The IRS: In the news....

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Kelly, May 11, 2013.

  1. Kelly #RESIST

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2004
    Messages:
    70,135
    Likes Received:
    120
  2. Hotwire Dealin' W/ Demons

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2006
    Messages:
    15,810
    Likes Received:
    353
    Where did it say in the article that Bush was being blamed? I missed it.
     
  3. Kelly #RESIST

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2004
    Messages:
    70,135
    Likes Received:
    120
    It (the article, watch the video) didn't, Carney makes sure that you know that the guy in charge of this "separate entity" from the administration was appointed by the last administration....it was called sarcasm. :cwink: hence the rim shot.


    Why doesn't Carney just say......."it was inappropriate, not something the IRS should be doing, and we will definitely be looking into it..." and leave it at that? I just thought his wording was funny.
     
  4. Victarion Iron Captain

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2006
    Messages:
    20,506
    Likes Received:
    2
    They do lots of funny things in the big leagues.
     
  5. Fenrir Devourer Of Gods

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2006
    Messages:
    4,890
    Likes Received:
    8
    I hold a very radical view that the entire tax system of the OECD (and also that of many developing) countries is broken beyond repair, because it was never made sense in the first place. Taxing annual income (especially with its different tax brackets) is an inexplicably dumb idea in the context of the modern economy with its constantly fluctuating price levels and volatile macroeconomic variables. This puts both the government and the taxpayer at a severe disadvantage when it comes to long-term planning and investment due to the unpredictability of savings and income.

    What the government should tax is not income but wealth - liquid savings and non-productive/non-earning assets like precious metals and unsold/undeveloped commercial real-estate. The marginal propensity to save is an increasing function of income and inversely proportional to the marginal propensity to consume. This means that the richer you are, the greater your savings will be as a percentage of your total income relative to your consumption. If wealth is taxed at small but fixed rate (say 2-3% annually) for everyone, the burden of tax revenues will automatically be allocated by each individual's net worth so consumption of poorer households will be less constrained by taxes thereby allowing them to save more. On the other hand, if the rich do not want to pay disproportionately high taxes because of their massive accumulated wealth, they can do so by investing a greater portion of their wealth back into the economy and this benefits everyone.

    It's a much more fair and resilient system, particularly during periods of economic downturn when government expenditure has to pick up the slack for the slump in the private sector but is unable to do so because incomes are down across the board (but savings accrued from previous boom periods are not, thereby availing a much bigger pool of taxable funds) leading to lower revenues from taxes. The end result - the government has to choose between running a deficit by borrowing more money to kickstart the economy or endure the painful recession until things slowly start going back to normal.
     
  6. Fenrir Devourer Of Gods

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2006
    Messages:
    4,890
    Likes Received:
    8
    By the way, income inequality is inversely correlated to investment and economic growth, so demonizing the 'moocher' class and hailing the great American 'social meritocracy' is not going to gain anything other than loyalty points on the scale of political idealism.
     
  7. Ouch Registered

    Joined:
    May 12, 2013
    Messages:
    392
    Likes Received:
    73
    I can see the sense in that. Has it been tried?
     
  8. SV Fan Registered

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2008
    Messages:
    8,162
    Likes Received:
    30
    Or find ways to hide their wealth in other countries
     
  9. Fenrir Devourer Of Gods

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2006
    Messages:
    4,890
    Likes Received:
    8
    Not that I am aware of, no.

    EDIT: I just remembered that such a tax system was used in Japan in the late 19th century (on unproductive land) to great success. I'll try to find more examples when I have time and then post them in this thread.
     
    #9 Fenrir, May 12, 2013
    Last edited: May 12, 2013
  10. Fenrir Devourer Of Gods

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2006
    Messages:
    4,890
    Likes Received:
    8
    That can be solved by imposing capital controls on inflows and outflows to common tax havens - kind of like what Chile and Malaysia did during the financial crises of the 1980s and 1990s. These corporate tax havens have little to offer in terms of returns or any credible investment value, so the rich mainly use them as a place to temporarily park their money to avoid taxation rather than as a source of long-term foreign direct investment or unilateral transfers.

    The key legislative trick would be to enact regulations to create opportunity costs of capital transfers that are just marginally higher than the cost of keeping wealth within national borders (which is, to reiterate, not that high to begin with at 2-3%). The important thing to note here is that only non-productive non-earning assets are taxed, so the levy can be thought of as what is described in conventional finance as a liquidity premium, or the price of safety. So what the government is doing is basically saying - "look, you either start investing the money you have in our economy or we will start taxing all that hoarded wealth". Again, it is a self-balancing mechanism where the private sector either increases its economic participation, or increase its contribution to funding the public sector.
     
    #10 Fenrir, May 12, 2013
    Last edited: May 12, 2013
  11. Cosmic Mystic

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2004
    Messages:
    3,399
    Likes Received:
    0
    ^Very interesting.

    On a side note, WH Press Secretary has got to be one tough job. But Jay Carney just pisses me off so much. He's clearly an intelligent and talented guy, but I wish he would go somewhere else.
     
