House votes to revoke IRS funding for 87,000 new agents.

[BackAgain]

What are the chances of either of the two parties doing that?

Slim. But that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t be trying by pressuring our alleged lawmakers. I assume you and I agree that the presumption of accuracy effectively granted to the IRS and its audits is wrong.
So, the real question is why shouldn’t we demand that Congress by legislation craft a fair burden (akin to our presumption innocence in a criminal case)?

you are correct. But again, as long as we keep voting the same people/parties back into office that will never happen

But we didn’t. Albeit by a slim majority, we have a GOP-controlled House now; AND, MORE SIGNIFICANTLY, some legislators who are not “the same” as past versions have managed to push the HOUSE GOP in a slightly different direction, already.

I don’t believe that the conservatives have won, yet. But we may be witnessing the advent of a VERY different version of or legislators. Even the conservative marginal victories so far this term have given us back a fraction of the intended “checks and balances.”

 

[Harpy Eagle]

But we didn’t. Albeit by a slim majority, we have a GOP-controlled House now; AND, MORE SIGNIFICANTLY, some legislators who are not “the same” as past versions have managed to push the HOUSE GOP in a slightly different direction, already.

Yes we did. The GOP is not any different fundamentally than the DNC. Nothing has changed, they do this every time they know that none of their bills can make it past the Senate/White House. How many times did they vote to do away with Obamacare when they had no chance to make it happen?

You should not fall for this so quickly, but they are counting on it

 

[Rambunctious]

Bu Bye IRS...

 

[BackAgain]

How the fuck does Pfizer qualify for a rebate when they made $17 billion in profits?

That’s ^ kind of a stupid question. I know I haven’t seen a single document about the accounting methods used by that corporation. I haven’t seen a single line of their tax filings, either. I don’t believe you have either.

Therefore, you have no basis to suggest that Pfizer committed any crimes or violated any provision of the tax code in whatever they filed. So, I assume you’re not accusing them of that?

On that assumption, if Pfizer merely cleverly and lawfully took advantage of each and any provision of the Tax laws and regulations, then your issue isn’t really with Pfizer. Your issue is with the idiotic monstrosity of our tax laws and rules and regulations.

That brings up another pretty related point. Why on Earth do we tax corporations in the first place?

If a big (or medium or small) corporate entity has to pay taxes, barring any criminal tax evasions, they pay those taxes. So what does the corporation do? It offsets the LOSS of profit by amortizing it back into the pricing of the goods or services.

Ultimately, the consumers pay those corporate taxes. And, then, the consumer pays tax again on their purchase of that product or service.

Taxing a corporation is an illusion. Since they pass the cost along to the consumer, once again the corporation doesn’t really pay any taxes. We, the people, do.

This is a cynical scam being perpetrated by our lawmakers (to date). It seeks (among other things) to hide the true level of taxation per capital.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

A cock in every ass lmfao

Link?

 

[Billo_Really]

That’s ^ kind of a stupid question. I know I haven’t seen a single document about the accounting methods used by that corporation. I haven’t seen a single line of their tax filings, either. I don’t believe you have either.

Therefore, you have no basis to suggest that Pfizer committed any crimes or violated any provision of the tax code in whatever they filed. So, I assume you’re not accusing them of that?

On that assumption, if Pfizer merely cleverly and lawfully took advantage of each and any provision of the Tax laws and regulations, then your issue isn’t really with Pfizer. Your issue is with the idiotic monstrosity of our tax laws and rules and regulations.

That brings up another pretty related point. Why on Earth do we tax corporations in the first place?

If a big (or medium or small) corporate entity has to pay taxes, barring any criminal tax evasions, they pay those taxes. So what does the corporation do? It offsets the LOSS of profit by amortizing it back into the pricing of the goods or services.

Ultimately, the consumers pay those corporate taxes. And, then, the consumer pays tax again on their purchase of that product or service.

Taxing a corporation is an illusion. Since they pass the cost along to the consumer, once again the corporation doesn’t really pay any taxes. We, the people, do.

This is a cynical scam being perpetrated by our lawmakers (to date). It seeks (among other things) to hide the true level of taxation per capital.

We need to close the loophole that let's corporations offshore their profits, raise the tax on capital gains and dividends to 25% and create a Financial Transactions Tax for every share traded on Wall Street.

 

[BackAgain]

Yes we did. The GOP is not any different fundamentally than the DNC. Nothing has changed, they do this every time they know that none of their bills can make it past the Senate/White House. How many times did they vote to do away with Obamacare when they had no chance to make it happen?

You should not fall for this so quickly, but they are counting on it

Your view of the GOP is getting belied a little bit at a time.

It is easy to show fortitude when you know that your bill has zero percent chance of becoming law.

Nope. Not only are you mistaken on that assumption, but you are also missing the point:

The actual point is that your premise is mistake. The bill is unlikely to become law. But the chance isn’t 0%, as you mistakenly assert. At some point, on some (likely unrelated) bill which the Dim senate seeks, they are going to need the approval of the GOP-controlled House.

Accordingly as designed, the system will yield a need for horse-trading and compromise. In that way, the Dim Senate and the GOP House may have to do some hard bargaining.

I could imagine a bunch of outcomes from this scenario. And for the first time in quite a while, the outcomes appear better than what we presently have.

