DISCUSSION: Big money in politics, Voter Suppression, Oligarchy

[Taarna]

This is a big problem and part of the reason why Washington Politics is broken.

Politicians who get too many large donations are compromised as they have to take care of the money backing them in too many cases. The result is politicians like Clinton owe too many favors, and stuff bills with earmarks, which is a reason why our debt is so high.

Trump isn't bought or sold, and can focus on policy better than anyone here. He can also work with both sides of the isle.

 

[Fenrir]

Well, you're going to need to have factors that are both specific and measurable--not just saying "benefitting from close proximity" to universities and such; otherwise, lawyers will tie up this kind of legislation for years.

Uhhh, no we don't need "specific and measurable" factors. No government on Earth sets its taxation policies based on only quantitative factors. No government on Earth explains why its corporate tax rate is 35% instead of 34% or 36% because of so-and-so factors. The government sets the tax rate as per its own estimations and that's that. It doesn't state its criteria for it to be challenged in court. Lawyers can do nothing about this. Your argument is silly. The only reason why I listed the aforementioned factors was simply to answer your point about why should corporations pay higher/additional taxes to the U.S government, because the U.S is simply better than almost everywhere else in the world to do business to justify a tax premium. You're getting too wound up in tangents and technicalities and are missing the bigger picture.

In my line of work, specificity is important. For instance, the Form 10-K doesn't give you taxable income. Period. So, you can't "simply not exclude those items from a corporation's tax liabilities," especially since tax liability actually refers to the taxes owed and not the income (or "profits") subject to taxation. Back when I was in corporate accounting, if the boss had asked me to book the tax liability and I booked the taxable income amount, I doubt my next review would have gone well.

Here's another place where specificity is important: I did not--I repeat, DID NOT--say that fines weren't tax-deductible as a group. I said that fines paid to the US government for a legal violation weren't deductible. And, they aren't. The link you gave specifically stated as such: "Although the tax law forbids deductions for criminal fines and penalties owed to the government, other kinds of payments — to compensate victims or correct damages — are eligible for a tax deduction." So, your article actually proved my example (although looking up 162(f) of the IRC would have accomplished the same.)

And I also don't know why you keep bringing up statutory versus effective rates. I'm well aware of the difference. I even posted on it . . . in 2008.

http://forums.superherohype.com/showthread.php?p=13790447&highlight=effective#post13790447

I am not saying form 10k shows taxable income. I said form 10k shows income from both the legal entity as well as its foreign and domestic subsidiaries and that the government can easily use that as basis to estimate taxable income from corporations without having said corporations to repatriate their earnings stashed in overseas banks. The entire point was that it is ridiculous that the government waits until that money returns home to tax it when it doesn't need to. That is what I meant when I said the "government shouldn't exclude those items from a corporations tax liabilities". From your posts, it appears you are a tax consultant or chartered accountant or something along those lines - probably why you are getting so hung up on interpreting terms in their technical rather than general meaning.

 

[Fenrir]

As for your point about fines paid to the U.S government not being tax-deductible, can you please explain these parts of the article:

"The rating agency Standard & Poor’s, which was accused of helping to cause the financial crisis with its inflated assessments of mortgage investments, is eligible to deduct half of the $1.37 billion settlement with state and federal prosecutors it agreed to this week, according to the U.S. Public Interest Research Group, a consumer-oriented nonprofit. The result would be a roughly $245 million reduction in its tax bill, the research group calculated...

...Many of the banks accused of shady mortgage deals and foreclosures that contributed to the financial crisis were able to deduct part of their multibillion-dollar settlements. The same day in 2013 that JPMorgan Chase announced a $13 billion deal with the Justice Department, for example, the bank’s chief financial officer emphasized that $7 billion of the total would be deductible. And $11.63 billion of Bank of America’s record $16.65 billion settlement in August is eligible for a tax break, experts said."

Who are these fines being paid to if not to the government for them to be considered tax deductible like this?

 

[mclay18]

We need to get the Koch brothers out of political lobbying. I'm sick of Americans for Prosperity and various other dark money foundations.

 

[Webfoot Hero]

We need to get the Koch brothers out of political lobbying. I'm sick of Americans for Prosperity and various other dark money foundations.

If you want them gone, you have to get rid of the groups funded by Soros and other big-time Democratic donors. This country was founded on being united while having a mix of opinions.

 

[mclay18]

It just seems like after that Citizens United ruling, the mud slinging got even uglier. I'd like to strip those super PACs of their money, both Democratic and Republican alike. Nowadays, you can simply buy an election. Sickening.

Have that money go to something useful, like reducing classroom sizes in public schools or patching potholes in public roads.

 

[SV Fan]

If you want them gone, you have to get rid of the groups funded by Soros and other big-time Democratic donors. This country was founded on being united while having a mix of opinions.

