DescentBB

I'm wondering if anyone here honestly believes the 87k IRS agents that were authorized to be hired are actually going to be used to go after "rich fat cats" to pay their "fair share"? Will this include people like Pelosi and Biden? Remember the fat cats can afford to hire the best CPA's and accountants. And why are they going to be armed? Worried about being mugged at a high end accounting firm or are they more worried about when they go to Joe blows residence? Any way I just would like to hear what you think.

woodchip wrote: ↑Thu Mar 23, 2023 9:01 am...go after "rich fat cats" to pay their "fair share"?

Whoa settle down comrade, you're starting to sound like a leftist commie.

I had to deal with the IRS to change my taxpayer status when my husband passed away years ago. I had to call them on the phone to straighten out a huge issue. It was a PITA because they were, and still are, understaffed and the wait times on the phone were well over an hour each time I called. One of those mistakes was my fault too, but I STILL had to call and wait, sitting on my ass for over an hour. I'd like to see the extra people go towards their taxpayer help lines. But I'm afraid I agree with you. The fat cats who run everything in the government and the world will NOT be the ones these new IRS people will go after. It's a BS cover story. Why hire more people to go after your own rich butts? The middle class and the poor will end up getting more shakedowns, as they usually do. The rich have their dodges and havens and are sitting pretty and comfortable. They also have the means and the money to lobby for laws to benefit them, not us.

But quit bitching about it to us. Your party's platform wants to squeeze even more money from the poor, not the rich. I NEVER see a Republican go after the rich corporations and what you call "fat cats". In fact, they usually block any kind of legislation that smells of increasing the taxes on corporations and the wealthy. That includes their stupendously stupid and regressive national sales tax idea.

https://truthout.org/articles/republica ... -the-poor/

Then there's the recent mid-sized bank failures. Trumpublicans in 2018 pulled the regulatory oversight from these banks. Granted, gutting Dodd Frank in 2018 was not the full reason for the SVC bank failure and the regulatory agencies weren't doing their jobs like they should've been, but it sure contributed to it.

https://www.factcheck.org/2023/03/what- ... -failures/

I love watching drooling rubes get angry about irrelevant bull★■◆● that their handlers at Fox tell them to get angry at.

It's hard to say for sure how the IRS will use the extra agents, but their main job is to make sure everyone pays their taxes, including the rich. Even if wealthy people hire the best accountants, the IRS has ways to catch tax fraud. As for why some agents might be armed, it's usually for criminal investigations. Overall they're only purpose is tax compliance.

Yeah, conservatives love to complain that the IRS is slow/sloppy and only goes after poor or middle class people but their "solution" is always to further choke the IRS by starving them of funding. It is almost like their "solution" is for an entirely different problem (wealthy political backers not wanting to pay any taxes).

It was totally obvious from the very first claim of "87k armed agents!" that the whole conservative objection was complete bull★■◆●. It is so full of ★■◆● it is amazing that the conservative media silo is able to maintain the narrative, truly a wonder of modern propaganda and conservative willful ignorance.

Hiring a large number of agents to audit a group of taxpayers based on income can't pass any ethics test that I'm aware of.

Sure, it can pass the practicality test (why do you rob banks...because that's where the money is) and may pass a political test, but it can't pass a ethics test.

Unless you are a Bolshevik.

Spidey wrote:Hiring a large number of agents to audit a group of taxpayers based on income can't pass any ethics test that I'm aware of.

We allocate resources to target specific groups all the time. I don't see what is unethical about it in this case.

The assumption that one group cheats more than others.

Not to mention class discrimination.

It's not an assumption that higher incomes correlate to more complex tax strategies, and that more complex tax strategies require greater resources to investigate.

I'd be more concerned with the ethics of targeting low hanging fruit.

Everybody cheats. It's human nature. But the wealthy have the money, connections and means to help them get Congress to fashion favorable tax laws, allowing them to "legally" cheat for their own benefit. Most poor and middle class people don't. Money talks. Money's power.

Vander wrote: ↑Sat Mar 25, 2023 10:50 am It's not an assumption that higher incomes correlate to more complex tax strategies, and that more complex tax strategies require greater resources to investigate.

I'd be more concerned with the ethics of targeting low hanging fruit.

I'll give you the point about "complex tax strategies" so can we knock off all the talk about "fair share" and ★■◆● because that sounds more political than logistical.

Yes, that's rhetorical.

Tunnelcat wrote: ↑Sat Mar 25, 2023 11:00 amEverybody cheats. It's human nature.

This is a myth. The proof is the fact that millions of people use self-checkout lines at stores and if there is any cheating it's a small amount otherwise the system couldn't exist. If you need more than proof, a former professor has written extensively on how adversarial societies either collapse immediately or cannot progress meaningfully and it's only through cooperation that civilization exists at all.

