RotoGuru Politics Forum

View the Forum Registry

XML Get RSS Feed for this thread


Self-edit this thread


0 Subject: IRS Scandal

Posted by: Boldwin
- [513542817] Mon, Apr 28, 2014, 21:27

Hyperpartisan Media Matters gets 501C status but this outstanding and longstanding [since 1998] tax exempt just had their status revoked proving the current DOJ and IRS won't obey the law until jail bars start closing around the Holder's and Lerner's of this administration.
Only the 50 most recent replies are currently shown. Click on this text to display hidden posts as well.
92Perm Dude
      ID: 431013412
      Thu, Jul 17, 2014, 17:28
Honestly, I doubt it about the switch to standard deductions only. Many of the people who itemize do so through a tax preparer, or accountant. Those people aren't going to give up on other deductions simply because the easy one is now unavailable. There are still far more deductions available to those people -- pretty much anyone making over $200K (over 90% of whom itemize now) would be leaving money on the table if they went to the standard deduction.

And raising the standard deduction would not help with the billions of dollars per year not going into the federal budget right now because of the interest deduction.

The most immediate effect was that those people might not buy as big a home as they would if taxpayers weren't subsidizing their purchase. That's not a bad thing.
93sarge33rd
      ID: 336581716
      Thu, Jul 17, 2014, 17:58
A middle class taxpayer with a 2,000 to 3,000 mortgage payment ...

There ya go. Middle class taxpayers, dont have $3,000/m mortgages.
94sarge33rd
      ID: 336581716
      Thu, Jul 17, 2014, 18:02
Middle Class income, 30k to 80k/annually. (This cover the middle 20 percentile and the 20 percentile to either side. So 60% of the working public). Mortgage at 25% of gross = 7500 to 20k annually = 650 to 1650/m.

link
95Pancho Villa
      ID: 2131916
      Thu, Jul 17, 2014, 18:24
Middle class taxpayers, dont have $3,000/m mortgages.

In most markets that's true, but there are exceptions. I'm constantly amazed at the percentage of income spent by my friends in Southern California on housing, be it mortgage or rent. 50% is not uncommon.
96Perm Dude
      ID: 431013412
      Thu, Jul 17, 2014, 18:35
The interest deduction encourages such overbuying, IMO.
97biliruben
      ID: 81382416
      Thu, Jul 17, 2014, 23:36
It would be easy for me to do the math, given that I lived it, with my first house.

200K mortgage, and I continued to take the standard deduction, even at 5.5% interest.

If you insist, I can dig up my old tax returns, but I'm certain I documented our nation's folly here on the boards in excruciating detail someplace.
98Gator
      ID: 13521231
      Sat, Jul 19, 2014, 16:14
Let's do some math..
If a rich guy gives $1000 to charity he pays $350 less on taxes (he is not given anything). So, he is GIVING (this is where 'giving' is the correct term) $1000 to a worthy cause at a net loss of $650. Sounds like a good deal for everyone, but liberals think they should dictate how every bit of someone else's money should be distributed, mostly for their half-brained, logicless, left wing policies and corrupt organizations (see U.N.), and they are are trying to undermine the charitable contributions of moderates.
99sarge33rd
      ID: 556381915
      Sat, Jul 19, 2014, 16:38
Let's do some math..

Followed by a 3-line partisan tirade. *smdh*
100Gator
      ID: 13521231
      Sat, Jul 19, 2014, 18:00
There was some math in there.
101Bean
      ID: 5292191
      Sat, Jul 19, 2014, 21:14
<98> My concern is that your choice of charity, lobbyist/candidate or church is at the expense of the general fund. So in effect, the taxpayer is subsidizing your donation, even if he disagrees with your religion, politics or choice of charity.

Conservatives defend the right of the corporation to follow its religious beliefs, not letting the government position have any influence on it. They disregard the beliefs of employees while insisting their beliefs are superior to those of the employee. Meanwhile, conservatives think its OK to dictate to the public what they will believe in through donations, all the while being subsidized by taxpayers.

