IRS Admits They Targeted Conservative Groups

[Dirty Penguin]

I have to agree with this. I believe the average IRS employee has plenty of contempt for the TEA party on their own.

Given the last election cycle I believe most seem to harbor some ill will toward that movement.

Next to passing a balanced budget amendment

next on our list is to abolish the IRS and implement a fair tax.

Who will be in charge of collecting the tax?

It doesn't sound like an idea the majority of republicans are on board with. One of the issues I see is states who receive federal dollars would see a severe cut or elimination. In turn I see state taxes and sales tax increasing as a result. I don't take home Gross Pay. If a flat tax were to be implemented I see my state gouging even more money than they are now out of me on my Net Pay. While I see Flat Tax implemented at a Federal level I fail to see how this would change for the better at the state level. Personally I believe their tax rates would either remain the same or increase to make up for a federal shortfall.

This puts it in perspective for me. Note....the speaker hits Democrats, Libertarians and Republicans in his speech. Even so....I post it because to me the subject matter makes a lot of since. I don't like the current tax system but I'm not sure these alternatives make a lot of since either.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=76B4pUxO_Nk

 

[esmith]

Frankly I hope the IRS taxes the Tea party out of existence.

From the above comment it appears that you would rather be living in the old USSR or China of the 50's-80's. Then you wouldn't have to worry about someone or a group objecting to the government, that is unless you were the one objecting. After reading and listing to you and others makes me wonder why I spent over 20 years in the military defending your and others right to utter such despicable statement and other like it. Then I stop and realize that thankfully you and others are in the minority and most Americans realize that it is fortunate that they live in a country where it is your right to express your opinion on anything. Do you really believe that a group should be driven out of existence because they happen to disagree with you, or is it that anonymity of the internet that allows you to show your ignorance of what this country stands for.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

From the above comment it appears that you would rather be living in the old USSR or China of the 50's-80's. Then you wouldn't have to worry about someone or a group objecting to the government, that is unless you were the one objecting. After reading and listing to you and others makes me wonder why I spent over 20 years in the military defending your and others right to utter such despicable statement and other like it. Then I stop and realize that thankfully you and others are in the minority and most Americans realize that it is fortunate that they live in a country where it is your right to express your opinion on anything. .

How could he be in the "minority" if he's expressing his right of free speech. Surly this would put him in the majority with the rest of the people. You fought for that right I'm sure. I'm sure you weren't fighting for the right of those who only agree with you...were you...?

Now I'm not in favor of someone of a group being taxed out of existence...but I'm interested in fairness and if these groups (ALL Groups regardless of party) aren't adhering to the law then they need to be scrutinized, denied or even revoked from being tax exempt. The 501 C (4) law is explicit in this area. The IRS reinterpreted it and gave it additional meaning that's not in the law. They sought no congressional approval to make these additions so IMO all of these groups that are seeking tax exempt status, have this status are in violation of the law. The IRS is in violation of the law. I remember our conversations surrounding gun control and you said..(they should enforce the laws they have)...well your sentiment would apply here. The IRS should enforce the law. If they did not one of these Tea Party, Liberal etc. groups would be able to claim this exempt status.

26 USC § 501 - Exemption from tax on corporations, certain trusts, etc. | Title 26 - Internal Revenue Code | U.S. Code | LII / Legal Information Institute

Civic leagues or organizations not organized for profit but operated exclusively for the promotion of social welfare, or local associations of employees, the membership of which is limited to the employees of a designated person or persons in a particular municipality, and the net earnings of which are devoted exclusively to charitable, educational, or recreational purposes.

So how about it...how about we just enforce the law and deny all of them?

 

[dust1n]

If your left side is impaired, is this a sign that you're moving to the right?
But I judge you not.

You wish! I should be better by the weekend and we can discuss bureaucratic apologies further if you'd still like.

