IRS targeting Conservative groups

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT
 

GrimTuesday:
Wow, the 2010 election was the result of a kneejerk reaction by the right wing... Its not some conspiracy, the Tea Party isn't actually that big of a player, just enough to be annoying.

I would disagree with that, but you are right about their status. I wonder if anything held that movement back?

So you don't want all groups applying to be tax exempt status to be thoroughly vetted?

There is as much proper vetting in these groups as there would be in asking a job applicant for their personal reading material and Facebook account. It is also being argued that these groups were uniquely facing this level of scrutiny. See below.

Also can I get a link for the group that was forced to make a promise to not protest Planned Parenthood?

Yes, and how liberal groups transitioned smoothly during this time frame while there was basically a moratorium on approving "tea party" groups for over two years.

It's pretty reasonable to cast doubt on the "it was just a mistake" response. You don't just accidentally the entire stuff here. It's bad.

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/05/irs-tea-party-ig-report-congress
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/05/irs-tea-party-scandal-congress-nonprofit-obama

The second of those two links is the most interesting, it details the issue in full and even provides examples of the letters sent by the IRS that were allegedly harassing Tea Party groups. The whole thing is sounding more like a mixture of incompetence and a lack of resources than a matter of wrongdoing.

EDIT: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-05-15/irs-sent-same-letter-to-democrats-that-fed-tea-party-row.html

Seems this wasn't as exclusive to conservative groups as some politicians think. At least one liberal 501(c)(4) group had their tax exempt status revoked already on the pretense of excessive political activity.

EDIT (2): The IRS' budget has shrunk by 17% since 2002 and the organization has been saddled with more and more responsibilities since then by Congress. This explains why they've likely been targeting "low-hanging fruit" as Salon's David Dayen put it.

The Inspector General hasn't found anything regarding purposeful targeting of particular groups by the IRS. There's definitely been some incompetence and confusion, but not of the vicious sort that Republicans and Democrats are claiming.

What we have here is profiling, and I don't see how it can be judged as mere incompetence or brought about by a "lack of resources". Perhaps officials unreasonably used criteria to manage applications, but taking everything else into consideration the assessment doesn't make sense. Unsurprisingly, the Justice Department moved in and isn't having any special prosecutor.

There's also this:

The Internal Revenue Service official in charge of the tax-exempt organizations at the time when the unit targeted tea party groups now runs the IRS office responsible for the health care legislation.

Sarah Hall Ingram served as commissioner of the office responsible for tax-exempt organizations between 2009 and 2012. But Ingram has since left that part of the IRS and is now the director of the IRS Affordable Care Act office, the IRS confirmed to ABC News today.

So the woman that would seem most accountable now runs the area in the IRS regarding what arguably was the biggest driver for the tea party movement in the first place and is #1 on many agendas to repeal. I couldn't write better drama than this.

AgedGrunt:
What we have here is profiling, and I don't see how it can be judged as mere incompetence or brought about by a "lack of resources". Perhaps officials unreasonably used criteria to manage applications, but taking everything else into consideration the assessment doesn't make sense. Unsurprisingly, the Justice Department moved in and isn't having any special prosecutor.

There's also this:

The Internal Revenue Service official in charge of the tax-exempt organizations at the time when the unit targeted tea party groups now runs the IRS office responsible for the health care legislation.

Sarah Hall Ingram served as commissioner of the office responsible for tax-exempt organizations between 2009 and 2012. But Ingram has since left that part of the IRS and is now the director of the IRS Affordable Care Act office, the IRS confirmed to ABC News today.

So the woman that would seem most accountable now runs the area in the IRS regarding what arguably was the biggest driver for the tea party movement in the first place and is #1 on many agendas to repeal. I couldn't write better drama than this.

Precisely. This is why liberals are playing the "blame everyone but Obama for this" game.

I've not really paid much attention to the story but this is what I've picked up:

Conservative groups linked to the Tea Party applied for tax exempt status - something a political group isn't allowed. An IRS team used their outside knowledge of the types of groups that use certain buzzwords as a name and thought "hang on, they usually get pretty heavily involved in politics and that's all I can think of them doing" and so applied a little more scrutiny to those applications.