Something fundamentally F***ed up about that view. It's an arrogance of entitlement that defies common sense or common decency.

What an employer, or someone who has disposal income to donate, believes, should not become the word of the government through tax deduction. Yet that's the state of things today. That it's allowed to happen is just one more form of corruption in our government.
102Perm Dude
      ID: 431013412
      Sat, Jul 19, 2014, 22:17
This circles back to the original point of the thread: The IRS makes some minimum-level rules about organizations claiming tax exempt status (in this case, ensuring that those political organizations are not advocating on behalf of a party, or candidate). New conservative groups have often failed the minimum tests, for which the predictable reply is: "The government is biased!!"
103Gator
      ID: 13521231
      Sun, Jul 20, 2014, 01:04
Bean, what makes no sense is what you typed.
104weykool
      ID: 586491619
      Sun, Jul 20, 2014, 09:48
200K mortgage, and I continued to take the standard deduction, even at 5.5% interest.

Prior to 2008 the standard deduction was less than 11K.
2008 10900
2009 11400
2010 11400
2011 11600
2012 11900
2013 12200
2014 12400
Which means you live in a state with no income or real estate tax and you gave nothing to charity.
Sounds about right.
105biliruben
      ID: 81382416
      Sun, Jul 20, 2014, 12:48
That's about right. No income tax. Very low property tax - 1.1%. A couple hundred to charity.

And that's near double the typical homeowner's first mortgage.

Mortgage interest deduction is almost or nearly completely useless for the first time home buyer.

Now let's run it for a household making 250K (about where the dividing line is between middle and upper class, I would say) with a million dollar home and a 750K mortgage. Since I have never been fortunate enough to pay the AMT I don't know exactly how it works. How do take that into account?
106Bean
      ID: 5292191
      Mon, Jul 21, 2014, 13:58
<103> Gator, sorry for my ineloquence, but I do want you to understand what I am saying. Please tell me which part of what I typed you are having problems with.
107Gator
      ID: 13521231
      Tue, Jul 22, 2014, 02:43
The entire post makes no sense but let's start with this.."Conservatives defend the right of the corporation to follow its religious beliefs" What corporation has religious beliefs?
108sarge33rd
      ID: 390471112
      Tue, Jul 22, 2014, 11:02
According to SCOTUS, Hobby Lobby does.
109Bean
      ID: 5292191
      Tue, Jul 22, 2014, 14:56
I think sarge answered that, I'd just add that it was a conservative SCOTUS decision. Anything else you dont understand?
110Gator
      ID: 13521231
      Tue, Jul 22, 2014, 19:29
Big deal. So Hobby Lobby does not have to buy rubbers for its employees. That should not be a religious reason but a common sense one. Bean, you want your opinion to count in a business, then start one and see how you feel when a minimum wage gofer decides his opinion is equal to yours. To subsidize, you have to give money, people donating are not subsidized they are not taxed on the amount of the donation, big difference.
111sarge33rd
      ID: 216252219
      Tue, Jul 22, 2014, 20:25
one person, one vote. His opinion *IS* equal to yours.

Now, we all know for a fact, what your real problem is. An unsupported superiority complex.
112Perm Dude
      ID: 586411123
      Tue, Jul 22, 2014, 22:16
That should not be a religious reason

The whole point of the ruling was that the Hobby Lobby owners had a religious reason. It not only should be, but it had to be for them to get the exemption.
113Bean
      ID: 5292191
      Wed, Jul 23, 2014, 01:04
<110> To subsidize, you have to give money, people donating are not subsidized they are not taxed on the amount of the donation, big difference.

Definition: Subsidize - pay part of the cost

The tax general fund is paying part of the cost of your donation.