This is such a stupid comparison and one of false equivalency. At his worst Soros spent 20M in one election cycle, it's believed the Kochs will dump about 850M+ into this election cycle. And you could argue somebody who drops 10M into an election cycle is less of a problem then Soros at his worst, and so forth somebody who dumps 1M is less of a problem then that

All that being said I am all for getting both Soros and the Kochs out of putting this much cash into the election. As for opinions, when somebody is pumping millions into an election I think a big spotlight should be put on what their opinions are and they expect to get for that cash.

I will say one thing I don't think Sheldon Adelson should be able to spend as much as he does but at least I respect the fact he is somewhat honest what he expects for his cash

 

[pr0xyt0xin]

Problem is, history shows no one assassinates the bad guys.

 

[Handsome Rob]

I am not saying form 10k shows taxable income. I said form 10k shows income from both the legal entity as well as its foreign and domestic subsidiaries and that the government can easily use that as basis to estimate taxable income from corporations without having said corporations to repatriate their earnings stashed in overseas banks. The entire point was that it is ridiculous that the government waits until that money returns home to tax it when it doesn't need to. That is what I meant when I said the "government shouldn't exclude those items from a corporations tax liabilities". From your posts, it appears you are a tax consultant or chartered accountant or something along those lines - probably why you are getting so hung up on interpreting terms in their technical rather than general meaning.

Except, once again, you can't rely on the 10-K to give you taxable income. It doesn't matter if you can use the Form 10-K to identify foreign operations and the Net Income reported from said operations--Net Income is not taxable income (the difference between the two can be drastic, and that is why I am technical about it), and Congress is not going to pass a law making a corporation pay annual taxes from an estimate based on annual net income on overseas operations.

And, I'm a Certified Public Accountant (CPA), which is the U.S. equivalent of a Chartered Accountant. I work in Corporate Financial Planning and Analysis, after a multi-year stint doing accounting and internal auditing. I don't do tax work for a living--just my own personal taxes and some voluntary work doing tax prep and research for people who can't afford a CPA.

And, yes, I do get hung up on technical work, because my line of work is technical. If I were to not get hung up on the difference between net income and net taxable income or the difference between the tax liability and taxable income, I would not have passed the CPA exam.

 

[Handsome Rob]

As for your point about fines paid to the U.S government not being tax-deductible, can you please explain these parts of the article:

"The rating agency Standard & Poor’s, which was accused of helping to cause the financial crisis with its inflated assessments of mortgage investments, is eligible to deduct half of the $1.37 billion settlement with state and federal prosecutors it agreed to this week, according to the U.S. Public Interest Research Group, a consumer-oriented nonprofit. The result would be a roughly $245 million reduction in its tax bill, the research group calculated...

...Many of the banks accused of shady mortgage deals and foreclosures that contributed to the financial crisis were able to deduct part of their multibillion-dollar settlements. The same day in 2013 that JPMorgan Chase announced a $13 billion deal with the Justice Department, for example, the bank’s chief financial officer emphasized that $7 billion of the total would be deductible. And $11.63 billion of Bank of America’s record $16.65 billion settlement in August is eligible for a tax break, experts said."

Who are these fines being paid to if not to the government for them to be considered tax deductible like this?

I'm not going to do your research for you, but you are aware that a "settlement" or a "deal with the Justice Department" doesn't necessarily consist entirely of fines/penalties (as defined specifically in the law), aren't you?

 

[Fenrir]

Except, once again, you can't rely on the 10-K to give you taxable income. It doesn't matter if you can use the Form 10-K to identify foreign operations and the Net Income reported from said operations--Net Income is not taxable income (the difference between the two can be drastic, and that is why I am technical about it), and Congress is not going to pass a law making a corporation pay annual taxes from an estimate based on annual net income on overseas operations.

Again, you are getting hung up on tangents. Let me reiterate again: My main point was that the government does not need to wait for overseas corporate earnings to be repatriated to tax them. I simply suggested the 10k form as an example of a source of information on foreign income. You think that is not possible with the 10k form? Fine, I'll give you that cookie, just so we can stop lingering on this. There are most certainly many other ways the U.S government can find details on a corporation's overseas income to preemptively tax it.

And, yes, I do get hung up on technical work, because my line of work is technical. If I were to not get hung up on the difference between net income and net taxable income or the difference between the tax liability and taxable income, I would not have passed the CPA exam.

Like I said before, when conversing with someone who is not of the same profession as you, it is a good idea to try and interpret terms using their general rather than technical meaning. I had made clear what I intended yet you still couldn't drop your obsession with semantics while overlooking the larger point which was in itself perfectly valid. This is not a CPA exam or a job interview. You won't lose anything for dropping the professional facade for a moment in an informal discussion.

 

[Fenrir]

I'm not going to do your research for you, but you are aware that a "settlement" or a "deal with the Justice Department" doesn't necessarily consist entirely of fines/penalties (as defined specifically in the law), aren't you?

If you're going to be all condescending about your professional credentials, then at least try to be legitimate and demonstrate your expertise for a bit instead of disguising a rhetorical question for an answer. I sincerely asked you that question considering you as a valid authority on the matter. For such a minor inquiry, you don't ask someone to "go do their own research" when it is simply much easier and faster to get a professional opinion. So can you please just answer the question instead of beating about the bush?

