‘Cyber Hall of Shame’ targets delinquent taxpayers (Colorado)

Channel 9 News, Denver, Colorado ^ | 27 March 2003 | Adam Schrager

[PatrioticAmerican]

 

‘Cyber Hall of Shame’ targets delinquent taxpayers	created: March 26, 2003 - 5:27 PM updated: March 27, 2003 - 5:50 AM
9NEWS Legislative Reporter Adam Schrager
<!null CB> RELATED State of Louisiana latest delinquent taxpayer accounts Connecticut delinquent taxpayer list DENVER - Public shaming could soon be in store for Colorado's worst tax evaders. State lawmakers are debating a plan to publish the names and addresses on the Internet of those who owe the state of Colorado at least $20,000 in income taxes. Its sponsor calls House Bill 1210 a "Cyber Hall of Shame." 9NEWS Reporter Adam Schrager talks with a lawmaker who hopes to shame Colorado residents who owe thousands in back taxes, 4 p.m. March 26, 2003. "These people have received plenty of notice and they've just ignored the law," said Rep. Alice Madden, D-Boulder, who is sponsoring the measure. "These are people who have received letters from the state, phone calls from the state and in many cases been taken to court by the state and still, they have thumbed their noses at the law." According to the Colorado Department of Revenue, there are 1,541 individuals and businesses who owe more than $20,000 each in overdue income taxes. The list of their tax identification numbers makes up 34 pages of single-spaced typed copy and the cumulative total they owe is $96.8 million. The largest single debtor owes Colorado $5,384,512.50 with the top 10 delinquents owing almost $13 million in back taxes. The debate comes as state lawmakers take on Colorado's worst budget crisis since World War II. They have been required to cut $890 million from this year's $13.2 billion budget and are expected to have cut more than $800 million from next year's budget before the session ends in May. "I was completely shocked when I saw this. Matter of fact, it took my breath away," said Madden. "I just thought here we are laying people off for the state. We're cutting off medical coverage. We're taking away textbook funding and there's people who owe this much money out there who think that's just fine." Currently, under state law, information on taxes owed is confidential. It would take legislative approval to not only publish the names of the tax debtors, but to do so on the Internet. Louisiana and Connecticut also publish the names and addresses of delinquent taxpayers on their state-run Web sites. Connecticut revenue officials indicate they have increased their collection of overdue taxes by $115 million in the five years there since the public shaming became state law. Madden says she hopes people will "give up and pay up" before their names ever have to receive worldwide attention. "We have to run our government efficiently," Madden said. "No business would let their accounts receivable just slide by. This is efficient government. Of course, you go after the people who owe you money." Opponents of the measure fear the impact on potentially innocent civilians. At least 90 days before the names could be released to the public, the Department of Revenue would send a notice by certified mail to the delinquent taxpayer. However, some critics say it sometimes takes much longer than that for the government to realize it's made a mistake in labeling someone a tax evader. They also worry about the 15 days it would take for the taxpayer who does pay up to be removed from the list. "I think it's creating a situation that's going to cause problems for folks and some of them are going to be innocent," said Rep. Bill Cadman, R-Colorado Springs, who cast the only vote against the measure in the House Information and Technology Committee where it passed 10-1. "I think it just really starts to pull us in the wrong direction. You may see other agencies saying 'Hey, we can't get our job done, let's publish a list we think will help effectuate the outcome we're looking for.' "I don't think it's good government. It's not good public policy." The biggest hurdle for the measure though is reflected in its cost. Implementing the program would cost under $50,000 in the next couple years, but finding any money for new programs, even those which may pay for themselves, is increasingly difficult to find. The measure is expected to come before the House Appropriations Committee, which allocates the money, as soon as next week. "We fully expect people to pay up before they ever get on the list," said Madden. "This would be money well spent."   (Copyright 2003 by 9NEWS KUSA-TV, All Rights Reserved)

 

[PatrioticAmerican]

"I suspect that I might know more about the reliablity of such information than you."

I suspect that you don't.

[Roscoe]

I suspect

It would seem that you suspect the public records without really having any knowledge of the matter.

[PatrioticAmerican]

"It would seem that you suspect the public records without really having any knowledge of the matter."

I already said that I work with state records, so what's your expertise as to be able to say that public records are good to go for publication?

You don't have such expertise, do you? You're simply are trying to take a pro-government stance without providing any logical backup to your claim that these records are sound.

It isn't my responsibility to prove these records are not sound. It is the state's responsibility to prove that they are before using them as a source for publication.

Your stance is that they are because you know they must be. So prove it.

[Roscoe]

I already said that I work with state records

And you've also falsely claimed that such records are notoriously inaccurate, without a speck of evidence to support your claim. Naturally.

[PatrioticAmerican]

The proof that these records are valid for publication is still in your court. Besides, what do you want from me? A million dolla study to show proof? To you, no proof is enough proof, so pound sand. I suggest that you look at the analysis documents already available for public consumption. Do your own homework and ask the state for them. They do exist.

Your reputation as a FReeper who believes that the government is always right preceeds you.

[Roscoe]

The proof that these records are valid for publication is still in your court.

Backwards. You charged that the records were "notoriously innaccurate" [sic] and when you were called on to support your accusation, you folded.

[tpaine]

What's with you Roscoe? What makes you so cranky?
16 -PA-

As we see, there is ~never~ a true straight answer from roscoe. -- Whatever is said, whatever the question, roscoe 'begs' to differ, based on his own personal infalliblity.

Just ask him, he's always right.

[Roscoe]

In
the
land
of
the
blind
the
one-eyed
man
is
king.

[tpaine]

What'd I say.. Just ask roscoe.