I could be mistaken, but it seems that BIG DIFFERENCE may have just shrunk a bit under measurement in cold water. Don't worry we'll blame that on the Heisenberg uncertainty principle.
114Gator
      ID: 13521231
      Wed, Jul 23, 2014, 01:22
Bean, you and Sarge want to dictate how your boss runs the company, dictate how the rich spend their money and dictate how corporations donate money. You two little Castros need to start your own business or take over a country.
115sarge33rd
      ID: 390471112
      Wed, Jul 23, 2014, 10:27
No Gator...we want to ensure that everyone has adequate healthcare, and no one gets to shove their puritanical views, unsubstantiated by science, down the throats of everyone else. The HL case, hinges upon a redefinition of "abortion", which is neither scientifically nor medically accurate.

The "rich" got that way, more and more, because they won the genetic lottery. NOTHIING at all to do, with anything at all they have done. Even those who did acquire their wealth via their work, this society made that possible. They then OWE this society, financial support in proportion to the benefits they derive FROM this society.

Your brand of selfishness, will destroy America.
116chode
      ID: 05331014
      Wed, Jul 23, 2014, 11:46
Where are you working these days, Jim?
117sarge33rd
      ID: 386452315
      Wed, Jul 23, 2014, 16:45
Finance Director at Redding Yamaha. In what way is that relevant?
118Khahan
      ID: 16341313
      Wed, Jul 23, 2014, 20:41
115 - Sarge that outlook - that you and/or society is entitled to reap the rewards that others have earned on their own work - that outlook is why you and I will never, ever see eye to eye on many social issues.

Ever.

I'm not in the least bit entitled to any benefit because somebody else worked for wealth.
119Perm Dude
      ID: 586411123
      Wed, Jul 23, 2014, 21:06
But what if that wealth was obtained as a result of your work?
120Gator
      ID: 13521231
      Wed, Jul 23, 2014, 22:47
As an employee, your job is to create wealth for your employer or you serve no purpose.
121Perm Dude
      ID: 586411123
      Wed, Jul 23, 2014, 23:07
No, your job is to do your job. Coordinating workers into a profit-making enterprise is the job of the employer.

122Khahan
      ID: 16341313
      Wed, Jul 23, 2014, 23:36
119 - If its my wealth then my family and only my family is entitled to it. What I give to charity, how I spend it, how I save it, who I spend it on - 100% on me and my family. Not a penny of it is owed to anybody by some inherent entitlement.

Does that mean I would never use it to help society? No. But its my choice of who what when where why and how. We, as individuals makes society better. Society does not tell us how we should be. Society should not dictate to us the choices we make. The society we live in should be defined by the individuals who make it up....not the other way around.

Again I believe that is a truly fundamental difference between democrats and true republicans.

Its not that one side is better than the other. Its not that one side or the other doesn't want to give or wont be helpful. Its in the motivation for why one side or the other wants to be helpful and give.
123sarge33rd
      ID: 390471112
      Wed, Jul 23, 2014, 23:55
Khahan...ypur efforts, were only made possible because people before you laid the groundwork upon which you built your success. Now, it is your turn to expand that groundwork for the next generation. Your utter failure to admit that simple truth is why we will not see eye to eye. You see yourself as an island. Apparently, you built single handedly, all the roads upon which you drive. You grew the food and raised the livestock, upon which you dine. You slaughtered the meat, harvested the plants and laid your own waterworks. You single handedly, created the electricity which powers your computer, which you also built with your own hands, so you cpuld post that drivel in 118.



This morning I was awoken by my alarm clock powered by electricity generated by the public power monopoly regulated by the US Department of Energy(DOE). I then took a shower and made my coffee with the clean water provided by the municipal water utility regulated by the US Environmental Protection Agency because some tree-hugging liberal fought for minimum water-quality standards.

While in my morning shower, I reach for my shampoo. The bottle is properly labeled with each ingredient because some crybaby liberal fought for my right to know what I was putting on my body and how much it contained.

After that I turned on the TV to one of the Federal Communication Commission (FCC) regulated channels to see what the National Weather Service (NWS) of the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) determined the weather was going to be like using satellites designed, built, and launched by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).

I watched this while eating my breakfast of US Department of Agriculture (USDA) inspected food and taking my daily medicine which have been deemed safe by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) because some stupid socialist liberal fought to ensure the safety of the food and medication.