How is that bad? Is it just because they didn't also do the same to left wing groups? Maybe there wasn't as many left wing groups trying to get tax exempt.

The right wing are normally the ones complaining about people scamming the system to avoid taxes/claim welfare so why are they annoyed when the IRS tries to make sure that exactly that isn't happening? Is it just because they're the ones getting scrutinised?

I'm either missing something vital or these groups are just bitching because they didn't get their way.

Oh and the IRS admitting they screwed up is just politics. It's easier to say "yeah, mea culpa", have a token resignation and let the situation die down than say "we're just doing our job" and have to deal with months of bitching from groups, with constant news coverage. Honestly from I've seen it looks like the government is more like someone saying he was wrong to avoid an argument rather than actually being wrong.

Karma168:
I've not really paid much attention to the story but this is what I've picked up:

Conservative groups linked to the Tea Party applied for tax exempt status - something a political group isn't allowed. An IRS team used their outside knowledge of the types of groups that use certain buzzwords as a name and thought "hang on, they usually get pretty heavily involved in politics and that's all I can think of them doing" and so applied a little more scrutiny to those applications.

How is that bad? Is it just because they didn't also do the same to left wing groups? Maybe there wasn't as many left wing groups trying to get tax exempt.

You're missing a lot if you don't pay attention. It was excessive, invasive scrutiny, and progressive groups didn't face it. The profiling apparently targeted groups by name and keywords, which sounds similar to a person watch list that identifies "names that sound like terrorists".

There's another break in this scandal; take it or leave it. The IRS may have overreached again in a warrant against a healthcare provider and seized millions of personal and medical records by force. It's allegedly being hit with a lawsuit for it.

AgedGrunt:

Karma168:
I've not really paid much attention to the story but this is what I've picked up:

Conservative groups linked to the Tea Party applied for tax exempt status - something a political group isn't allowed. An IRS team used their outside knowledge of the types of groups that use certain buzzwords as a name and thought "hang on, they usually get pretty heavily involved in politics and that's all I can think of them doing" and so applied a little more scrutiny to those applications.

How is that bad? Is it just because they didn't also do the same to left wing groups? Maybe there wasn't as many left wing groups trying to get tax exempt.

You're missing a lot if you don't pay attention. It was excessive, invasive scrutiny, and progressive groups didn't face it. The profiling apparently targeted groups by name and keywords, which sounds similar to a person watch list that identifies "names that sound like terrorists".

There's another break in this scandal; take it or leave it. The IRS may have overreached again in a warrant against a healthcare provider and seized millions of personal and medical records by force. It's allegedly being hit with a lawsuit for it.

Also, this is the 2nd time at least I'm reading that PACs aren't allowed tax exempt status. They are. Research centers like the Herritage Foundation and Move On.org likely are as well.

Seems a pretty clear case of targeting political opposition.

Check this:

"Kimberley Strassel began her Wall Street Journal column thus:

Try this thought experiment: You decide to donate money to Mitt Romney. You want change in the Oval Office, so you engage in your democratic right to send a check.

Several days later, President Barack Obama, the most powerful man on the planet, singles you out by name. . . . The message from the man who controls the Justice Department (which can indict you), the SEC (which can fine you), and the IRS (which can audit you), is clear: You made a mistake donating that money.

Miss Strassel wrote that on April 26, 2012. Five weeks later, one of the named individuals, Frank VanderSloot, was informed by the IRS that he and his wife were being audited. ...
A year after he was named to the Obama Dishonor Roll, the feds have found nothing on Mr. VanderSloot, but they have caused him to rack up 80 grand in legal bills."

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/348687/autocrat-accountants-mark-steyn

Scary.

Karma168:
I've not really paid much attention to the story but this is what I've picked upsomething a political group isn't allowed.

because the NAACP is totally not a political group.

This is about abusing government power to silence descent. This is what most who consider themselves Tea Party rally against, and it only further reinforces the belief that an all-powerful state is something that must be prevented at all costs.

I believe this is something that goes beyond one nation or one group.

Karma168:
Conservative groups linked to the Tea Party

Among others.

applied for tax exempt status - something a political group isn't allowed.

Yes they are as long as less than 50% of their funding goes towards said politics.

How is that bad? Is it just because they didn't also do the same to left wing groups?

