get a refund, but for whatever reason don't. In almost all cases both of these groups are people who need the services in question the most, making the counting of them and their families pretty important.

- the government absolutely does not have the information to file our tax returns. This is an incredibly naive assertion. Let's take a very simple example. I own a rental property in Oregon. How does the IRS tax the income from this? They don't know what I collected in rents, or paid in property taxes, or paid to my property manager, or paid in homeowners insurance, or paid in HOA fees, or paid in repairs, don't know my basis in the property to calculate depreciation, aren't aware of any capital improvements I've made, don't know if I've used it personally and need to apply the vacation rental rules, or if I've rented it for less than 2 weeks and don't need to report rental activity at all, etc. On the majority of returns I work with the IRS has only a small percentage of information needed.

Which, again, it's fine you don't know any of this. Just don't make such definitive statements like you're an expert.

[highpilgrim]

There's an awful lot wrong here. It's fine that you don't have a strong grasp of income taxes - most people don't! But maybe resist the urge to sound so confident about your tax-related opinions.

That's his job; being confident about knowing things he knows nothing about.

And make no mistake: he does a damn fine job of it.