Ixian
Well-known member
Before the raid on Trump I would have said yes, the two would be sidelined in favor of someone with a better image.
Now, it looks like the Democrats are doubling down.
United States Biden administration policies and actions - megathread
- Thread starter Tyzuris
- Start date
Before the raid on Trump I would have said yes, the two would be sidelined in favor of someone with a better image.
Now, it looks like the Democrats are doubling down.
That is a mistake, a very bad one.
Ixian
Well-known member
I mean, if they planned to run a fair election it would be.
Alternatively, maybe they don't want to win, I could easily see the Democrats passing this dumpster fire off to a Republican administration, and then proceed to blame them for how bad everything is.
Blasterbot
Well-known member
it would be a legitimate strategy to immolate the current dem party and try again in the 24-28ish timeframe. from a grassroots perspective mind you. Pelosi will give up he seat from her cold dead hands.
I'm assuming all 50 Dems voted for it and Kamala's vote put it over the top.
Floridaman
Well-known member
Correct
strunkenwhite
Well-known member
The IRS is charged with collecting the taxes, not deciding the taxes.
Floridaman
Well-known member
Technically that isn't true. The IRS is allowed to reclassify transactions if they feel the purpose was to decrease tax liabilities, which is left to their discretion so they very much can decide the taxes.
Is “Form” “Substance” When it Comes to Law? The Future of the Doctrines of Economic Substance and Substance Over Form
Recent court decisions question the future of the doctrines of substance over form and economic substance.
freemanlaw.com
Problem is that there are over 70,000 pages of tax code.
I'd like to see this law passed:
1. ALL TAX LAWS, CODES, REGULATIONS AND JUDGEMENTS PREVIOUSLY WRITTEN ARE NO LONGER IN EFFECT.
2. EVERY ADULT EARNER WILL PAY 10% OF THEIR GROSS EARNINGS IN TAX.
3. THE FIRST $25,000 OF EACH PERSON'S GROSS EARNINGS WILL NOT BE SUBJECT TO THIS TAX.
4. EACH ADULT EARNER WILL MAKE THEIR PAYMENT TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT EACH AND EVERY MONTH ONCE THEY CROSS THE $25,000 THRESHOLD FOR WHICH THEY SHALL NOT BE TAXED.
THE END.
or something similar
Zyobot
Just a time-traveling robot stranded on Earth.
Honestly, I'm increasingly convinced that what should be laws in theory are more like guidelines in practice, when it comes to powerful people (and their loyalists) doing whatever they want while screwing the rest of us with virtual impunity. After all, they've found lots of ways to bypass the Constitution (supposedly the highest law of the land), so it stands to reason the IRS and other federal agencies will come up with all sorts of excuses to go after people who've done nothing wrong and never face consequences for it. So, whatever your lawyers tell you is or isn't legal, I suggest taking it with a heaping spoonful of salt, as far as "vested interests" that have anything to do with The Swamp go.
mrttao
Well-known member
On purpose. The more convoluted it is, the more power they have to just do whatever they want by selectively applying those laws.
Would be nice.
Zyobot
Just a time-traveling robot stranded on Earth.
That's probably a good descriptor for the US's legal-regulatory complex as a whole, actually. In fact, there are times when I think the whole "ignorance is not an excuse" approach makes convenient cover for bureaucrats to pass whatever laws they want (as well as bad actors to nab people on flimsy charges), without first evaluating whether they're laws a reasonable person should be expected to follow at all. That'd be much fairer, I think, though how such a test would be worded or implemented in practice, I don't know.
Ixian
Well-known member
And the FBI is charged with investigating crimes, not instigating them. Whats your point?
strunkenwhite
Well-known member
The point is that even form-vs-substance abuses cited above don't rise to the creation of a dissidence tax.
mrttao
Well-known member
That was tongue in cheek, they will just call it something else.
Or... simply maliciously audit dissidents and then find something in the 75k plus pages of tax law to hit them with.
While never auditing servants of theirs.
Floridaman
Well-known member
No, but they can choose to target dissidents specifically for audits, which bears a significant cost.
Blasterbot
Well-known member
there is an entire business around taxes being to complicated and fluid for a layman to follow. that is why the defense that you trusted your accountant is considered a legit legal defense.
mrttao
Well-known member
only if they permit you to use it. which they won't at their sole discretion.
just search for "famous people jailed for tax evasion" to see many examples where they decided to not allow it for one reason or another
Is anyone else watching the LGB vs Trans war on Twitter? I wonder how warm and fuzzy the Biden Admin feels knowing that they started pushing puberty blockers. Must be a really good feeling knowing that the degenerate shit they pushed to galvanize their voters is splitting their own voting blocs.