They did not do the same thing to groups on the left or the right. If you had millions of dollars they left you alone (as many of the political organizations during the 2012 election were) while the smaller Tea Party, 9/12, etc groups were attacked.

Plus, the Tea Party has been complaining about this exact issue for several years and people (including people on this forum) have accused them of being paranoid when they claimed that this exact thing was happening. So Tea Party members feel vindicated.

The right wing are normally the ones complaining about people scamming the system to avoid taxes/claim welfare so why are they annoyed when the IRS tries to make sure that exactly that isn't happening? Is it just because they're the ones getting scrutinised?

More because of the extra forms they were required to fill out. Basically the IRS demanded detailed lists of the organizations members and a lot of other information that the IRS had no business asking about. Plus, these forms were held up for months and even over a year in a few cases when others were passed very quickly.

Oh and the IRS admitting they screwed up is just politics. It's easier to say "yeah, mea culpa", have a token resignation and let the situation die down than say "we're just doing our job" and have to deal with months of bitching from groups, with constant news coverage. Honestly from I've seen it looks like the government is more like someone saying he was wrong to avoid an argument rather than actually being wrong.

They admitted they were wrong because they are. There is absolutely no reason why a Tea Party group should be denied when Priorities USA (supported Obama with campaign ads in 2012) is allowed.

Here's a story of one woman who decided to get involved with her government, the voting process and launched two organizations: one to discuss freedoms and another focusing on preventing voter fraud. She had been with her husband running a small business machine shop in Texas, but she left the company to pursue these endeavors.

According to the story, what followed was three years of federal investigation and unscheduled audits of the family business, which led to fines. Of those involved included the FBI, ATF and OSHA, other than the IRS. One of her groups was also targeted by Congress, which wrote to the Justice Department that it was "an offshoot of the tea party", and instigating voter suppression.

The situation escalated in 2012. That February, True the Vote received a third request for information from the IRS, which also sent its first questionnaire to King Street Patriots. Catherine says the IRS had hundreds of questions, "hundreds and hundreds of questions". The IRS requested every Facebook post and Tweet she had ever written. She received questions about her family, whether she'd ever run for political office, and which organizations she had spoken to.
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/348756/true-scandal-jillian-kay-melchior

Her groups have not received IRS approval.

AgedGrunt:

Karma168:
I've not really paid much attention to the story but this is what I've picked up:

Conservative groups linked to the Tea Party applied for tax exempt status - something a political group isn't allowed. An IRS team used their outside knowledge of the types of groups that use certain buzzwords as a name and thought "hang on, they usually get pretty heavily involved in politics and that's all I can think of them doing" and so applied a little more scrutiny to those applications.

How is that bad? Is it just because they didn't also do the same to left wing groups? Maybe there wasn't as many left wing groups trying to get tax exempt.

You're missing a lot if you don't pay attention. It was excessive, invasive scrutiny, and progressive groups didn't face it. The profiling apparently targeted groups by name and keywords, which sounds similar to a person watch list that identifies "names that sound like terrorists".

Bullshit. One Democrat 501(c)(4) had already had its tax exempt status revoked. Who exactly is 'profiling' what here? All you're doing is trying to fit this into the narrative that 'the government is out to invade your privacy', and simply leave it at that. We already know how invasive they are and how much of a problem it is to civil rights: the whole email and phone tracking nonsense from the Bush administration's years along with the Obama administration's negligence and continued fear and warmongering to excuse the signing of unconstitutional/anti-human rights laws (e.g. giving them the ability to declare anyone an 'enemy combatant', including US citizens, and subsequently arrest them, alongside continued drone assassinations, etc.) The question you should be asking is: why are these politicians, both Democrat and Republican, so desperate to hold onto the 501(c)(4) group's tax exempt status that they are willing to distract us with their demonizing of the IRS?

I don't know about you, but I am sick of politicians and a wealthy few trying to cheat the fucking system at our expense.