I would still think that there is a strong correlation between people who "work" to obtain significant wealth and people who "cheat" from taxes. Like the wealthy employ people and resources to exploit all sorts of loopholes and tax shelters to avoid paying taxes that are beyond the means of the poor or the soon to be mythical middle class. Yeah, its legal, because psychopathic wealthy people bought the legislation that made it legal.

vision wrote: ↑Sat Mar 25, 2023 3:14 pm

Tunnelcat wrote: ↑Sat Mar 25, 2023 11:00 amEverybody cheats. It's human nature.

This is a myth. The proof is the fact that millions of people use self-checkout lines at stores and if there is any cheating it's a small amount otherwise the system couldn't exist. If you need more than proof, a former professor has written extensively on how adversarial societies either collapse immediately or cannot progress meaningfully and it's only through cooperation that civilization exists at all.

No, it's not. Even animals stretch the rules if it gives them an advantage. Hell, birds once thought to be monogamous partners for life were actually found to be cheating on their supposed life mates. It's called breaking the rules and it's a survival instinct. It's beneficial because it spreads the gene pool. Nature is not ethical and neither are we in our most base form. I've personally cheated at games, but not like you think. I don't install mods or hacks or alter code to make my player better or invincible, that's beneath me and I do have my ethics. Besides, there's no glory in winning if I have to cheat to win, nor do I feel good about it afterwards. But I DO look for patterns in the game's programming and AI and I even take finding those as a challenge. Once I figure out a weakness or fault, and there's always one or two coded in, I exploit them. Is that cheating?

https://www.psychologicalscience.org/ne ... ut-it.html

Spidey wrote: ↑Sat Mar 25, 2023 8:14 am Hiring a large number of agents to audit a group of taxpayers based on income can't pass any ethics test that I'm aware of.

Sure, it can pass the practicality test (why do you rob banks...because that's where the money is) and may pass a political test, but it can't pass a ethics test.

Unless you are a Bolshevik.

Either said group pays what they should or the rest of us break out the guillotines. How's that for ethical?

I'm sure if everyone paid their "fair share" it still wouldn't be enough.

Eat the rich.

You can start with Bernie Sanders...MMMM Yummy, bitter old white meat.

Sanders is nothing but gristle and tendon. He's worth around 3 million, not enough for couple to retire on in many states unless they're smart with investments, frugal, don't have health issues and the market doesn't tank. Elizabeth Warren has a little more meat with a net worth around 10 to 12 million. She can probably be classified as a "rich".

Spidey wrote: ↑Sun Mar 26, 2023 6:57 amYou can start with Bernie Sanders...

You probably think this is clever, but Sander would 100% support giving up his wealth for a more equitable society. Also, Saying Sanders is "rich" just emphasizes how absolutely absurd the wealth inequality in this country is. The life Sanders leads is a dream for most people, but to the uber rich? The ones who don't pay their fair share of taxes? Sander's wealth is a rounding error to them.

Seriously, I like how Spidey and TC's first instincts were to go for the two random senators instead of the handful of people who have a greater net worth than 99.9999% (hell, it's probably a few more decimal places than that) of the global population.

Random hell, I just wanted to take a jab at ole sourpuss.

Yes, please do take jabs at the one person in Congress seriously looking out for the interests of the common citizenry.

Top Gun wrote: ↑Sun Mar 26, 2023 1:37 pm Seriously, I like how Spidey and TC's first instincts were to go for the two random senators instead of the handful of people who have a greater net worth than 99.9999% (hell, it's probably a few more decimal places than that) of the global population.

Those 2 senators help make tax law. Sanders is genuine in his efforts to tax the topmost wealthy people in this country. He'll walk the walk and talk the talk, so he's no hypocrite. Warren however, may be playing both sides of the table because technically, she's RICH (I'd love to have her portfolio because I personally have nothing near that that kind of wealth) and most rich people want to keep their wealth and pay as few taxes as possible.

Oh shut up TG, I was making fun of his demeanor not his politics.

The grumpy old coot.

I mean if you're going to make ridiculous comparisons, I'm going to call them out.

Ok, I'll stop talking about the ornery old coot.

Top Gun wrote: ↑Sun Mar 26, 2023 2:08 pm Yes, please do take jabs at the one person in Congress seriously looking out for the interests of the common citizenry.

Yeah seriously, wtf? People on this board complain about corruption and greed and then the pick on the congressman who is a model of anti-corruption and greed? No hope for humanity I swear.

