Announcement

Collapse

Civics 101 Guidelines

Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!

Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less

A Bidentastic week and Trump's very bad one

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #76
    Originally posted by CivilDiscourse View Post
    Again, IRS Agent <> IRS Criminal Investigation/Special Agent

    They are not hiring 87,000 more Criminal Investigation/Special Agents. Do you have anything that shows that THIS PARTICULAR JOB is the one that they are hiring 87,000 new ones? This is the equivalent of seeing McDonalds buying 15 million burger patties, and assuming that it means that they are making 7.5 million big macs.
    The ["Inflation Reduction Act"] says a whopping $45.6 billion will be for enforcement, which is the main directive from Democrats to the IRS. Get bigger, tougher and faster at collecting. Reports suggest that the IRS will hire 87,000 new agents, and with more than $45 billion being shoveled into enforcement, change is coming.

    https://www.forbes.com/sites/robertw...h=6529322f3213

    To put that in perspective, $45 billion is half of the total amount being allotted to the IRS. The remaining 50% is divided among about half a dozen other items such as modernizing the IRS' office equipment, developing a free e-file website, tax payer services (which I assume refers to the people who answer the phone and give you wrong information), and so on.
    Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
    But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
    Than a fool in the eyes of God


    From "Fools Gold" by Petra

    Comment


    • #77
      Originally posted by seanD View Post

      Wouldn't you need the 80k foot soldiers to harass "tax dodgers" before you need the criminal investigators? I don't see where you're disproving anything?
      Are you supporting the idea that they are hiring 87000 of this specific job?

      Comment


      • #78
        Originally posted by CivilDiscourse View Post

        Are you supporting the idea that they are hiring 87000 of this specific job?
        I think you're missing the context. It all started when rogue responded to my post...

        True (it was being done under Obama), but increasing their numbers is new, and the animosity between political parties is unprecedented.
        The possibility the IRS will abuse its power for political reasons, and the disturbing fact IRS goons are being armed to the teeth was the subject. Equivocating over specific positions and duties of IRS staff seems pretty irrelevant to me. It's all part of the same bureaucratic institution.

        Comment


        • #79
          Originally posted by seanD View Post

          I think you're missing the context. It all started when rogue responded to my post...



          The possibility the IRS will abuse its power for political reasons, and the disturbing fact IRS goons are being armed to the teeth was the subject. Equivocating over specific positions and duties of IRS staff seems pretty irrelevant to me. It's all part of the same bureaucratic institution.
          Here's the context.

          rogue06 pointed out the "deadly force" ad.
          I pointed out that the picture had red flags of attempts to mislead, and posted the duties of a regular IRS agent (no weapon).
          MM and OBP pointed me to the "Criminal Investigator / Special Agent" (By this time research had also found this out, more research found).

          I pointed out to rogue that the CI/SA was a very specific job within the IRS, and given that job, the use of deadly force wasn't surprising or shocking. (The job has been around for a long time).

          That is when rogue pointed out that:
          QUOTE=rogue06;n1404305]
          They're hiring 87,000.

          Are there job postings for IRS agents for positions that don't require potential deadly force?
          [/QUOTE]

          I pointed out that yes. In fact, the CI/SA is only 2k out of 80k IRS employees.

          MM doubled down, you claimed that I was playing semantics.

          So, no. I'm not missing context, there seems to be a conspiracy assuming that somehow this small part of the agency is representative of the entirety of the 87000 people that are slated to be hired over 10 years.

          We can like or dislike the hiring, but there's no need to start down this road:

          Comment


          • #80
            Originally posted by CivilDiscourse View Post

            Here's the context.

            rogue06 pointed out the "deadly force" ad.
            I pointed out that the picture had red flags of attempts to mislead, and posted the duties of a regular IRS agent (no weapon).
            MM and OBP pointed me to the "Criminal Investigator / Special Agent" (By this time research had also found this out, more research found).

            I pointed out to rogue that the CI/SA was a very specific job within the IRS, and given that job, the use of deadly force wasn't surprising or shocking. (The job has been around for a long time).

            That is when rogue pointed out that:
            QUOTE=rogue06;n1404305]
            They're hiring 87,000.