All but $10 of my medications are paid for by my employer's medical plan because some liberal union workers fought their employers for paid medical insurance - now I get it too.

I walk outside and take a deep breath. The air I breathe is clean because some environmentalist wacko liberal fought for the laws to stop industries from polluting our air.

At the appropriate time as regulated by the US Congress and kept accurate by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) and the US Naval Observatory, I get into my National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) approved automobile and set out to work on the roads built by the local, state, and federal Departments of Transportation (DOT), possibly stopping to purchase additional fuel of a quality level determined by the EPA, using legal tender issued by the Federal Reserve Bank. On the way out the door, I deposit any mail I have to be sent out via the US Postal Service and drop the kids off at public school.

I begin my work day. I have a good job with excellent pay, medical benefits, retirement, paid holidays, and vacation because some lazy liberal union members fought and died for these working standards. My employer pays these standards because my employer doesn't want our employees to call the union.

If I am hurt on the job or becomes unemployed, I'll get a worker compensation or unemployment check because some stupid liberal didn't think I should lose my home because of my temporary misfortune.

After work I drive my NHTSA automobile back home on the DOT roads because some America-hating liberal fought for car safety standards to go along with the tax-payer funded roads and to a house that has not burned down in my absence because of the state and local building codes and fire marshal's inspection, and which has not been plundered of all it's valuables thanks to the local police department.

During my drive to and from work, I listen to my favorite talk show. The radio host keeps saying that liberals are bad and conservatives are good. He doesn't mention that the beloved Republicans have fought against every protection and benefit I enjoy throughout my day. I agree: "We don't need those big-government liberals ruining our lives! After all, I'm a self-made person who believes everyone should take care of themselves, just like I have."

I then log onto the internet which was developed by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Administration and then post on Freedomworks and Fox News forums about how this socialist government wants to take away my liberties.
124Khahan
      ID: 16341313
      Thu, Jul 24, 2014, 00:19
Sarge - and you can do nothing but put words in my mouth to make your point. All the while ignoring my point.

You bring up roads we drive on - paid for by taxes which are pre-wealth.
Food - post wealth. I bought it with my money and that money went to pay for the work that others put into producing that food. That is called an exchange. Not an entitlement.
Electricity - again I pay money to the electric company. I pay for that. But again that is an exchange of goods for services.
Health insurance - I pay a doctor for check ups and visits. That is an exchange of goods (money) for services. But why should I pay for somebody else's check up?

Yes I'm an island and so are you. So is PD and so is Baldwin. So is Obama. So is Boehner. I have always believed in the individual over society and I have never hid that on these boards. But you claiming that I take it to some extreme meaning I think I go out and provide myself 100% of all I have is laughable at best Sarge. I'm also not claiming society doesn't exist (which is a natural extension of believing an individual provides 100% of what he needs). Just the opposite, I explicitly state society exists. I just state that we as individuals should define it, not the other way around.

If the best you have is to try to claim that my spending my hard earned money on food and electricity somehow proves that I owe society...then I dont know where to go with this. My whole point is exactly that - I will decide who, what, when, where, why and how I spend my hard earned money. And you are not entitled to a penny of that money any more than I am entitled to a penny of Warren Buffet's money.

But this money I am talking about is earned wealth. Which comes after taxes. I have no problem with taxes. There are certain needs - roads/bridges, civil and national defense, schooling for our children to name a few, that we as a society need to continue. Taxes are great for that. They're not so great when somebody looks and says, "Oh hey, he's got money, lets raise taxes so we can spend his money on entitlement programs for this guy over here." Its way out of hand.

So continue putting words in my mouth and assuming I mean one thing when I clearly have stated another. I have nothing against you personally sarge. I love competing against you in the rifc. I hope nothing but the best. But when it comes to politics you are as challenging and difficult and bullheaded to deal with as Baldwin is. I truly hope you read that and it sinks in for you. You are just as bad as Baldwin to deal with because you do nothing but put words in people's mouths, twist statements and hold to such an extreme view that conversations with you are unpleasant.