 

[Handsome Rob]

Again, you are getting hung up on tangents. Let me reiterate again: My main point was that the government does not need to wait for overseas corporate earnings to be repatriated to tax them. I simply suggested the 10k form as an example of a source of information on foreign income. You think that is not possible with the 10k form? Fine, I'll give you that cookie, just so we can stop lingering on this. There are most certainly many other ways the U.S government can find details on a corporation's overseas income to preemptively tax it.



Like I said before, when conversing with someone who is not of the same profession as you, it is a good idea to try and interpret terms using their general rather than technical meaning. I had made clear what I intended yet you still couldn't drop your obsession with semantics while overlooking the larger point which was in itself perfectly valid. This is not a CPA exam or a job interview. You won't lose anything for dropping the professional facade for a moment in an informal discussion.

I'm hung up on tangents? What do you think our whole side discussion on the fines/penalties was? I used it just as an example to show that taxable income and net income aren't the same thing, and you went off on a whole sidetrack on it. But you are right in that there are other ways to get taxable income on overseas earnings.

I won't drop my use of "technical meanings," and I won't use the wrong terminology (what you call "semantics") to describe something that I know is clearly wrong. Period.

 

[Handsome Rob]

If you're going to be all condescending about your professional credentials, then at least try to be legitimate and demonstrate your expertise for a bit instead of disguising a rhetorical question for an answer. I sincerely asked you that question considering you as a valid authority on the matter. For such a minor inquiry, you don't ask someone to "go do their own research" when it is simply much easier and faster to get a professional opinion. So can you please just answer the question instead of beating about the bush?

I'm not being condescending about my professional credentials--everything I said was matter-of-fact. If you would, please point out the condescension in the below:

And, I'm a Certified Public Accountant (CPA), which is the U.S. equivalent of a Chartered Accountant. I work in Corporate Financial Planning and Analysis, after a multi-year stint doing accounting and internal auditing. I don't do tax work for a living--just my own personal taxes and some voluntary work doing tax prep and research for people who can't afford a CPA.

And my point about doing your own research was not to condescend. If it came across that way, then I apologize.

Let me restate: I have already shown in the IRC itself where fines/penalties to the government for legal violations are disallowed in determining taxable income. Therefore, if you are asking me about a settlement (which can be quite complex as to what it entails), I believe the onus is on you to show where the parts that are deductible are in fact fines/penalties payable to the US government and thus in direct contradiction to 162(f) and my point.

As such, I think this discussion is over on my end. The last word, of course, is yours. Seriously, though, if I came across as condescending or snarky, I do apologize. I have taken breaks from this site over the years when I realized I was acting that way in my posts.

 

[I Am The 99%]

Thought this might be interesting and relevant to the discussion

Wealth Inequality in America

Infographics on the distribution of wealth in America, highlighting both the inequality and the difference between our perception of inequality and the actual numbers. The reality is often not what we think it is.

[YT]QPKKQnijnsM&nohtml5=False[/YT]

 

[DJ_KiDDvIcIOUs]

Thousands of Ohio Voters in Poor Neighborhoods Will Be Unable to Vote in November

Over 100,000 voters in Ohio’s three largest counties may show up to the polls in November and find themselves unable to vote, Reuters reports. The largest chunk of these will be Ohioans who live in poor, black neighborhoods, and who would be likely to vote Democrat, if they were allowed to vote at all.

The purge is coming thanks to Ohio’s practice of removing people from voter rolls who have not voted in three consecutive federal elections. That means that if your last time at the polls was to vote for president in 2008, you’re out. Reuters found that 144,000 voters have been removed from the rolls in the counties that include Cleveland, Cincinnati, and Columbus, but did not have access to statewide data.

Unlike in states like Wisconsin, where voter ID laws are engineered by Republicans with the transparent intent of disenfranchising poor Democrats, the Ohio policy does not seem to have been politically motivated when it was instituted to keep voter rolls up to date decades ago. But that doesn’t mean it doesn’t help the GOP, or that supporters aren’t fighting to keep it from going away. According to Reuters’s analysis, reliably Democratic neighborhoods were hit twice as hard as their Republican counterparts, likely thanks to the well-documented roadblocks to voting for poor people, who are likely to vote Democrat.

Civil rights groups are suing the state to end the practice, and at least one conservative group is fighting back. Tom Fulton of the group Judicial Watch called the lawsuit a “power play” by liberals, designed “to ensure that candidates they like are able to steal elections if necessary.”

I’m not sure Mr. Fulton quite understands the definition of the word “stealing.”

http://gawker.com/thousands-of-ohio-voters-in-poor-neighborhoods-will-be-1780070339

On the one hand, I understand trying to keep everything straight when it comes to records and if you haven't bothered to vote in the last 3 elections kind of deal. On the other hand, why is would there be a time limit? it's every American's right to vote if they're of legal age and not a felon so once on the books should be god enough.