rich tax cheaters OWNED

[goof2]

Originally Posted by 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

You are wrong all over the place on equal protection.

The entire issue with "profiling" and the reason why the government doesn't do it at TSA, resulting in a ton of jokes and complaints, is due to equal protection. Equal protection has quite a lot to do with who and how decisions are made by government agents when choosing who to give any kind of extra scrutiny. "Strange or nervous behavior" qualifies as probable cause and an acceptable reason. You are suggesting the IRS investigate the rich simply because they are rich. This would be the equivalent of TSA pulling anyone out of line that looks middle eastern. What probable cause would there be with the rich? They make a lot of money so they must be cheating on their taxes?

Concerning the NSA, for activities outside America, it is irrelevant. The people they are eavesdropping on do not have the protection of the Constitution, so there is no equal protection issue. The FBI is different. They do snoop on people who fit a certain "profile". The "profile" is the ability of agents to demonstrate, to a judge, that probable cause exists to eavesdrop on them.

[Homeslice]

You guys have valid points. But if those points have any teeth, why aren't the wealthy, and their GOP allies in Congress, doing something about it?

And with regards to the NSA only spying outside our borders.......lol...........http://online.wsj.com/public/article...377523845.html

[goof2]

Originally Posted by Homeslice

You guys have valid points. But if those points have any teeth, why aren't the wealthy, and their GOP allies in Congress, doing something about it?

And with regards to the NSA only spying outside our borders.......lol...........http://online.wsj.com/public/article...377523845.html

I didn't say that they only spy outside our borders. My statement indicates that as long as they are spying outside our borders equal protection doesn't matter. When they do operate inside our borders it does matter, but since we will almost never know about it what is the difference. As far as the link goes, they were not selecting individuals to monitor, they were monitoring everyone. Equal protection would not be an issue, though other issues do exist with the practice.

[Smittie61984]

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?

The government is going to get whatever money they want. If President Obama wants more he'll just fire up the photocopier out back regardless.

The real problem of going after middle class tax cheats (who probably all put together cost the government more money) is the loss of political capital. Going after a huge gigantic voting block will assure President Obama will be flipping burgers in 2012.

[Destitute]

Originally Posted by Sean

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

Is such a disparate wealth/income distribution good for the US?

[goof2]

Originally Posted by Destitute

Is such a disparate wealth/income distribution good for the US?

You cannot use that statistic to call income in to question. The top 1% does not make 40% of the money. They pay a disproportionate share of taxes vs. income. They have to in order for half the country to have no federal income tax liability.

[Sean]

Originally Posted by Destitute

Is such a disparate wealth/income distribution good for the US?

Fine, you start paying 150k a year in income taxes to make up the shortfall.

[Destitute]

Originally Posted by Sean

Fine, you start paying 150k a year in income taxes to make up the shortfall.

That was kind of a non sequitur, wasn't it? Nonetheless, I wish I owed $150k/yr in taxes (since that would put me in the $500k income range).

[Sean]

Originally Posted by Destitute

That was kind of a non sequitur, wasn't it?

Not nearly as much as your question was.

[Destitute]

Originally Posted by goof2

You cannot use that statistic to call income in to question. The top 1% does not make 40% of the money. They pay a disproportionate share of taxes vs. income. They have to in order for half the country to have no federal income tax liability.

Didn't mean to tread on holy ground. Their effective tax rate is ~20% while the middle class is around 12%. I would trade a 2000% raise for a 50% tax rate increase.

To your last point, I tend to think that people who aren't paying taxes (to whichever jurisdiction) or are employed by the government shouldn't be allowed to vote (themselves more power and money). They are wards and agents of the state rather than citizens. If you choose (or have the misfortune) not to be a productive member of society, voting rights could be earned through public service (i.e., military or civilian public employment).