"Inflation Reduction" Bill signed

[Baker Boy 1,663]

15 minutes ago, Sean Mooney said:

I'll never understand a common person excusing corporations of any role in things. Corporate fandom is real apparently. 

What is their role and what is a common person?

[vomit 502]

9 minutes ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

You think 87 k more IRS agents are being hired to go after corporations? Also, the democrats are the corporate party now. 

The Internal Revenue Service does not plan to use the nearly $80 billion it's set to receive in funding from the Inflation Reduction Act to hire 87,000 new agents in order to target middle class Americans, a Treasury Department official told ABC News, rejecting a claim widely circulated by Republican lawmakers and right-wing media personalities.

A sizable portion of the money will go toward improving taxpayer services and modernizing antiquated, paper-based IRS operations, Treasury Department spokesperson Julia Krieger said, in an effort to update the agency -- well documented as being chronically starved of resources for decades.

The agency also is planning on hiring auditors who can enforce the tax laws against high-income Americans and corporations, not the middle class, along with employees to provide customer service to taxpayers, the official said. The majority of hires will fill the positions of about 50,000 IRS employees on the verge of retirement, Krieger said, which will net about 20 to 30-thousand workers, not 87,000.

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/treasury-department-rejects-gop-claims-irs-agents/story?id=88495613

 

But yeah if people aren't paying their taxes, then fock em, go after them.  I pay mine, and I have to pay more because other people cheat.

[Sean Mooney 1,816]

3 minutes ago, Baker Boy said:

What is their role?

They don't have to pass on minor expenses to the consumer....and you know what a common person is. Don't play dumb. 

[Baker Boy 1,663]

1 minute ago, Sean Mooney said:

They don't have to pass on minor expenses to the consumer....and you know what a common person is. Don't play dumb. 

Wow, the communist in you has spoken and I don’t know what a common person is. How do you define an uncommon person.

[Sean Mooney 1,816]

5 minutes ago, Baker Boy said:

Wow, the communist in you has spoken and I don’t know what a common person is. How do you define an uncommon person.

Stop playing dumb.

 

[Horseman 2,036]

10 minutes ago, Sean Mooney said:

They don't have to pass on minor expenses to the consumer....and you know what a common person is. Don't play dumb. 

As long as it doesn't decrease sales/revenue, yes they do. They owe it to their shareholders to maximize profits.  That's how corporations work.  

[Sean Mooney 1,816]

1 minute ago, Horseman said:

As long as it doesn't decrease sales/revenue, yes they do. They owe it to their shareholders to maximize profits.  That's how corporations work.  

Do you draw the names of corporations with hearts around them on your walls too?

[Mike Honcho 4,794]

31 minutes ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

Nothing was ruled unconstitutional. 

https://www.google.com/search?q=stop+and+frisk+unconstitutional+2013&rlz=1CAVNCX_enUS980US980&oq=stop+an+frisk+un&aqs=chrome.1.69i57j0i13j0i22i30j0i15i22i30j0i10i15i22i30j0i390l2j69i60.7871j0j4&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

[Baker Boy 1,663]

9 minutes ago, Sean Mooney said:

Stop playing dumb.

 

I guess I am dumb because I have no idea what you mean when you say common person. I don’t understand why a teacher would refuse to answer a question or at least say they don’t know.

I would like to know what an uncommon person is too.

 

[Horseman 2,036]

2 minutes ago, Sean Mooney said:

Do you draw the names of corporations with hearts around them on your walls too?

No, I invest in them and watch their stock ticker move across the bottom of my screen.

[Hardcore troubadour 14,284]

1 minute ago, Mike Honcho said:

https://www.google.com/search?q=stop+and+frisk+unconstitutional+2013&rlz=1CAVNCX_enUS980US980&oq=stop+an+frisk+un&aqs=chrome.1.69i57j0i13j0i22i30j0i15i22i30j0i10i15i22i30j0i390l2j69i60.7871j0j4&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

That’s the way it was implemented  being unconstitutional. SQF is still a thing and still legal. That’s about abuse. 

[Hardcore troubadour 14,284]

21 minutes ago, vomit said:

The Internal Revenue Service does not plan to use the nearly $80 billion it's set to receive in funding from the Inflation Reduction Act to hire 87,000 new agents in order to target middle class Americans, a Treasury Department official told ABC News, rejecting a claim widely circulated by Republican lawmakers and right-wing media personalities.

A sizable portion of the money will go toward improving taxpayer services and modernizing antiquated, paper-based IRS operations, Treasury Department spokesperson Julia Krieger said, in an effort to update the agency -- well documented as being chronically starved of resources for decades.

The agency also is planning on hiring auditors who can enforce the tax laws against high-income Americans and corporations, not the middle class, along with employees to provide customer service to taxpayers, the official said. The majority of hires will fill the positions of about 50,000 IRS employees on the verge of retirement, Krieger said, which will net about 20 to 30-thousand workers, not 87,000.