Gorfias:
snip

Gorf, the National Review is misleading you. These aren't PACs, the designation these groups are going under is 501(c)(4), whose primary purpose, i.e., where the majority of their funding must go, *must* be social welfare. However, groups both Republican and Democratic are abusing the tax-exempt status and ability to donate anonymously to fund their political campaigns. Effectively, the rich are using them as dumping grounds to go beyond the donation limits and not be scrutinized for it. This shouldn't come as a surprise either, considering the IRS promised to investigate such groups last year. The problem, however, is that the IRS went after a number of the little fish, the ones who were obvious fronts for political donations and didn't have the funding to hire big time lawyers to defend them, and now Democrat and Republican politicians are getting pissy because a pillar of what keeps them in power (and prevents any third party from really competing due to lack of funds), is being challenged.

People ought to be pissed about this, but they are getting pissed off about this debacle for the wrong reasons.

Hap2:

These aren't PACs, the designation these groups are going under is 501(c)(4), whose primary purpose, i.e., where the majority of their funding must go, *must* be social welfare. However, groups both Republican and Democratic are abusing the tax-exempt status and ability to donate anonymously to fund their political campaigns. Effectively, the rich are using them as dumping grounds to go beyond the donation limits and not be scrutinized for it. This shouldn't come as a surprise either, considering the IRS promised to investigate such groups last year. The problem, however, is that the IRS went after a number of the little fish, the ones who were obvious fronts for political donations and didn't have the funding to hire big time lawyers to defend them, and now Democrat and Republican politicians are getting pissy because a pillar of what keeps them in power (and prevents any third party from really competing due to lack of funds), is being challenged.

People ought to be pissed about this, but they are getting pissed off about this debacle for the wrong reasons.

Why? A PAC is just as expempt as anything else, right?

Personally, I think taxes should be much flatter so we don't get caught up on technicalities.

Gorfias:

Hap2:

These aren't PACs, the designation these groups are going under is 501(c)(4), whose primary purpose, i.e., where the majority of their funding must go, *must* be social welfare. However, groups both Republican and Democratic are abusing the tax-exempt status and ability to donate anonymously to fund their political campaigns. Effectively, the rich are using them as dumping grounds to go beyond the donation limits and not be scrutinized for it. This shouldn't come as a surprise either, considering the IRS promised to investigate such groups last year. The problem, however, is that the IRS went after a number of the little fish, the ones who were obvious fronts for political donations and didn't have the funding to hire big time lawyers to defend them, and now Democrat and Republican politicians are getting pissy because a pillar of what keeps them in power (and prevents any third party from really competing due to lack of funds), is being challenged.

People ought to be pissed about this, but they are getting pissed off about this debacle for the wrong reasons.

Why? A PAC is just as expempt as anything else, right?

As I said already, these aren't PACs, full stop. Reread the paragraph you quoted, I have already explained.

Hap2:
[quote="Gorfias" post="528.407838.17064958"]
As I said already, these aren't PACs, full stop. Reread the paragraph you quoted, I have already explained.

You are missing the point. It doesn't matter. At best, even if you are right, and you likely are not, they are a political interest group. They are supposed to be tax exempt. They were attacked because they were the opposition. Attacking them is not a function of our government. We're supposed to have the right of political speech. That was violated and that is a problem.

Gorfias:

Hap2:
[quote="Gorfias" post="528.407838.17064958"]
As I said already, these aren't PACs, full stop. Reread the paragraph you quoted, I have already explained.

You are missing the point. It doesn't matter. At best, even if you are right, and you likely are not, they are a political interest group. They are supposed to be tax exempt. They were attacked because they were the opposition. Attacking them is not a function of our government. We're supposed to have the right of political speech. That was violated and that is a problem.

Maybe I missed something somewhere, but where in tax law does it say that political interest groups are eligible for tax exempt status? Considering it's usually reserved for entities promoting "social welfare" that use their funds for charity or education, I don't think political interest groups count.

Nikolaz72:
I'd try to sympathize with the 'patriots' in the Tea Party. But quite frankly, I'm having a hard enough time gathering any for the Republican Party, so having some for the corrupt, dishonest fringe extremist right-wing political 'grass-root movement' that is the Tea-Party is neigh-impossible.

