AOC, you poor troubled naive' girl. Yet another blunder for the media drama queen.

[Revoltingest]

Most people pay their taxes sure. But there are enough rich offshore account holders dodging them as well. Close those loopholes. And tax them higher.

Offshore accounts are typically not a "loophole" (which describes
legal tax avoidance). Those are to hide & store income...which
is tax evasion, ie, illegal.
The term "loophole" is so widely used by critics of the wealthy &
of corporations, but I wonder to what they believe it would actually
apply. Do you have any examples of "loopholes"?


BTW, I once went thru an IRS compliance audit, which is a massive
exploration of all of my affairs over several years. It's used to create
profiles of taxpayers, which can be used to statistically identify people
who are out of profile (for auditing).
The agent said they ran across a bunch of doctors who were keeping
income in offshore accounts, which related to auditing me. It took
several months, hundreds of pages of financial reporting, scanning
public records, & examining tax returns. It was pretty expensive to
have my CPA involved, & they found nothing wrong.
Just my luck, eh.
So I've no love for the IRS, its imperiousness, & incompetence.
Oh, I was then audited again for several years. Nothing wrong.
They've left me alone for over a decade now.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

You have to ask?

AOC brings her own facts.

She's dippy and naive'

Think it's fake news? Her photo shoot is a deep fake?

Open your eyes man!

I get that you don't like her. What I don't get is why you think that all the things you dislike about her make it okay to call a grown woman "girl."

I'm not asking why you've decided to criticize her; I'm asking why you decided to make your criticism misogynist.

 

[Revoltingest]

Most people pay their taxes sure. But there are enough rich offshore account holders dodging them as well. Close those loopholes. And tax them higher.

Edited for link: Super Rich Hide $21 Trillion Offshore, Study Says

Re edit...
Tax evasion is illegal.
But the IRS seems more interested in going after
us small fish in hopes of finding something.

 

[The Hammer]

Offshore accounts are typically not a "loophole" (which describes
legal tax avoidance). Those are to hide & store income...which
is tax evasion, ie, illegal.
The term "loophole" is so widely used by critics of the wealthy &
of corporations, but I wonder to what they believe it would actually
apply. Do you have any examples of "loopholes"?


BTW, I once went thru an IRS compliance audit, which is a massive
exploration of all of my affairs over several years. It's used to create
profiles of taxpayers, which can be used to statistically identify people
who are out of profile (for auditing).
The agent said they ran across a bunch of doctors who were keeping
income in offshore accounts, which related to auditing me. It took
several months, hundreds of pages of financial reporting, scanning
public records, & examining tax returns. It was pretty expensive to
have my CPA involved, & they found nothing wrong. Just my luck.
So I've no love for the IRS, its imperiousness, & incompetence.
Oh, I was then audited again for several years. Nothing wrong.
They've left me alone for over a decade now.

Doesn't change my opinion any. Your personal IRS bias that is.

Maybe loopholes isn't the appropriate term. But the ability to dodge taxes by hiding it overseas is a problem that needs to be addressed (or are you denying this?). I could care less if it's doctors or Amazon doing it. That's revenue we need to fix things here in the US like infrastructure.

I'm personally a fan of doing away with all taxes, and just making a single flat 33% tax across the board for everyone regardless of income.

 

[Rival]

***THREAD MOVED TO NORTH AMERICAN POLITICS***​

 

[Revoltingest]

I get that you don't like her. What I don't get is why you think that all the things you dislike about her make it okay to call a grown woman "girl."

I'm not asking why you've decided to criticize her; I'm asking why you decided to make your criticism misogynist.

I see that some detail has been found to make
it an ad hominem argument about the OP.
Good way to deflect from AOC's inadequacies.

 

[Twilight Hue]

I get that you don't like her. What I don't get is why you think that all the things you dislike about her make it okay to call a grown woman "girl."

I'm not asking why you've decided to criticize her; I'm asking why you decided to make your criticism misogynist.

Because she's not acting like an adult congressional member.

She's going to have to earn her way to woman first or leave office. Either way is fine.

 

[Revoltingest]

Doesn't change my opinion any. Your personal IRS bias that is.

We're all allowed to have a bias.
Mine is against the IRS.
Yours is for AOC.
It's perfectly fine to have a bias.

Maybe loopholes isn't the appropriate term. But the ability to dodge taxes by hiding it overseas is a problem that needs to be addressed (or are you denying this?).

I've already said that it's illegal to hide income overseas.
This should be seen as acknowledging the problem.

I could care less if it's doctors or Amazon doing it. That's revenue we need to fix things here in the US like infrastructure.