  12. Baramos Registered

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2012
    Messages:
    836
    Likes Received:
    0
    I'll probably be in the minority on this one, but I look at it this way:

    Conservatives want the CIA, FBI, and so forth to focus on people with certain ethnic backgrounds because they feel those people have a higher propensity towards terror or crime.

    Well, guess who has a higher propensity towards anti-tax rhetoric and tax dodging?

    Profiling is only bad if you're the one getting profiled, I guess.

    EDIT: This Bloomberg article is probably the most factual on the subject:

    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-05-10/irs-apologizes-for-extra-scrutiny-of-anti-tax-groups.html

     
    #12 Baramos, May 13, 2013
    Last edited: May 13, 2013
  13. Kelly #RESIST

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2004
    Messages:
    70,135
    Likes Received:
    120
    I would have no problem if all non-profits were scrutinized in this way....hell the NFL is listed as a non-profit.


    But the fact is....they aren't.
     
  14. SV Fan Registered

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2008
    Messages:
    8,162
    Likes Received:
    30
    To be honest I wish all 501(c)4's were given heavy scrutiny. From my understanding they aren't supposed to be involved much in politics(endorsing candidates), they are only there for "social welfare". In my opinion anything that looks anything like involving themself with a political agenda should get their status revoked.

    Basically I think if any of these 501(c)4's spend more then 50% on ads for any political issue(s), they should get their status revoked.


    It seems like most of these so called "social welfare" ads are like: "<Candidate X> believes <issue y> is great. Call <candidate X> and tell him you are against <issue Y>". Basically it's not saying don't vote for Candidate X, but they might as well say that
     
    #14 SV Fan, May 14, 2013
    Last edited: May 14, 2013
  15. Baramos Registered

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2012
    Messages:
    836
    Likes Received:
    0
    Is the NFL actually listed as a non-profit? Because it is literally impossible for them to be a non-profit. Don't all the franchise owners make a bunch of money off of it?

    I think another thing is these were all political entities popping up and that adds a whole 'nother layer of regulations...obviously just targeting them based on THE NAME is a pretty dumb way of going about profiling them, though. What about ones without "patriot" in the name or whatever?

    EDIT: Funny you brought this up, maybe you saw the same headlines:

     
  16. dnno1 Registered

    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2005
    Messages:
    12,991
    Likes Received:
    1
    I agree. That is the mistake that the IRS made. They targeted certain groups when they should have scrutinized all. It could also be the case though that the IRS did not the resources to investigate all of the groups (there were It is not unusual to find that a lot of these groups are filing for 501(c)4 "social welfare" organization status just to hide the donors who financed their political campaign activities. I am pretty sure that the IRS acted that way as a result of complaints by interest groups over the political activities of so called 501(c)4 organizations such as Crossroads GPS, American Families First, or the Center for Individual Freedom. As it turned out, though, in spite the scrutiny, all of the groups that applied got their 501(c)(4) status.
     
    #16 dnno1, May 14, 2013
    Last edited: May 15, 2013
  17. Kelly #RESIST

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2004
    Messages:
    70,135
    Likes Received:
    120
    I didn't read that particular article, but I did hear something about it on the news a year or so back....and I thought..."what the hell?"

    It ended up not just being "patriot" it was also anyone group that had something about "the constitution", "taking America back", and a few other word, and word combinations that I can't remember.
     
  18. dnno1 Registered

    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2005
    Messages:
    12,991
    Likes Received:
    1
    The National Football League (NFL) is considered a 501(c)(6) organization, which is a nonprofit, but under the category of a business league like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, or the Nuclear Energy Institute.
     
  19. Ouch Registered

    Joined:
    May 12, 2013
    Messages:
    392
    Likes Received:
    73
    You can't fix an economy where something as obviously for-profit as the NFL gets nonprofit status. What a mess this country is.
     
  20. Spider-Who? ERMERGERD!

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2001
    Messages:
    11,343
    Likes Received:
    8
    It seems people are missing a big part of this story. It wasn't just that the IRS unethically targeted groups they assumed were affiliated with the conservative party, it's that they also leaked those groups' confidential information to the liberal journalism group, ProPublica, for use as ammo during the 2012 elections. This is extremely illegal.
     
  21. Schlosser85 Registered

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2007
    Messages:
    0
    Likes Received:
    6
    Does anyone really believe the White House has nothing to do with this?
     
  22. Spider-Who? ERMERGERD!

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2001
    Messages:
    11,343
    Likes Received:
    8
    Obama supporters.
     
  23. Kelly #RESIST

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2004
    Messages:
    70,135
    Likes Received:
    120
    Well, I have a feeling that this is going to get bigger than what we are seeing. It seems to mutate by the hour...lol
     
  24. dnno1 Registered

    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2005
    Messages:
    12,991
    Likes Received:
    1
    The individual teams are making a profit and are subject to taxes, but the league itself does not make a profit and is thus not subject to taxes.
     
  25. Hotwire Dealin' W/ Demons

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2006
    Messages:
    15,810
    Likes Received:
    353
    Ummm.... Then where did the millions go that Rupert Murdock paid them for bringing the NFL Sunday Ticket to DirecTV?
     

Share This Page

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"