From the above comment it appears that you would rather be living in the old USSR or China of the 50's-80's. Then you wouldn't have to worry about someone or a group objecting to the government, that is unless you were the one objecting. After reading and listing to you and others makes me wonder why I spent over 20 years in the military defending your and others right to utter such despicable statement and other like it. Then I stop and realize that thankfully you and others are in the minority and most Americans realize that it is fortunate that they live in a country where it is your right to express your opinion on anything. Do you really believe that a group should be driven out of existence because they happen to disagree with you, or is it that anonymity of the internet that allows you to show your ignorance of what this country stands for.

I really had to stop myself from commenting on this...

 

[esmith]

Frankly I hope the IRS taxes the Tea party out of existence.

From the above comment it appears that you would rather be living in the old USSR or China of the 50's-80's. Then you wouldn't have to worry about someone or a group objecting to the government, that is unless you were the one objecting. After reading and listing to you and others makes me wonder why I spent over 20 years in the military defending your and others right to utter such despicable statement and other like it. Then I stop and realize that thankfully you and others are in the minority and most Americans realize that it is fortunate that they live in a country where it is your right to express your opinion on anything. Do you really believe that a group should be driven out of existence because they happen to disagree with you, or is it that anonymity of the internet that allows you to show your ignorance of what this country stands for.

How could he be in the "minority" if he's expressing his right of free speech. Surly this would put him in the majority with the rest of the people. You fought for that right I'm sure. I'm sure you weren't fighting for the right of those who only agree with you...were you...?

So you do not read kiwimac's comment that he wants the government to abolish the Tea Party? Sure seems that way to me. Now to your comment. Yes he has the "right" to his opinion. However, I do not think that the majority wants the government to "attack" a political group to the point that they no longer have a voice. I think that you are confusing the right to free speech with his/her belief that the Tea Party should be abolished because they disagree with their political belief. I do believe that is what is going on with the IRS at this time.

 

[esmith]

Well it appears that the targeting of conservative groups was not a couple of rouge agents in the Cincinnati office of the IRS
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3026758/posts
IRS Employees: We Targeted Conservative Groups on Orders from Washington New IRS chief to face House as agency's woes grow | Fox News
IRS agents tell Issa their marching orders came from Washington

 

[Magic Man]

Well it appears that the targeting of conservative groups was not a couple of rouge agents in the Cincinnati office of the IRS
IRS Employees: We Targeted Conservative Groups on Orders from Washington
IRS Employees: We Targeted Conservative Groups on Orders from Washington New IRS chief to face House as agency's woes grow | Fox News
IRS agents tell Issa their marching orders came from Washington

Now all we need is some evidence. Supposed interviews with one IRS agent behind closed doors where the agent only said they were following orders and when asked whether the orders came from Washington, said they believe so, don't count as solid evidence.

 

[4consideration]

Now all we need is some evidence. Supposed interviews with one IRS agent behind closed doors where the agent only said they were following orders and when asked whether the orders came from Washington, said they believe so, don't count as solid evidence.

I don't know if you would consider the deposition of that agent as evidence. I think a recorded deposition given under oath carries more legal weight than a "supposed interview". I googled it and came up with this: Committee On Oversight & Government Reform

 

[Magic Man]

I don't know if you would consider the deposition of that agent as evidence. I think a recorded deposition given under oath carries more legal weight than a "supposed interview". I googled it and came up with this: Committee On Oversight & Government Reform

That's the same one that was posted. If it was given under oath, it carries more weight, but either way, it's still not much to go on.

 

[4consideration]

That's the same one that was posted. If it was given under oath, it carries more weight, but either way, it's still not much to go on.

The point that I was making is that a deposition is legal testimony, given under oath. That's what a deposition is. It carries the same weight and penalties as does in-court testimony. It is not physical evidence, and certainly a person can lie in a deposition -- the same as on the stand. However, it is not like a simple interview.

I thought that you simply did not like the source of the original post and did not understand the distinction between an interview and a deposition -- since you referred to depositions as "Supposed interviews with one IRS agent behind closed doors..."