I mentioned doctors because their actions ostensibly
triggered the IRS auditing me. I was not limiting discussion
of tax fraud to doctors....or Amazon (which I didn't mention).

I'm personally a fan of doing away with all taxes, and just making a single flat 33% tax across the board for everyone regardless of income.

You must mean something other than what I read.
A 33% tax wouldn't be "doing away with all taxes".

 

[The Hammer]

You must mean something other than what I read.
A 33% tax wouldn't be "doing away with all taxes".

What I mean is right now there is sales, income, gift, property and a myriad of other "taxes", cut them and make a single tax of 33% on any income streams.

Edit: I used doctors (from your example) as a representation of one end of the "wealth" spectrum, with Amazon being the other ultra-wealthy end.

 

[Revoltingest]

What I mean is right now there is sales, income, gift, property and a myriad of other "taxes", cut them and make a single tax of 33% on any income streams.

I hope that you mean "net income" streams, not "gross income".
I could live with that coupled with a UBI.

But there should be an adjustment for capital gains & losses.
Much of gain is due solely to the institutionalized (ie, purposeful)
devaluation of the dollar every year (aka "inflation). Gain &
loss should be adjusted for accumulated currency reduction
in value between basis year & sale year.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I'm personally a fan of doing away with all taxes, and just making a single flat 33% tax across the board for everyone regardless of income.

How would that help?

Most tax avoidance focuses on the nuances of how "income" is defined and calculated. You still have that problem regardless of how many tax brackets you have.

Are you mostly thinking about the favourable tax rates for capital gains? Because we could get rid of that without going to a flat tax system that would disproportionately hurt the poor.

 

[The Hammer]

I hope that you mean "net income" streams, not "gross income".
I could live with that coupled with a UBI.

I'd have to do a little more finessing of my opinion (I understand gross v net), but would have to brush up on my economics, to answer that.

UBI I'm on the fence about. But it could work.

 

[Revoltingest]

I'd have to do a little more finessing of my opinion (I understand gross v net), but would have to brush up on my economics, to answer that.

UBI I'm on the fence about. But it could work.

I don't think a 33% tax on income of poor people would
be a good idea.

And I added in an edit...
But there should be an adjustment for capital gains & losses.
Much of gain is due solely to the institutionalized (ie, purposeful)
devaluation of the dollar every year (aka "inflation). Gain &
loss should be adjusted for accumulated currency reduction
in value between basis year & sale year.

With such adjustment, tax would be on economic profit,
ie, the real gain realized by selling an asset.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Because she's not acting like an adult congressional member.

She's going to have to earn her way to woman first or leave office. Either way is fine.

No, any adult woman is a woman, not a girl.

If you can't disagree with a woman without infantilizing her, then it sounds like maturity problem is with you.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Because she's not acting like an adult congressional member.

So, does this thread and your posts in it justify us calling you a little boy, then?

Also, how do you feel about taxing the rich?

 

[Twilight Hue]

No, any adult woman is a woman, not a girl.

If you can't disagree with a woman without infantilizing her, then it sounds like maturity problem is with you.

She's a girl and it's going to stay that way until she proves otherwise.

 

[Twilight Hue]

So, does this thread and your posts in it justify us calling you a little boy, then?

Also, how do you feel about taxing the rich?

Hey 'boy' was the norm back in my day.

Knock yourself out and have fun. ;0)

As far as taxing the rich , I think it would be better to see a fair across the board tax rate based on a universal percentage of income earned. The poor pay less, the wealthy pay more. Percentage wise we all pay the same rate.

That's just me though.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

She's a girl and it's going to stay that way until she proves otherwise.

Shame. She is obviously very desperate for your approval.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Hey 'boy' was the norm back in my day.

Knock yourself out and have fun. ;0)

So you agree that your words and actions in this thread are those of a little boy, not a man?

As far as taxing the rich , I think it would be better to see a fair across the board tax rate based on a universal percentage of income earned. The poor pay less, the wealthy pay more. Percentage wise we all pay the same rate.

That's just me though.

You do realize that that's what is meant by "tax the rich", right? The poor are paying disproportionately higher percentages of their income, while the rich are often avoiding taxes altogether.

Also, how would a universal tax rate be "fair"? Surely a person who lives on an absolutely knife edge of the poverty line being taxed, say, 15%, is extremely unfair compared to a billionaire who does not not need the vast majority of the wealth they earned being also taxed %15. One is significantly more negatively impacted than the other. So how is that fair?

 

[pearl]

AOC seems scatter-brained, inexperienced, hypocritical, & preachy.

Not my favorite dem, may wind up doing more harm to the party especially in the next election given the small majority in the House.