125sarge33rd
      ID: 390471112
      Thu, Jul 24, 2014, 00:35
Not putting words in your mouth Khahan. Pointing out the absurdity of your own words and philosophy. Believe in society or not, none of us is an island.
126Perm Dude
      ID: 586411123
      Thu, Jul 24, 2014, 00:38
#122: I don't think anyone is saying one side is "better" than the other. But you seem to feel that people who have exploited others have somehow not only "earned" their money but are also free from criticism. You are wrong on both counts.

Take a look at a family like the Waltons, who make their fortune largely as a result of passing their costs onto state and local taxpayers. But somehow that is OK because they are "entitled" to it?

We're all in this together. Profit comes from capital plus labor, and when people get exploited (as measured by increased efficiency and productivity, accompanied by years of flat wages) then the exploiters will get criticized.

As they should.

When Wal-mart makes profits because my tax dollars are subsidizing their stores, it is my responsibility to call for a more fair system.
127Gator
      ID: 13521231
      Thu, Jul 24, 2014, 03:35
Sarge this is how my day went...
I woke up this morning power by electricity that I pay 3xs too much for because some pin head liberal won't let us drill off shore. I then drink a cup of coffee from clean water which we have had since the turn of the century.

While taking a shower, I reach for the shampoo, I could not careless about the ingredients because I am not a fracking chemist.

I turn on the TV to check the weather channel, but I don't know why the sunny beach hasn't been right in 20 years.

I take my medicine which I paid for because only a small portion of America has a union job.

I walk outside and breath clean air because we are not a third world socialist country yet.

I drive to work but it is taking much longer than normal because some jackass in front of me in a Prius can't drive over 40 miles an hour.

I begin my work day at a crappy job because liberals have destroyed the job market, so employers can do what they want as there is no competition for good employees.

If I get hurt on the job, I am screwed because I am part time, Companies are forced to do this because of so many regulations and government interference.

I drive back home on the roads I paid for and is one of the few things the government does right.

During the ride home I hear a right wing talk show host talk about how liberals have destroyed the American dream and I agree with him.

Sarge, where did you copy and paste that. I know you are not part of the 11% of union workers.
128Perm Dude
      ID: 586411123
      Thu, Jul 24, 2014, 07:40
A post more full of inaccuracies would have been hard to do. Congrats.

You want to fix the job market? Raise minimum wage. Once the economy gets going, all this whining goes with it.
129Pancho Villa
      ID: 2131916
      Thu, Jul 24, 2014, 07:58
During the ride home I hear a right wing talk show host talk about how liberals have destroyed the American dream and I agree with him, because my life is driven by emotion and it comforts me to know there's a scapegoat I can pinpoint for my failed, miserable life.
130Gator
      ID: 13521231
      Thu, Jul 24, 2014, 10:49
Fix the job market by raising the minimum wage? Even that moron Krugman would not agree with that statement.

My life is great PV.
I am not affected by Obama, but unlike liberals who pretend to care about their fellow man, I actually do care about people and that is why, since the world economy is tied to America, I hate seeing the socialists drive the economy down to the point where billions are suffering from increase poverty around the world. That may sound like hyperbole but it is a fact that Obama and his socialist practices have a negative affect on the world.
131Bean
      ID: 5292191
      Thu, Jul 24, 2014, 11:33
<114> Gator, you and Boldy want employers to rule and live like kings. You wont be happy until you hire us as indentured servants, run a company store and keep us all in debt our entire lives. You'll tell us what to think and whether or not we are happy.

Now, you may say, that's what the government is doing to us, what's the difference? The answer is we elected our government, so in effect we are doing it to ourselves.
132sarge33d
      ID: 206272417
      Thu, Jul 24, 2014, 18:30
re 130..once again, you are wrong. Both in calling Krugman a moron and in stating what he would say.