Sorry, but the fact that you don't like the tea party shouldn't mean shit. I don't like republicans, I don't like democrats, I don't like the KKK, I don't like skinheads, I don't like hipsters, I don't like Twihards, I don't like Michael Bay and I don't like Coca Cola, but every single person on this unequal fucking world should at least be treated equally before the law. Just my two cents, but that's one of those things that I find hard to see how anyone could disagree.

afroebob:
Snip

Just so happends this party is about not being taxed, having low taxes, or avoiding taxes alltogether. So it's very convenient to find extra groups trying to sneak through loopholes if you put in the correct words from the cheatsheat. And as the IRS probably doesn't get enough funding to put the same scrutiny on everyone I say that it is completely legit that they do so on groups more likely to commit tax-fraud. Which is so obviously those with Patriot and Tea Party in their names.

LifeCharacter:
where in tax law does it say that political interest groups are eligible for tax exempt status?

According to this link, 527s and 501(c) are examples:

http://www.opensecrets.org/527s/types.php

527 is particularly about issues.

What constitutes what kind of activity can be interesting. I recall a kurfuffle about Emily's list. They were supposed to be for getting money to female candidates. Then they backed a man because they liked his politics, which would appear to be contrary to their charter.

But, yeah, politics itself is considered something of a contribution to society. A free society should be pretty broad in defining the actions of this sort of thing. Personally, I'm for a single income rate tax: no exemptions. Until then, we should be wary of people using the power of their office to intimidate their political opposition.

Nikolaz72:

afroebob:
Snip

Just so happends this party is about not being taxed, having low taxes, or avoiding taxes alltogether. So it's very convenient to find extra groups trying to sneak through loopholes if you put in the correct words from the cheatsheat. And as the IRS probably doesn't get enough funding to put the same scrutiny on everyone I say that it is completely legit that they do so on groups more likely to commit tax-fraud. Which is so obviously those with Patriot and Tea Party in their names.

Why are groups with patriot and Tea party in their name more likely to commit tax fraud versus political groups with different buzzwords within their charter or name?

Bentusi16:

Nikolaz72:

afroebob:
Snip

Just so happends this party is about not being taxed, having low taxes, or avoiding taxes alltogether. So it's very convenient to find extra groups trying to sneak through loopholes if you put in the correct words from the cheatsheat. And as the IRS probably doesn't get enough funding to put the same scrutiny on everyone I say that it is completely legit that they do so on groups more likely to commit tax-fraud. Which is so obviously those with Patriot and Tea Party in their names.

Why are groups with patriot and Tea party in their name more likely to commit tax fraud versus political groups with different buzzwords within their charter or name?

Extreme Libertarians using the names as a cover. Libertarian tend to not associate themselves with names such as Liberal, Progressive, Socialist as they are more likely to find support for drastically lowered taxes on the right-wing.

Koch Brothers and other owners of giant corporations have also been known to make dozens of these small groups to transfer large payments to political candidates without being hit by bad publicity, or taxation. As such I could imagine this as the reason that names used by the political parties receiving the main funding from these fraudsters would come under additional scrutiny. Believe there was a small tax on larger group-donations that doesn't apply to individual donations of below 50dollars. As such they established tons of these groups to simulate individual payments when it was really just huge-money transfers cut up into small parts. This not only allowed them to avoid having their names plastered every over say, one political party. But also allowed them to present their chosen political candidate (The one that would lower taxes for them) as a man of the people (Due to massive number of donations)

Hap2:
One Democrat 501(c)(4) had already had its tax exempt status revoked.

It's disproportionate, but I'm not trying to make this a one-sided issue. That distracts from the rest of the scandal.

Hap2:
Who exactly is 'profiling' what here?

All you're doing is trying to fit this into the narrative that 'the government is out to invade your privacy'

I've previously mentioned how groups were profiled and the types of things being demanded, as well as other federal agencies allegedly being used to harass in one case. Believe me, I want this to be far more than invasion of privacy, but in case you haven't stuck your head out America's window, it's raining denial out here. Heck, many are defending the IRS.

Hap2:
The question you should be asking is: why are these politicians, both Democrat and Republican, so desperate to hold onto the 501(c)(4) group's tax exempt status that they are willing to distract us with their demonizing of the IRS? I don't know about you, but I am sick of politicians and a wealthy few trying to cheat the fucking system at our expense.