As to Sen. Sanders, Whats the use of being someone who gets nothing done? As Sen. Warren said about Sanders, “but whose 30-year track record shows he consistently calls for things he fails to get done and consistently opposes things he nevertheless fails to stop.” Or as another lawmaker stated, "Of the 422 bills for which Sanders has been the lead sponsor during his nearly 30 years in Congress, only three have become law, according to Congress.gov. Two of them were perfunctory bills to name post offices".
OTOH we have someone like Congresswoman Pelosi who makes 100 million in one year off of insider stock trading but as far as I know never set tax law to tax such largess and I suspect takes advantage of every tax law she helped pass. Before you are too quick to say I've got a boner for Dems, Let me just say Sen Mitch McConnell has earned money in a similar style and should undergo similar scrutiny. Tired about hearing how the rich should be taxed more when the people entrusted with making laws to do just that are only concerned with lining their pocket books

You seem to be lamenting Sanders' lack of success. But yeah, you're right, we're not going to be able to tax the rich via politicians using office to enhance their wealth.

Before you latch onto the wealthy congressional Dems as scapecoats woody (covering your ass with a side comment about McConnell) you need to look at the nation's political donors. I'm talking about the rich wealthy influential families in this country. They're the one's who donate wads of cash to their favorite congress person and most of them are decidedly Republican, all with the intention of getting tax laws created favorable to them. So ★■◆● about the actual fat cat families in this country. They're the real problem and unfortunately, our system is set up to encourage it. Do you REALLY want to upset the congressional money cart? Vote for Bernie Sanders.

But I've got to hand it to the Waltons, as corrupting as they are. They couldn't stomach having an egomaniac mobster like Trump as president and voted for Hillary in 2016.

https://www.budgetandthebees.com/who-is ... publicans/

Oh woodchip? How about we start by cleaning the fat cats out of SCOTUS and remove a clearly unethical fat cat justice, Clarence Thomas? Oh right, there are no ethics oversights for SCOTUS. The Founding Fathers fucked up with that wing of our government. No oversight, no consequences, no punishment. So they can sit on their thrones like kings and we lowly pions can kiss their asses and choke on their decisions that do not affect THEM.

https://www.propublica.org/article/clar ... gifts-crow

Tunnelcat wrote: ↑Wed Mar 29, 2023 10:18 am Before you latch onto the wealthy congressional Dems as scapecoats woody (covering your ass with a side comment about McConnell) you need to look at the nation's political donors. I'm talking about the rich wealthy influential families in this country. They're the one's who donate wads of cash to their favorite congress person and most of them are decidedly Republican, all with the intention of getting tax laws created favorable to them. So ★■◆● about the actual fat cat families in this country. They're the real problem and unfortunately, our system is set up to encourage it. Do you REALLY want to upset the congressional money cart? Vote for Bernie Sanders.

But I've got to hand it to the Waltons, as corrupting as they are. They couldn't stomach having an egomaniac mobster like Trump as president and voted for Hillary in 2016.

https://www.budgetandthebees.com/who-is ... publicans/

How about George Soros? Contributes butt loads of money to American political groups and politicians yet I never hear you criticize him.

Tunnelcat wrote: ↑Sat Apr 08, 2023 8:09 pm Oh woodchip? How about we start by cleaning the fat cats out of SCOTUS and remove a clearly unethical fat cat justice, Clarence Thomas? Oh right, there are no ethics oversights for SCOTUS. The Founding Fathers fucked up with that wing of our government. No oversight, no consequences, no punishment. So they can sit on their thrones like kings and we lowly pions can kiss their asses and choke on their decisions that do not affect THEM.

https://www.propublica.org/article/clar ... gifts-crow

So you're trying to put another pubic hair on a coke can? How racist of you.

A fat cat is a fat cat, no matter their race. But I see you're only concerned about liberal fat cats, not conservative ones. Next time you post, be serious about a discussion, not a conservative racist bias blowoff.

By the way, 9 out of the top 10 wealthiest families are Republican. 6 out of the ten top richest congress people are Republican.

https://www.budgetandthebees.com/who-is ... publicans/

Clarence Thomas. The first justice from SCOTUS to violate the law, ever.

https://www.propublica.org/article/clar ... ate-scotus

Tunnelcat wrote: ↑Thu Apr 13, 2023 8:16 pm Clarence Thomas. The first justice from SCOTUS to violate the law, ever.

https://www.propublica.org/article/clar ... ate-scotus

You mean the first one who got caught.

There apparently were as I searched, but Thomas' case is the most egregious and blatant in modern history. Crickets from woody, except to call me a racist. Typical.

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2023/04 ... reme-court

There's a case of a liberal judge, Abe Fortas, who was forced to resign in 1969, but both political parties wanted him out and forced him to go. Today, the Republicans would never EVER consider forcing Thomas out since they have a conservative majority in SCOTUS and don't want to lose it.

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/04/11/opin ... ortas.html