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/treasury-department-rejects-gop-claims-irs-agents/story?id=88495613

 

But yeah if people aren't paying their taxes, then fock em, go after them.  I pay mine, and I have to pay more because other people cheat.

We agree. I don’t like having to sacrifice because some people break the law either. The law is the law, right? 

[Engorgeous George 1,850]

Just another wealth transfer.  These are always inefficient and inequitable and always have negative consequences, but they do buy votes.

[Horseman 2,036]

2 minutes ago, Baker Boy said:

I guess I am dumb because I have no idea what you mean when you say common person. I don’t understand why a teacher would refuse to answer a question or at least say doesn’t know.

I would like to know what an uncommon person is too.

 

He's not a very good teacher so I will help you out.  Liberals divide people into two groups: Elites and Common People.  Elites are people with money and power, common people refers to everyone else.  They talk down to them, like peasants.   One of the greatest tricks of all time is the Liberal Elites have the peasants tricked into thinking they have their best interests at heart.  

[Mike Honcho 4,794]

10 minutes ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

That’s the way it was implemented  being unconstitutional. SQF is still a thing and still legal. That’s about abuse. 

I pretty much said that in my initial response. 

In theory, there isn't a problem with stop and frisk, I mean it's not unconstitutional. The problem though is that humans are subject to their own biases and it's pretty tough for a person to "randomly" pick people out.  While I don't agree with the legal reasoning behind drunk driving checkpoints, those are pretty fair...every is stopped, asked a few questions(least the two I went through) and then go on their way if they don't give the police PC. Same thing with random audits, basically it's the unluckiest lottery--but if it's random, then it's the same for everyone.  

If stop and frisk were truly random, then it probably wouldn't have been ruled unconstitutional in NYC. 

Four years ago this week, federal court Judge Shira Scheindlin ruled that the way New York police officers were stopping and frisking individuals amounted to racial discrimination, and was hence unconstitutional. 

[Hardcore troubadour 14,284]

2 minutes ago, Horseman said:

He's not a very good teacher so I will help you out.  Liberals divide people into two groups: Elites and Common People.  Elites are people with money and power, common people refers to everyone else.  They talk down to them, like peasants.   One of the greatest tricks of all time is the Liberal Elites have the peasants tricked into thinking they have their best interests at heart.  

An even better trick is that people like Mooney think they are one of the elites, not a peasant. 

[Hardcore troubadour 14,284]

2 minutes ago, Mike Honcho said:

I pretty much said that in my initial response. 

In theory, there isn't a problem with stop and frisk, I mean it's not unconstitutional. The problem though is that humans are subject to their own biases and it's pretty tough for a person to "randomly" pick people out.  While I don't agree with the legal reasoning behind drunk driving checkpoints, those are pretty fair...every is stopped, asked a few questions(least the two I went through) and then go on their way if they don't give the police PC. Same thing with random audits, basically it's the unluckiest lottery--but if it's random, then it's the same for everyone.  

If stop and frisk were truly random, then it probably wouldn't have been ruled unconstitutional in NYC. 

Four years ago this week, federal court Judge Shira Scheindlin ruled that the way New York police officers were stopping and frisking individuals amounted to racial discrimination, and was hence unconstitutional. 

SQF isn’t unconstitutional.  Period.  

[Mike Honcho 4,794]

1 minute ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

SQF isn’t unconstitutional.  Period.  

The highlighted part where I say it's not unconstitutional isn't enough for you---the part where I describe if it's implementation was random, isn't enough or the fact that when done incorrectly is unconstitutional. You just need to keep arguing...before telling me its not unconstitutional again...let me just for the record for the third time.

Quote

In theory, there isn't a problem with stop and frisk, I mean it's not unconstitutional. 

Great, though, I think that means you have no problem with random audits.  Glad we agree. 

[Sean Mooney 1,816]

19 minutes ago, Baker Boy said:

I guess I am dumb because I have no idea what you mean when you say common person. I don’t understand why a teacher would refuse to answer a question or at least say they don’t know.

I would like to know what an uncommon person is too.

 

It's not as if "common person" is some obscure phrase. So again- stop playing dumb. It has nothing to do with being a teacher and furthermore- I am not your teacher. 

10 minutes ago, Horseman said:

He's not a very good teacher so I will help you out.  Liberals divide people into two groups: Elites and Common People.  Elites are people with money and power, common people refers to everyone else.  They talk down to them, like peasants.   One of the greatest tricks of all time is the Liberal Elites have the peasants tricked into thinking they have their best interests at heart.  

Yup- there is the Horseman ad hominem attack that he cries about when people do it. 

But I'm a good teacher to the people who matter so your opinion means less than nothing to me. 