            Are there job postings for IRS agents for positions that don't require potential deadly force?
            I pointed out that yes. In fact, the CI/SA is only 2k out of 80k IRS employees.

            MM doubled down, you claimed that I was playing semantics.

            So, no. I'm not missing context, there seems to be a conspiracy assuming that somehow this small part of the agency is representative of the entirety of the 87000 people that are slated to be hired over 10 years.

            We can like or dislike the hiring, but there's no need to start down this road:
            [/QUOTE]


            Though I admittedly know nothing about how the IRS works, I would assume it functions like any federal bureaucracy. You need the desk clerks (i.e 80+ new hires) to crunch the numbers, look for errors, and initiate the summon to the victims that they're being audited and that they owe X amount. If the victim ignores the audit or becomes unruly it then gets passed on the IRS muscle (and these are the armed goons with millions of rounds of ammo) to go after them. The desk clerks are even more important than the muscle because they're the ones that initially seek out and pry into the private lives of the victims and determine the amount they owe, hence the reason their numbers significantly increased more. Correct me if I'm wrong about the process here.

            If I'm correct, it doesn't matter who's armed or not, as they're all part of the same bureaucratic system, and to try and trivialize exactly who is armed is a semantical argument.

            Comment


            • #81
              Originally posted by seanD View Post


              Though I admittedly know nothing about how the IRS works, I would assume it functions like any federal bureaucracy. You need the desk clerks (i.e 80+ new hires) to crunch the numbers, look for errors, and initiate the summon to the victims that they're being audited and that they owe X amount. If the victim ignores the audit or becomes unruly it then gets passed on the IRS muscle (and these are the armed goons with millions of rounds of ammo) to go after them. The desk clerks are even more important than the muscle because they're the ones that initially seek out and pry into the private lives of the victims and determine the amount they owe, hence the reason their numbers significantly increased more. Correct me if I'm wrong about the process here.

              If I'm correct, it doesn't matter who's armed or not, as they're all part of the same bureaucratic system, and to try and trivialize exactly who is armed is a semantical argument.
              I don't think you are incorrect in the bolded.

              However, it's not semantics to point out that the claim that they were hiring 87000 of a specific type of job is wrong. You wouldn't claim it to be wrong if the Navy hired a million more people, and I claimed they were all going to be seals.

              Comment


              • #82
                Originally posted by CivilDiscourse View Post

                I don't think you are incorrect in the bolded.

                However, it's not semantics to point out that the claim that they were hiring 87000 of a specific type of job is wrong. You wouldn't claim it to be wrong if the Navy hired a million more people, and I claimed they were all going to be seals.
                I still don't see the comparison you're making because you're ignoring the context, but whatever.

                Comment


                • #83
                  I'm not sure I understand all the worry here about the IRS having more ability to crack down on tax evasion. Assuming that the posters here are dutifully paying their own taxes, why aren't you all thrilled that other people who are tax cheats and who aren't paying what they owe like you are, are going to be brought to justice? Or is this forum full of tax cheats who are afraid of enforcement of the law against themselves??

                  Personally, as someone who pays taxes every year in accordance with the law, I would have nothing to worry about if the tax department audited me, and I would welcome it doing further scrutiny on people who were doing tax evasion because such people are ripping off the entire country and everyone in it.
                  "I hate him passionately", he's "a demonic force" - Tucker Carlson, in private, on Donald Trump
                  "Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism" - George Orwell
                  "[Capitalism] as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of evils. I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy" - Albert Einstein

                  Comment


                  • #84
                    Originally posted by Starlight View Post
                    I'm not sure I understand all the worry here about the IRS having more ability to crack down on tax evasion. Assuming that the posters here are dutifully paying their own taxes, why aren't you all thrilled that other people who are tax cheats and who aren't paying what they owe like you are, are going to be brought to justice? Or is this forum full of tax cheats who are afraid of enforcement of the law against themselves??