 

[Magic Man]

The point that I was making is that a deposition is legal testimony, given under oath. That's what a deposition is. It carries the same weight and penalties as does in-court testimony. It is not physical evidence, and certainly a person can lie in a deposition -- the same as on the stand. However, it is not like a simple interview.

I thought that you simply did not like the source of the original post and did not understand the distinction between an interview and a deposition -- since you referred to depositions as "Supposed interviews with one IRS agent behind closed doors..."

The sources given for the info only mentioned an interview. I referred to these instances as "supposed interviews with one IRS agent behind closed doors" because that's what the links presented them as. As I said, if it was a deposition under oath, then that carries more weight.

 

[dust1n]

The sources given for the info only mentioned an interview. I referred to these instances as "supposed interviews with one IRS agent behind closed doors" because that's what the links presented them as. As I said, if it was a deposition under oath, then that carries more weight.

I can't even seem to confirm that. I can't seem to find any research that suggests one way or another that taking an oath makes someone more likely or not to misrepresent the truth.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

So you do not read kiwimac's comment that he wants the government to abolish the Tea Party? Sure seems that way to me.

I must have because it seems you totally skipped over the part where I said.....("I'm not in favor of someone of a group being taxed out of existence....")

Now to your comment.

'Proceed esmith'

Yes he has the "right" to his opinion. However, I do not think that the majority wants the government to "attack" a political group to the point that they no longer have a voice.

First of all....there's been no evidence that these groups were "attacked". Second...I agree that these groups have a right to their voice but it should be done within the law and the law here is explicit that they didn't but as I've said....this is totally the IRS's fault for not enforcing the actual law but instead interpreting it to include the political activities of obvious political groups.

The groups whining and crying in yesterdays "hearing" all received their exempt status but it's painfully obvious that each one of these groups are engaged heavily in politics and lobbying

I think that you are confusing the right to free speech with his/her belief that the Tea Party should be abolished because they disagree with their political belief.

Actually I'm not but it's clear to see that he is entitled to his free speech as well as his personal beliefs.

I do believe that is what is going on with the IRS at this time.

But it doesn't square with the facts though..regardless of what you're hearing on the right. The report released showed there was no political motives and certainly no influence from the White House. Nixons actions made sure of that...and rightfully so. But for kicks and giggles...how about listing the political actions the organizations that testified yesterday were involved in and tell me if it met the actual IRS law. These groups weren't denied anything related to their free speech.

In fact they didn't even need to seek a tax exempt status to actually be able to use their free speech. They were perfectly in their right to organize and express said speech...It's only when they (seek to avoid paying taxes) by requesting the ability to do so is when the IRS gets involved. I'm not condoning how the IRS went about asking these questions but see nothing wrong with these organizations being scrutinized. And (yes) if the IRS is going to do that to these groups then they should do it to all of them. Many of the correspondents the IRS sent to these groups were also sent to the (very small amount) of liberal groups seeking the same status. Personally I believe they all should have been denied under the current law.

While I take issue with one or two things said here in this video clip I feel as though most of this is spot on...Shucks..at one point when I was watching the "hearing" yesterday he actually read the original law that would actually deny all these groups on both sides of the isle but that seems to be lost on the low information voters out there holding pitch forks up for the IRS.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OZDnsDa_2as&feature=player_embedded#!

 

[esmith]

Guess the issue of targeting conservative groups does trace back to Washington. What next?
IRS Staff Cite Washington Link - WSJ.com

 

[tytlyf]

Guess the issue of targeting conservative groups does trace back to Washington. What next?
IRS Staff Cite Washington Link - WSJ.com

No way! The IRS has officials in Washington DC?

 

[Reverend Rick]

Who will be in charge of collecting the tax?

Except in extreme cases, the IRS never was in the tax collecting business, employers sent in the taxes.