Leading up to this scandal, Democrats called for increased scrutiny on nonprofits. I understand you want to make it about the pols, but the IRS is not a scapegoat here; the testimony and reports I've heard squarely indict them. No way can we let them off easy thinking bigger fish are in the waters. We can start at ground zero and work our way toward Capitol Hill and the White House, which continues to lose credibility by the day.

AgedGrunt:
the IRS is not a scapegoat here; the testimony and reports I've heard squarely indict them.

And now the 5th is being invoked: http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-top-irs-official-fifth-amendment-20130521,0,6645565.story

I've also read a group that has been waiting 3 years for their tax exempt status is filing suit.

I think the thing that surprised me the most in this thread was so many appearing to not understand you don't have to be involved in charity to be tax exempt. A brief search will show people you political groups can be tax exempt as well.

Nikolaz72:

afroebob:
Snip

Just so happends this party is about not being taxed, having low taxes, or avoiding taxes alltogether. So it's very convenient to find extra groups trying to sneak through loopholes if you put in the correct words from the cheatsheat. And as the IRS probably doesn't get enough funding to put the same scrutiny on everyone I say that it is completely legit that they do so on groups more likely to commit tax-fraud. Which is so obviously those with Patriot and Tea Party in their names.

Good thing you don't work for the IRS because you would be committing a crime.

The fact that the IRS admitted they were in the wrong should be clear sign but some are willfully blind.

More or less just a case of conservative acting less in line with the law and complaining things aren't equal because equality has always meant investigating the other side just as much, even with less reason to believe there is wrongdoing. Suddenly conservatives are all for wasting taxpayer dollars blindly going after liberals just so that everything is seen as balanced.

It's just a politically and ideologically bankrupt political alignment looking to drum up controversy out of nowhere in a vain attempt to stay relevant. You can't really blame them though, when they have to go through the re-branding of their key talking points just to trick people into no longer finding them despicable they need to reach for straws and try to discredit everyone else because other than that they have nothing.

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-top-irs-official-fifth-amendment-20130521,0,6645565.story

So, the head of exempt organizations is going to plead the Fifth tomorrow, but no scandal, nothing to see here. It's a riot how all of a sudden, oppressive government is okay, because Barack Obush is in charge instead of George Bush, but I'm sure that somehow it's GWB's fault anyway.

Notsomuch:

It's just a politically and ideologically bankrupt political alignment looking to drum up controversy out of nowhere in a vain attempt to stay relevant.

Being critical of big government is never a waste of time. I think your statements are worryingly credulous, as if you think big government, regardless of party in charge, would not succumb to the temptation to abuse its power. Remember all that stuff about Harry Reid knowing about Romney's taxes even though they were confidential?

And now these guys are pleading the 5th?

I think Republicans do have to be more careful than Democrats because the MSM is paying more attention to them. But the issue isn't party. It is human beings tempted to abuse power when they get it. Its the reason to fight for a smaller less centralized government we have a better chance of keeping in line.

Gorfias:
I think Republicans do have to be more careful than Democrats because the MSM is paying more attention to them.

What gives you that impression?

Seanchaidh:

Gorfias:
I think Republicans do have to be more careful than Democrats because the MSM is paying more attention to them.

What gives you that impression?

Things like, I just got an email with a news link from a liberal reminding me that Bush once had a scandal where he fired a 1/2 dozen attorneys, so, abuse of power is a bi-partisan thing.

Clinton fired 93.

http://www.mrc.org/biasalerts/nets-ignored-clinton-firing-93-us-attorneys-fret-over-bushs-8-3142007

2 wrongs don't make a right. Abuse of power is a bi-partisan issue as I wrote above. But when one side has done something so much worse than the other, you'd think it odd that the news still remembers and reports the lesser issue.

Though I do understand conservative media is more visible now than, say, in the 1980s when we had mostly 3 major networks, all statist Democratic party leaning.

Nikolaz72:

Bentusi16:

Nikolaz72:

Just so happends this party is about not being taxed, having low taxes, or avoiding taxes alltogether. So it's very convenient to find extra groups trying to sneak through loopholes if you put in the correct words from the cheatsheat. And as the IRS probably doesn't get enough funding to put the same scrutiny on everyone I say that it is completely legit that they do so on groups more likely to commit tax-fraud. Which is so obviously those with Patriot and Tea Party in their names.