                    Personally, as someone who pays taxes every year in accordance with the law, I would have nothing to worry about if the tax department audited me, and I would welcome it doing further scrutiny on people who were doing tax evasion because such people are ripping off the entire country and everyone in it.
                    Because the politics behind it is a facade. Let's just be clear that the lies being used by millionaire democrats to get support from ignorant lower class leftists are completely false. It's not to go after the wealthy class. The IRS already knows what the wealthy is doing. They're going to target the working class, because those are the folks most likely to work under the table or "gig" jobs, or that are more likely to make mistakes because they can't afford their own accountants and attorneys. The IRS can also nickle and dime them much more effectively because their numbers are greater. If ignorant progressives knew that, they'd revolt against it.

                    Comment


                    • #85
                      Originally posted by Dimbilb View Post
                      I'm not sure I understand all the worry here about the IRS having more ability to crack down on tax evasion. Assuming that the posters here are dutifully paying their own taxes, why aren't you all thrilled that other people who are tax cheats and who aren't paying what they owe like you are, are going to be brought to justice? Or is this forum full of tax cheats who are afraid of enforcement of the law against themselves??

                      Personally, as someone who pays taxes every year in accordance with the law, I would have nothing to worry about if the tax department audited me, and I would welcome it doing further scrutiny on people who were doing tax evasion because such people are ripping off the entire country and everyone in it.
                      Ah, yes, the classic "If you.are innocent, then you have nothing to fear" rationalization, a favorite of tyrannical governments throughout history.
                      Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
                      But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
                      Than a fool in the eyes of God


                      From "Fools Gold" by Petra

                      Comment


                      • #86
                        Originally posted by seanD View Post
                        The IRS already knows what the wealthy is doing.
                        No. They don't. That's the whole point of this. Trying to disentangle the shell companies and tax evasion tricks that the wealthy use is typically hard and requires quite a lot of IRS resources. That's why previous Republican administrations stripped these IRS resources to make sure their billionaire donors were shielded from tax investigations.

                        They're going to target the working class, because those are the folks most likely to work under the table or "gig" jobs, or that are more likely to make mistakes because they can't afford their own accountants and attorneys.
                        Seriously dude, you don't have to come up with conspiracies about absolutely everything. You're allowed to take a break from making up baseless conspiracy theories once in a while.

                        It has long been a Progressive priority to reinstate the IRS tax enforcement on the ultra-rich that the Republicans stripped out. This bill finally does that. There seems to be quotes specifically saying these employees are to go after people earning 400k+.
                        "I hate him passionately", he's "a demonic force" - Tucker Carlson, in private, on Donald Trump
                        "Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism" - George Orwell
                        "[Capitalism] as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of evils. I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy" - Albert Einstein

                        Comment


                        • #87
                          Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
                          Ah, yes, the classic "If you.are innocent, then you have nothing to fear" rationalization, a favorite of tyrannical governments throughout history.
                          I am unfamiliar with any tyrannical government in history using that phrase. I presume you just pulled this claim from your rear where you get most of your posts from.
                          "I hate him passionately", he's "a demonic force" - Tucker Carlson, in private, on Donald Trump
                          "Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism" - George Orwell
                          "[Capitalism] as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of evils. I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy" - Albert Einstein

                          Comment


                          • #88
                            Originally posted by Starlight View Post
                            No. They don't. That's the whole point of this. Trying to disentangle the shell companies and tax evasion tricks that the wealthy use is typically hard and requires quite a lot of IRS resources. That's why previous Republican administrations stripped these IRS resources to make sure their billionaire donors were shielded from tax investigations.

                            Seriously dude, you don't have to come up with conspiracies about absolutely everything. You're allowed to take a break from making up baseless conspiracy theories once in a while.

                            It has long been a Progressive priority to reinstate the IRS tax enforcement on the ultra-rich that the Republicans stripped out. This bill finally does that. There seems to be quotes specifically saying these employees are to go after people earning 400k+.
                            Pure and utter nonsense. The wealthy aren't doing anything illegal because they can afford accountants and attorneys who know what's legal and illegal and how not to cross that delicate line of the latter. The few criminals that might be laundering their cash aren't going to be significant, and I'm not even sure that's in the purview of the IRS outside of law enforcement agencies like the FBI. It's naive and ignorant leftists like you that are so easily duped by the millionaire democrat class like Cenk, Pelosi and Shumer, and it's really sad to watch because it affects my country (a country you don't even live in) in the end.