 

[Horseman 2,036]

1 minute ago, Sean Mooney said:

Yup- there is the Horseman ad hominem attack that he cries about when people do it. 

Liberal - Crying about corporations while typing on an iPhone in a protective case from Amazon and paying a monthly fee to T-Mobile.

Conservative - Invests in Apple, Amazon and T-Mobile.

[Sean Mooney 1,816]

Just now, Horseman said:

Liberal - Crying about corporations while typing on an iPhone in a protective case from Amazon and paying a monthly fee to T-Mobile.

Conservative - Invests in Apple, Amazon and T-Mobile.

I'm invested in all three. I'm also invested in AT&T. So I guess I'm a conservative. 

Good to know. So I guess people here will have to find a new thing to go after.  

[Bert 1,125]

Most of the increase will be in administrators as the Treasury department stated in Vomits post. The new auditors that are hired are only going to increase litigation costs because they are inexperienced and, as Honcho pointed out, have many  biases toward taxpayers.  The litigation cost will eat up most of the revenue they find from actual tax cheats.

[Baker Boy 1,663]

3 minutes ago, Sean Mooney said:

It's not as if "common person" is some obscure phrase. So again- stop playing dumb. It has nothing to do with being a teacher and furthermore- I am not your teacher. 

Yup- there is the Horseman ad hominem attack that he cries about when people do it. 

But I'm a good teacher to the people who matter so your opinion means less than nothing to me. 

 

But Mr. Mooney common person means something different to different people. I was looking for your definition but you were not able to tell me.
Are people who matter also common people or can they be uncommon people too?

[Baker Boy 1,663]

6 minutes ago, Sean Mooney said:

I'm invested in all three. I'm also invested in AT&T. So I guess I'm a conservative. 

Good to know. So I guess people here will have to find a new thing to go after.  

What do you think about the recent AT&T spin off?

[Horseman 2,036]

15 minutes ago, Sean Mooney said:

I'm invested in all three. I'm also invested in AT&T. So I guess I'm a conservative. 

Good to know. So I guess people here will have to find a new thing to go after.  

Not sure I believe you teach, here is why:

You want corporations to eat the tax increases instead of passing them down to consumers.  In other words, the part you fail to understand is that you want the cost divided and absorbed by thousands of shareholders instead of millions of consumers.  If you really are a shareholder, that's financially irresponsible.  Multiply that line of thinking across all of your holdings and you are effectively saying that you are willing to push off your own retirement and the happiness of your family by years, instead of everyone else who buys a phone having to pay a few dollars more.

You're either not a shareholder and would like your phone a few bucks cheaper, or you aren't very bright.  It's one or the other.

[RLLD 3,932]

4 minutes ago, Horseman said:

Not sure I believe you teach, here is why:

You want corporations to eat the tax increases instead of passing them down to consumers.  In other words, the part you fail to understand is that you want the cost divided and absorbed by thousands of shareholders instead of millions of consumers.  If you really are a shareholder, that's financially irresponsible.  Multiply that line of thinking across all of your holdings and you are effectively saying that you are willing to push off your own retirement and the happiness of your family by years, instead of everyone else who buys a phone having to pay a few dollars more.

You're either not a shareholder and would like your phone a few bucks cheaper, or you aren't very bright.  It's one or the other.

Spot on.

Moreover, company officials have a fiduciary obligation to their share holders. They are legally bound to serve the interests of their shareholders. This is basic....simple.....easy stuff....

I would note that the Presidents prior mouthpiece also clearly did not understand this very simple concept.

[vomit 502]

6 minutes ago, Horseman said:

Not sure I believe you teach, here is why:

You want corporations to eat the tax increases instead of passing them down to consumers.  In other words, the part you fail to understand is that you want the cost divided and absorbed by thousands of shareholders instead of millions of consumers.  If you really are a shareholder, that's financially irresponsible.  Multiply that line of thinking across all of your holdings and you are effectively saying that you are willing to push off your own retirement and the happiness of your family by years, instead of everyone else who buys a phone having to pay a few dollars more.

You're either not a shareholder and would like your phone a few bucks cheaper, or you aren't very bright.  It's one or the other.

If any of what you said is true, then as a shareholder, you should oppose all taxes and push for a Corp tax rate of 0%.

[Bert 1,125]

1 minute ago, vomit said:

If any of what you said is true, then as a shareholder, you should oppose all taxes and push for a Corp tax rate of 0%.

Every good shareholder does.  Unfortunately, most stocks are owned through funds and pensions and the people invested in those fund and pensions are largely clueless.

[vomit 502]

1 minute ago, Bert said:

Every good shareholder does.  Unfortunately, most stocks are owned through funds and pensions and the people invested in those fund and pensions are largely clueless.

