myiW Current Conditions and Forecasts Community Forums Windsurfing Videos Buy and Sell Services
 
Hi guest · myAccount · Log in
 SearchSearch   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   RegisterRegister 
Government Incompetence
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, ... 13, 14, 15  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    iWindsurf Community Forum Index -> Politics, Off-Topic, Opinions
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
swchandler



Joined: 08 Nov 1993
Posts: 5834

PostPosted: Wed May 09, 2012 4:37 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

"I don't know, but if it is the responsibility of the House to enact laws to change IRS rules (assuming they actually need to be changed), then I would agree that the Republicans that are ignoring this issue are a bunch of bums."



Frankly, techno900, I'm surprised that you don't understand that it's Congress is totally responsible for our federal tax code. However, when it comes down to getting the process of changing tax law, it all starts in the House of Representatives. Surely you remember Ryan's recent joke of a budget, where he talks about changing the tax rates to lower levels, while at the same time eliminating a number of "unidentified" loopholes. Lamely, he points his finger to an entirely different House committee to work out the specific details of which deductions and exemptions are cut and by how much. Seen any details yet? Not a chance. Why spend any serious time on a budget that doesn't stand a chance in hell of passing the Senate and getting the president's approval.

When it comes down to the IRS, they are simply responsible for collecting taxes in accordance with existing laws. They have nothing to do with making or changing tax laws. Although IRS serves as an enforcer of sorts using auditory processes, they will have their hands tied if there are legal loopholes that can be used, no matter how untoward some might view them.

Lastly, like I mentioned earlier, why aren't the states up in arms about this? They might be, but they probably can't do anything about it. Same with the media when they target the IRS. When you think about it, not even Fox News has the balls to go after the Republican House. What a joke.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
DanWeiss



Joined: 24 Jun 2008
Posts: 1953
Location: Connecticut, USA

PostPosted: Wed May 09, 2012 11:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

That video was removed by its poster, but as far as I can tell from the forum context, techno900 supports of Mr. Fiction's assertion that a taxpayer is fraudulent when claiming a relative as a dependent where that person does not live with the taxpayer. No matter who said it, that claim is incorrect.

Whether that person inherited or was given huge amounts of money, as long as that relative did not earn more than $3,700 and did not pay more than 1/2 of their own living expenses but more than half were paid by the taxpayer, the taxpaying relative is totally within the IRC allowance for including that relative as a qualifying dependent.

_________________
Support Your Sport. Join US Windsurfing!
www.USWindsurfing.org

www.konaone.com
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
techno900



Joined: 28 Mar 2001
Posts: 1485

PostPosted: Thu May 10, 2012 8:46 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I was the poster and I didn't remove it. Here it is again.

http://www.wthr.com/video?clipId=7054149&topVideoCatNo=103348&autoStart=true

Watch this again and tell me why the House of Representatives has any responsibility other than putting pressure on the IRS to do something?

Clearly, it's the IRS that chooses to ignore the problem. It appears to me that the "loophole" is that the IRS doesn't give a damn about Illegals committing fraud at the tune of 4.2 billion per year.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
isobars



Joined: 12 Dec 1999
Posts: 14238

PostPosted: Thu May 10, 2012 8:50 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

The Fair Tax solves all that.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
DanWeiss



Joined: 24 Jun 2008
Posts: 1953
Location: Connecticut, USA

PostPosted: Thu May 10, 2012 12:28 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

The question of whether this section and clause in the IRC should exist is open for discussion. I can see both sides. But it's quite another thing to claim (as I think Mike Fick did) that complying with the law amounts to fraud. The only difference in the category of taxpayer is immigration status. As I posted above, the IRC allows one to claim dependents when the taxpayer pays more than half the support where the depended earns less than $3,700.

Citizens or holders of green cards may claim the dependent deduction regardless of the location of the dependent, as far as I know.

Why remove that deduction for anyone who complies with the law?