                            Comment


                            • #89
                              Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
                              Ah, yes, the classic "If you.are innocent, then you have nothing to fear" rationalization, a favorite of tyrannical governments throughout history.
                              I had a bit of a dig as to the origin of the phrase.

                              It looks like it was popularized by Harry Potter. So about as factual as most of your sources.

                              The original phrase seems to come from Michael Howard, a UK politician who was once leader of the Conservative party there, and he said it sometime in the 1990s or early 2000s (sources disagree, or possibly he said it twice). While I'm not fan of the Conservatives in the UK, I don't think anyone would label them an example of tyrannical governments throughout history. He said it in the context of ongoing discussions in their legal community about whether it made sense to retain a 'right to silence' or whether it was more sensible to require people to answer questions in certain legal contexts.

                              Many Western democracies have been gradually moving away from thinking that a right to silence / "pleading the 5th" equivalents are a good idea, although this has often just lead people to use the phrase "I don't recall" / "I can't remember" / "I have no memory of that" in response instead if they don't want to answer the questions. Notably it has been modern Western democracies making this shift, not historical totalitarian governments. The legal origin of a right to silence had a religious basis during the time when Britain was switching madly between Catholic and Protestant and people were being killed because of it, and so it was considered worthwhile giving people the option of not answering questions about their religion. Obviously that historical context doesn't apply anymore, and it makes law-enforcement's job much easier and quicker if people answer questions.

                              Anyway, since the phrase has recent origins (90s or 2000s), it obviously wasn't used 'throughout history' as you said. Nor by tyrannical governments, unless you want to accuse Boris Johnson of being a tyrant?
                              "I hate him passionately", he's "a demonic force" - Tucker Carlson, in private, on Donald Trump
                              "Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism" - George Orwell
                              "[Capitalism] as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of evils. I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy" - Albert Einstein

                              Comment


                              • #90
                                Originally posted by Starlight View Post
                                I had a bit of a dig as to the origin of the phrase.

                                It looks like it was popularized by Harry Potter. So about as factual as most of your sources.

                                The original phrase seems to come from Michael Howard, a UK politician who was once leader of the Conservative party there, and he said it sometime in the 1990s or early 2000s (sources disagree, or possibly he said it twice). While I'm not fan of the Conservatives in the UK, I don't think anyone would label them an example of tyrannical governments throughout history. He said it in the context of ongoing discussions in their legal community about whether it made sense to retain a 'right to silence' or whether it was more sensible to require people to answer questions in certain legal contexts.

                                Many Western democracies have been gradually moving away from thinking that a right to silence / "pleading the 5th" equivalents are a good idea, although this has often just lead people to use the phrase "I don't recall" / "I can't remember" / "I have no memory of that" in response instead if they don't want to answer the questions. Notably it has been modern Western democracies making this shift, not historical totalitarian governments. The legal origin of a right to silence had a religious basis during the time when Britain was switching madly between Catholic and Protestant and people were being killed because of it, and so it was considered worthwhile giving people the option of not answering questions about their religion. Obviously that historical context doesn't apply anymore, and it makes law-enforcement's job much easier and quicker if people answer questions.

                                Anyway, since the phrase has recent origins (90s or 2000s), it obviously wasn't used 'throughout history' as you said. Nor by tyrannical governments, unless you want to accuse Boris Johnson of being a tyrant?
                                I'm not sure how comprehensive your research was, but a variation of that phrase has been around a lot longer than the 1990s.

                                https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nothing_to_hide_argument
                                Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
                                But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
                                Than a fool in the eyes of God


                                From "Fools Gold" by Petra

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by little_monkey, Yesterday, 04:19 PM
                                7 responses
                                65 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Sparko
                                by Sparko
                                 
                                Started by whag, 03-26-2024, 04:38 PM
                                42 responses
                                251 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post whag
                                by whag
                                 
                                Started by rogue06, 03-26-2024, 11:45 AM
                                25 responses
                                108 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post rogue06
                                by rogue06
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 09:21 AM
                                33 responses
                                194 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Roy
                                by Roy
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 08:34 AM
                                73 responses
                                338 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Working...
                                X