With the fair tax, you would recieve your full pay and the taxes would be collected when you spent your money not when you made it.

How can you say the revenue would decrease when all the folks who cheat on their taxes or do not pay taxes at all would pay taxes every time they spent money now?

 

[tytlyf]

Except in extreme cases, the IRS never was in the tax collecting business, employers sent in the taxes.

With the fair tax, you would recieve your full pay and the taxes would be collected when you spent your money not when you made it.

How can you say the revenue would decrease when all the folks who cheat on their taxes or do not pay taxes at all would pay taxes every time they spent money now?

That doesn't even make sense. So you plan on adding additional taxes to purchased goods? We already pay taxes on things we buy

 

[Dirty Penguin]

With the fair tax, you would recieve your full pay and the taxes would be collected when you spent your money not when you made it.

I posted a youtube link that's worth listening too on that.

How can you say the revenue would decrease when all the folks who cheat on their taxes or do not pay taxes at all would pay taxes every time they spent money now?

Whatever the states receive from the federal government they would lose under a "Fair Tax" system so in turn the states would have to make up this shortfall by increasing their taxes on the people.

FairTax - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

the FairTax would be progressive on consumption, but would also be regressive on income at higher income levels (as consumption falls as a percentage of income)

Good for those at the top...horrible solution for those in the middle and at the botttom....

As the link suggest...It would eliminate other taxes collected for various social safety nets. And as I've said...it will decrease or completely eliminate funding to the states leaving the states to collect their own taxes at a higher percentage on sales and services. Again....this is something similar to what Bobby Jindal recently proposed. He had to scrap the idea because it was too expensive. I believe his state already has the highest combined taxes in the country (will have to check again on that)...

Bobby Jindal's New Tax Plan Could Crush Poor People In Louisiana - Business Insider

The plan is consistent with the libertarian "FairTax" proposal. It's recieved heaping praise from the Louisiana GOP, the conservative Tax Foundation and state legislators.


However, making the primary state tax a consumption tax rather than an income tax could have a number of potentially undesirable effects on the state.
First, this type of tax compels citizens to save rather than spend, which has the potential to slow an economy. People spending money cause a state's economy to grow as economic activity accelerates.


Secondly, this tax could compel citizens to buy out-of-state when making significant purchases, potentially harming sectors of the Louisiana internal economy.
But even more significantly, this action makes the state taxation scheme more regressive. A regressive tax means there is a higher effective rate of taxation the less money a taxpayer has.

​

Note: emphasis mine.

Another thing to take into account is that people and families will flock to Costco, Sams Club etc...to buy their food and household items in bulk to reduce their trips to the stores. These places already offer some of the cheapest gas per gallon as they don't have the high advertising overhead cost such as Exxon, Shell, BP etc. So fewer trips to the store through bulk shopping and a one stop shopping for gas means bad business for other businesses in the area. Consumer spending as I see it will actually go down. Makes me think of the movie (Idiocracy).

And observe the charts at the Business Insider link I provided. I've been saying that the Tea Party message is off. They rail against the federal government about being "Taxed Enough Already"...even though the Bush tax rate remains in effect for them but what they don't seem to understand in their quest for "states rights"...is that it's the states that are raising and collecting the most taxes from its people.

I found this to be very informative....
FactCheck.org: Unspinning the FairTax

 

[Dirty Penguin]

That doesn't even make sense. So you plan on adding additional taxes to purchased goods? We already pay taxes on things we buy

He's talking about a plan similar to what Bobby Jindal had to scrap because it was too expensive. Eliminate various federal income taxes, capital gains taxes, SS taxes, Medicare taxes....etc.. Implement a National sales tax.

This is good for the wealthy/rich and extremely bad for the middle class and working poor. I covered some of this in my response to RR. Many think these Flax Taxes and Fair Taxes are a good thing...and in this economy it's not so good for the average working person.

 

[Reverend Rick]

So no mention of the prebate these poor down trodden people would receive each month?