 

[BackAgain]

Link?

Like a dog with a bone inside its dick, maybe WballZ got his little twig stuck inside his boyfriend’s ass and now he is just projecting .

 

[BackAgain]

Seems they will benefit the most from it.

No. It doesn’t “seem” like that at all.

 

[Orangecat]

I am more than qualified to assess you as the utter imbecile hack bitch troll you are.

Truth.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Your view of the GOP is getting belied a little bit at a time.

Nope. I just do not have blinders on since they are not my beloved party. You are blinded by either loyalty or hope, maybe a combo of both.

Nope. Not only are you mistaken on that assumption, but you are also missing the point:

The actual point is that your premise is mistake. The bill is unlikely to become law. But the chance isn’t 0%, as you mistakenly assert. At some point, on some (likely unrelated) bill which the Dim senate seeks, they are going to need the approval of the GOP-controlled House.

Accordingly as designed, the system will yield a need for horse-trading and compromise. In that way, the Dim Senate and the GOP House may have to do some hard bargaining.

A divided GOP-controlled House with the smallest majority since 2001. In the end they will cave and say "well, we tried" and that will be good enough for you.

 

[Leweman]

The tax code should be so simple it requires 15 people to attend to it. Stealing from people shouldn't be so complicated.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

No. It doesn’t “seem” like that at all.

If you are a tax cheat, the fewer employees the IRS has the less chance of getting caught. Especially when they are more than a year behind already.

 

[BackAgain]

We need to close the loophole that let's corporations offshore their profits, raise the tax on capital gains and dividends to 25% and create a Financial Transactions Tax for every share traded on Wall Street.

Come on, man!

Folks use the term “loophole” irrationally.

If we had a flat tax, but wanted a break for home ownership, any legislated exemption or deduction for home ownership would qualify as a “loophole.”

How many “loopholes” even exist inside the bowels of the US Tax Code and the regs?

Look at how many pages are in the federal tax code - Washington Examiner

As they rush to file their taxes by April 18, Americans are rightfully frustrated with the complexity of the 74,608-page-long federal tax code. The federal tax code is 187 times longer than it was a century ago, according to Wolters Kluwer, CCH, which has analyzed it since 1913. Amazingly, in...

www.washingtonexaminer.com

There are probably multiple “loopholes” per average page. So, say 1.5 law, regs and rules —per page— times approx, 72,600 pages How Many Pages Is The Us Tax Code? (Solved)

We get a lot of deductions and exemptions and exceptions in total. Say possibly over 140k. Where do we start looking first?

What are the pros of “closing a loophole” vs. the cons of the impact of doing so?

 

[Billo_Really]

Come on, man!

Folks use the term “loophole” irrationally.

If we had a flat tax, but wanted a break for home ownership, any legislated exemption or deduction for home ownership would qualify as a “loophole.”

How many “loopholes” even exist inside the bowels of the US Tax Code and the regs?

Look at how many pages are in the federal tax code - Washington Examiner

As they rush to file their taxes by April 18, Americans are rightfully frustrated with the complexity of the 74,608-page-long federal tax code. The federal tax code is 187 times longer than it was a century ago, according to Wolters Kluwer, CCH, which has analyzed it since 1913. Amazingly, in...

www.washingtonexaminer.com

There are probably multiple “loopholes” per average page. So, say 1.5 law, regs and rules —per page— times approx, 72,600 pages How Many Pages Is The Us Tax Code? (Solved)

We get a lot of deductions and exemptions and exceptions in total. Say possibly over 140k. Where do we start looking first?

What are the pros of “closing a loophole” vs. the cons of the impact of doing so?

A company that makes $17 billion in profits in 2019, should not get a $1.7 million refund.

 

[BackAgain]

If you are a tax cheat, the fewer employees the IRS has the less chance of getting caught. Especially when they are more than a year behind already.

Folks can’t even agree on what “tax cheating” is.

You — for example — might say that a billionaire has “cheated” on his taxes. But, others, looking at the same “evidence,” might say “no. He is not.”

It might come down to your interpretation vs. the other guy’s.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Folks can’t even agree on what “tax cheating” is.

You — for example — might say that a billionaire has “cheated” on his taxes. But, others, looking at the same “evidence,” might say “no. He is not.”

It might come down to your interpretation vs. the other guy’s.

Which is part of the problem for sure. And with fewer people looking for those that actually cheat, it makes it easier to get away with it. The people hurt the most are people like me that cannot even get a ruling on their case due to the backlog.

 

[BackAgain]

A company that makes $17 billion in profits in 2019, should not get a $1.7 million refund.

So says you. And you might be right.
On the other hand, you might be wrong.

Part of the question is this: “on what basis do you claim that a company ‘should not’ get refund? I don’t know your basis. Can you state it?

 

[Billo_Really]

So says you. And you might be right.
On the other hand, you might be wrong.

Part of the question is this: “on what basis do you claim that a company ‘should not’ get refund? I don’t know your basis. Can you state it?

You only get a refund if you incurred a loss, not a profit.

 

[Canon Shooter]

Ok, so you are in favor of 87,000 more IRS agent's WHY ?? Tell us why you think that the government getting after every damned thing you own is a good thing ??

How does him correctly identify that it'll be dead in the Senate equate to him wanting an additional 87,000 IRS agents?