History tells us you are wrong, re the min wage. Hell, re just about everything socio-economical.

because I know you wont take my word for it
133Pancho Villa
      ID: 2131916
      Thu, Jul 24, 2014, 19:13
it is a fact that Obama and his socialist practices have a negative affect on the world

Similar to confusing the words 'affect' and 'effect,' you seem to have the same problem with 'fact' and 'opinion.'

My life is great....
I begin my work day at a crappy job because liberals have destroyed the job market


Seek psychiatric help.



135sarge33d
      ID: 206272417
      Thu, Jul 24, 2014, 20:14
and I can not believe, you are so unable to grasp "that" which you ask where I copy/pasted . It is/was not a recounting of my day/life. It was your avg Tea Partiers day. Using and benefiting all day every day, from progressive programs, only to come home and blast those programs, using a device and medium which also came from those same programs.

All of that said, the more you post, the more it becomes apparent needs to be explained to you.

Still not certain which you used to be...JAG or GMONEY. You bear a striking resemblance, aka lack of awareness, to both.
136Gator
      ID: 13521231
      Thu, Jul 24, 2014, 20:25
GMoney sounds like a name a lily white accountant would use trying to act hip.
137Pancho Villa
      ID: 2131916
      Thu, Jul 24, 2014, 20:41
At least I don't make up facts. Let's look at some of today's world economic news, in an effort to see if Obama's socialist policies are having the claimed negative effects.

Hong Kong stocks close at 2014 high

Japan's inflation rate slows for second straight month

emerging markets are absolutely crushing it, with the iShares MSCI Emerging Markets ETF EEM just knocking out its best close since January 2013

Europe XX:SXXP +0.43% is also having a strong session, fueled by solid PMIs and pretty good Spanish unemployment data


link

And the S&P 500 set a new record today.

However, for those looking for something to whine about and blame on Obama,

The BRICs are starting a bank

Can't believe I have to explain this

You didn't explain anything, but I know how you feel.
138Gator
      ID: 13521231
      Thu, Jul 24, 2014, 21:02
Speculators playing the market does not reflect the economy. On one of your own posts, Volker created a recession to lower inflation, so how is this a sign of a stronger economy?. Obama has not eradicated capitalism, so there will be growth after a large dip in the economy, but that growth is slowed by Obamanomics. 6 years of slow growth is not a reason for a cookie, it is an abomination.
139sarge33rd
      ID: 390471112
      Thu, Jul 24, 2014, 22:24
abomination? No, its a reversal of the rapid decline created by his predecessor.
140Pancho Villa
      ID: 2131916
      Fri, Jul 25, 2014, 00:22
Speculators playing the market does not reflect the economy

I suppose you think that's a fact, as opposed to one of the most sophomoric economic comments of all time. Financial markets don't reflect the economy? What do they reflect? Football scores?




141Gator
      ID: 13521231
      Fri, Jul 25, 2014, 02:22
The markets immediately started to rise after the collapse caused by Barney and friends. Did the economy change in a few months? The market bottomed at about 6500 and in less than a year it jumped 4 or 5k. That was speculation and had absolutely nothing to do with the economy.
142Perm Dude
      ID: 586411123
      Fri, Jul 25, 2014, 08:32
Your alternative history book is missing a few pages, Gator. Now the collapse is due to Barney, and Wall Street (which is a speculative market) has nothing to do with the economy, eh? I think a more rigid analysis could be done by Fox & Friends.
 If you believe a recent post violates the policy on Civility and Respect,
you may report the abuse via email to moderators@rotoguru1.com 
RotoGuru Politics Forum

View the Forum Registry

XML Get RSS Feed for this thread


Self-edit this thread




Post a reply to this message: IRS Scandal

Name:
Email:
Message:
Click here to create and insert a link
Click here to insert a block of hidden (spoiler) text
Ignore line feeds? no (typical)   yes (for HTML table input)


Viewing statistics for this thread
Period# Views# Users
Last hour21
Last 24 hours21
Last 7 days43
Last 30 days138
Since Mar 1, 200745171160