The news story selected its dialogue carefully. They bootstrapped the problem to multiple billions of missing revenue and then stated, "in which illegal immigrants are involved."

The law applies to all taxpayers. Don't you take as many deductions and credits as you can? I do. Moreover, and quite specifically, claiming something as credit or deduction is not tax fraud as long as the underlying facts are believed to be true by the taxpayer. Oh, my home office isn't deductible because my daughter watches TV in there each night and the closet contains my spouse's clothing? The IRS simply amends the return, charges interest and assesses a penalty.

The only issue is whether the IRS is going to spend a ton of money to investigate and disqualify certain dependents in order to claw back the credits, interest and penalties or prosecute the immigrants for tax fraud and likely get nothing but a huge prison bill out of it.

_________________
Support Your Sport. Join US Windsurfing!
www.USWindsurfing.org

www.konaone.com
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
stevenbard



Joined: 11 Nov 1993
Posts: 4159

PostPosted: Thu May 10, 2012 9:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

ADA covers 'bashful bladder' syndrome; could cost employers billions

It could cost U.S. employers between $2 billion and $4 billion to comply with an obscure Americans with Disabilities Act regulation meant to protect workers who are gun-shy in public restrooms.

According to a discussion letter the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission issued in August 2011, “paruresis” — more commonly known as “shy bladder syndrome” — qualifies as a disability under the amended Americans with Disabilities Act.

And you guys don't think that this regime is oppresive? This is the most criminally incompetent government n US history. This is just one of hundreds of regulations that this government imposes or proposes via un-elected bloated bureaucrats.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
pueno



Joined: 03 Mar 2007
Posts: 2677

PostPosted: Fri May 11, 2012 5:35 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

stevenbard wrote:

...via un-elected bloated bureaucrats.


So................ what kind of bureaucrat would you recommend?

Elected and skinny?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
isobars



Joined: 12 Dec 1999
Posts: 14238

PostPosted: Fri May 11, 2012 7:51 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

The newest version of the ADA, going into effect May 24, shifts the burden of proof from the disabled person to the employer. i.e., an employee who claims he can't walk, or has diabetes, or think (no kidding; that's actually covered!), or chew gum (kidding, I hope) is covered unless and until the employer can prove otherwise. The old ADA covered some 40M Americans; the new one may cover more than 50% of voters ... er ... I mean Americans. Gee, how fortuitous is that for the Democrats?

"I'm thirsty, boss. I must be coming down with diabetes. I want my Obamamoney, and you'd better start building me that wheelchair ramp at every water cooler."

"I can't think, boss. I'm going to just sit here and collect my paycheck until I retire. Get back to me when I'm 75."

And how about that asinine, unachievable existing law that every pool and spa in the country must have a permanently installed (and expensive and unavailable in mass) handicap lift (the portable ones already required are virtually never used)?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
pueno



Joined: 03 Mar 2007
Posts: 2677

PostPosted: Fri May 11, 2012 8:37 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

isobars wrote:
The newest version of the ADA, going into effect May 24, shifts the burden of proof from the disabled person to the employer. i.e., an employee who claims he can't walk, or has diabetes, or think (no kidding; that's actually covered!), or chew gum (kidding, I hope) is covered unless and until the employer can prove otherwise. The old ADA covered some 40M Americans; the new one may cover more than 50% of voters ... er ... I mean Americans. Gee, how fortuitous is that for the Democrats?

Gee, Mikey, does this put YOUR disability payments in jeopardy?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
rigitrite



Joined: 19 Sep 2007
Posts: 281
Location: Kansas City

PostPosted: Fri May 11, 2012 9:00 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Game....set....match: Pueno!!!
_________________
Kansas City
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    iWindsurf Community Forum Index -> Politics, Off-Topic, Opinions All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, ... 13, 14, 15  Next
Page 2 of 15

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum

myiW | Weather | Community | Membership | Support | Log in
like us on facebook
© Copyright 1999-2007 WeatherFlow, Inc Contact Us Ad Marketplace

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group