It's a balance though, right?  As a shareholder, you want the corp to make as much money as possible, yet as a US citizen that pays taxes, if we eliminated corp tax, then our individual tax rates go up.  So where is the happy medium?

[Bert 1,125]

Just now, vomit said:

It's a balance though, right?  As a shareholder, you want the corp to make as much money as possible, yet as a US citizen that pays taxes, if we eliminated corp tax, then our individual tax rates go up.  So where is the happy medium?

Not necessarily.  A small piece of income tax revenue comes from corporations.  The taxes that corporations pay are recovered through higher prices.  So in theory, the small increase in rate would be covered by a decrease in price. 

[Baker Boy 1,663]

Just now, vomit said:

It's a balance though, right?  As a shareholder, you want the corp to make as much money as possible, yet as a US citizen that pays taxes, if we eliminated corp tax, then our individual tax rates go up.  So where is the happy medium?

Wrong, we need to cut spending and cut the size of government big time. Tax cheats aren’t the problem it’s our corrupt government that is the problem. Anyone that thinks tripling the size of the IRS isn’t a problem has a big surprise in store for them.

So you want the shareholder to pay for the tax increase instead of the consumer? 

[vomit 502]

1 minute ago, Baker Boy said:

Wrong, we need to cut spending and cut the size of government big time. Tax cheats aren’t the problem it’s our corrupt government that is the problem. Anyone that thinks tripling the size of the IRS isn’t a problem has a big surprise in store for them.

So you want the shareholder to pay for the tax increase instead of the consumer? 

I agree that we need to cut spending, but unfortunately no one else in Washington does, and hasn't for 20+ years.

[Horseman 2,036]

6 minutes ago, vomit said:

It's a balance though, right?  As a shareholder, you want the corp to make as much money as possible, yet as a US citizen that pays taxes, if we eliminated corp tax, then our individual tax rates go up.  So where is the happy medium?

That's a different question than what was being discussed.  The conversation you jumped into the middle of was simply the new corporate tax jump implemented by the Dems and whether the company should pass it onto the consumer or eat it (take it out of the stock price).

And correction on your statement to me:  As a consumer first you should want the corporate tax rate to be 0%, not shareholders. Consumers feel it first in the increase in price.  Shareholders feel it second if the increase in price is enough to bring down consumption.   

[vomit 502]

The entire tax system needs to be scrapped, if we're being honest, it's all BS.  Increase rate here, decrease rate there, it's all BS.  Corp will do everything they can to reduce their rate, I doubt any of these changes even matter.

[vomit 502]

Just now, Horseman said:

And correction on your statement to me:  As a consumer first you should want the corporate tax rate to be 0%, not shareholders. Consumers feel it first in the increase in price.  Shareholders feel it second if the increase in price is enough to bring down consumption.   

You're assuming a corp will reduce the price of their product if their tax goes to 0%, when the more likely outcome is that the price stays the same but EPS goes up.

[Horseman 2,036]

1 minute ago, vomit said:

The entire tax system needs to be scrapped, if we're being honest, it's all BS.  Increase rate here, decrease rate there, it's all BS.  Corp will do everything they can to reduce their rate, I doubt any of these changes even matter.

EVERYONE does everything they can to reduce how much taxes they pay.  Not just corporations.  Who voluntarily pays more taxes?

[vomit 502]

Just now, Horseman said:

EVERYONE does everything they can to reduce how much taxes they pay.  Not just corporations.  Who voluntarily pays more taxes?

Agreed, but a corp is better at it than you or me.  I can't hire a team of accountants to get me every break.  I can't buy a house in Ireland where the tax rate is cheaper to avoid paying US taxes.  But yes, everyone does what they can to pay less taxes, great observation.

[Bert 1,125]

3 minutes ago, vomit said:

  Corp will do everything they can to reduce their rate

So do intelligent individuals.   The problem is most people are stupid. The IRS makes more money from individuals not filing correctly, not taking advantage of exemptions and exclusions and being excited about getting a refund at the end of the year than they lose to tax cheats.    

[Horseman 2,036]

1 minute ago, vomit said:

You're assuming a corp will reduce the price of their product if their tax goes to 0%, when the more likely outcome is that the price stays the same but EPS goes up.

I'm not assuming anything.  The price will reflect maximizing profit with demand.  That's economics 101.  Do I really need to explain that to you?

 

[RLLD 3,932]

2 minutes ago, Horseman said:

EVERYONE does everything they can to reduce how much taxes they pay.  Not just corporations.  Who voluntarily pays more taxes?

This.

The tax laws afford people multiple means by which to lower their taxes, and people naturally do so.  Corporations are apparently evil for doing it.

The entire "companies are evil" stuff is really tired at this point.  Meanwhile, the actual villains (politicians) have somehow managed to elevate themselves into hero status, which is bizarre