rich tax cheaters OWNED

[goof2]

Originally Posted by Sean

Yeah, nevermind that the top 1% pays 40% of the taxes.

The government rarely lets facts get in the way of a good argument when discussing tax policy. If you listened to Obama during the campaign you would think the top 1% weren't paying any taxes. He didn't let the fact that the top 1% carry almost 40% of the individual tax burden (as you pointed out) stop his moral crusade against the rich.

[Homeslice]

So the fact that the rich pay the majority of taxes proves there isn't any cheating going on?

[Sean]

Originally Posted by Homeslice

So the fact that the rich pay the majority of taxes proves there isn't any cheating going on?

Did someone actually say that?

[pauldun170]

I bet a kazzilion dollars that more middle class people cheat on their taxes than rich people.

I bet another kazillion that more poor people cheat on their taxes than rich people.

[Homeslice]

Originally Posted by pauldun170

I bet a kazzilion dollars that more middle class people cheat on their taxes than rich people.

I bet another kazillion that more poor people cheat on their taxes than rich people.

There are more poor and middle-class people than rich people.

Difficult exercise, congratulations

But I would think that the PERCENTAGE who cheat would be more relevant, if you are trying to compare honesty levels.

Getting back to the subject, if you were the IRS, and the President told you to do a better job cracking down on tax evasion, who would you spend more time investigating, a middle-class tax evader, whose tax evasion only amounts to a few hundred or thousand dollars, or a rich person who you suspect has cheated in the millions?

[defector]

Single mothers in Seattle who are obviously liars....

[Sean]

Originally Posted by Homeslice

Getting back to the subject, if you were the IRS, and the President told you to do a better job cracking down on tax evasion, who would you spend more time investigating, a middle-class tax evader, whose tax evasion only amounts to a few hundred or thousand dollars, or a rich person who you suspect has cheated in the millions?

I'd attempt to treat all people accused of a crime equally rather than targeting someone based on their financial status. Equal protection under the law, we haz it.

[goof2]

Originally Posted by Homeslice

So the fact that the rich pay the majority of taxes proves there isn't any cheating going on?

As Sean posted, I never said that. Obama also, if my memory is correct, wasn't saying that rich tax cheats weren't paying their fair share. He was stating that the rich had too many tax breaks under Bush and it was going to come to an end. It was always "those making more than $250k per year" not "those making more than $250k per year and cheat on their taxes". It also ignores the fact that those making more than $250k per year pay around 50% of all the personal income taxes collected each year, even with the Bush tax cuts.

Originally Posted by Homeslice

Getting back to the subject, if you were the IRS, and the President told you to do a better job cracking down on tax evasion, who would you spend more time investigating, a middle-class tax evader, whose tax evasion only amounts to a few hundred or thousand dollars, or a rich person who you suspect has cheated in the millions?

Again, as Sean posted, I would go after all of them.

If you do feel the need to choose, a rich person potentially could have cheated for more, but it will be much more difficult, time consuming, and expensive to identify. If it is actually identified, rather than just pay the penalty, the rich person is much more likely to fight the charges. This brings the chances of a conviction down and drives the cost to convict and collect up.

Originally Posted by Sean

Equal protection under the law, we haz it.

[Homeslice]

"Equal protection under the law" is valid only as it relates to your rights after you're caught.......not as it relates to who the government chooses to investigate/snoop on. For example, the FBI and NSA don't eavesdrop on everyone equally.....They snoop on people who fit some kind of profile (are tied to a certain political group, make large bank transfers, make calls to certain countries, browse certain websites, etc.). And the TSA doesn't yank everyone out of the line for a pat-down.......They make their choice based on strange or nervous behavior. I guess perpetually nervous/furtive people could sue the TSA charging discrimination, that but I don't think that would get very far

[Sean]

My point was we should go after people because they're braking the law, not because they're wealthy and might provide more revenue to the government. When you turn law enforcement into a for-profit enterprise you open the door to all kinds of corruption. What was that Ohio town that ran itself on traffic tickets?