Why are groups with patriot and Tea party in their name more likely to commit tax fraud versus political groups with different buzzwords within their charter or name?

Extreme Libertarians using the names as a cover. Libertarian tend to not associate themselves with names such as Liberal, Progressive, Socialist as they are more likely to find support for drastically lowered taxes on the right-wing.

Koch Brothers and other owners of giant corporations have also been known to make dozens of these small groups to transfer large payments to political candidates without being hit by bad publicity, or taxation. As such I could imagine this as the reason that names used by the political parties receiving the main funding from these fraudsters would come under additional scrutiny. Believe there was a small tax on larger group-donations that doesn't apply to individual donations of below 50dollars. As such they established tons of these groups to simulate individual payments when it was really just huge-money transfers cut up into small parts. This not only allowed them to avoid having their names plastered every over say, one political party. But also allowed them to present their chosen political candidate (The one that would lower taxes for them) as a man of the people (Due to massive number of donations)

Right, but do you have any proof the libertarians are going to commit tax fraud more often then other groups? That these groups are actually libertarian?

Bentusi16:

Nikolaz72:

Bentusi16:

Why are groups with patriot and Tea party in their name more likely to commit tax fraud versus political groups with different buzzwords within their charter or name?

Extreme Libertarians using the names as a cover. Libertarian tend to not associate themselves with names such as Liberal, Progressive, Socialist as they are more likely to find support for drastically lowered taxes on the right-wing.

Koch Brothers and other owners of giant corporations have also been known to make dozens of these small groups to transfer large payments to political candidates without being hit by bad publicity, or taxation. As such I could imagine this as the reason that names used by the political parties receiving the main funding from these fraudsters would come under additional scrutiny. Believe there was a small tax on larger group-donations that doesn't apply to individual donations of below 50dollars. As such they established tons of these groups to simulate individual payments when it was really just huge-money transfers cut up into small parts. This not only allowed them to avoid having their names plastered every over say, one political party. But also allowed them to present their chosen political candidate (The one that would lower taxes for them) as a man of the people (Due to massive number of donations)

Right, but do you have any proof the libertarians are going to commit tax fraud more often then other groups? That these groups are actually libertarian?

More often by default, heard no stories of Socialist groups working for huge corporations in a bid to give political candidates more funding so that they might gain power in order to decrease the taxes for the entitled few.

Heard plenty of Tea Party groups doing so, even from Fox News.

Learning from the past is one of the things we tend to be bad at, yet we know history repeat itself so often. As such it is generally smart to look to the past for the future. To see things like 'Nationalists are dangerous, don't support them' or 'Mistreating the poor leads to violent uprisings' and indeed 'Alleged Grassroot libertarian movements try to get out of paying taxes'

Fail to learn from these and shit happends.

Bentusi16:

Right, but do you have any proof the libertarians are going to commit tax fraud more often then other groups?

I have heard there are some studies (not that I've searched them out to read personally) that have suggested that various forms of lack of trust in government or dislike of taxation is liable to increase likelihood of engaging in tax evasion. This seems intuitive.

However, whilst libertarians surely tend to distrust the government and dislike taxation, this is nothing more than circumstantial evidence that libertarians do attempt to evade it more: there are plenty of other factors also likely to influence willingness to evade tax that could easily counteract them. Never mind adequate evidence they actually engage in more tax evasion. I'm guessing no-one has even tried to do a study comparing political stance with tax evasion.

Notsomuch:
It's just a politically and ideologically bankrupt political alignment looking to drum up controversy out of nowhere in a vain attempt to stay relevant. You can't really blame them though, when [conservatives] have to go through the re-branding of their key talking points just to trick people into no longer finding them despicable they need to reach for straws and try to discredit everyone else because other than that they have nothing.

I especially loved your take that this is GOP/conservatives trying to deceive Americans with revised talking points, when in a neighboring scandal the State Department trampled all over CIA reports and revised talking points on Benghazi which contradicted the current administration and would have made it look bad right before the election.

Oh by the way, the next time you apply for a job, hand your potential employer every social media post you've ever made and tell them what content you watch on TV, Internet and what you post about on forums. Or maybe you wouldn't do that, because it's totally insane. You do want the job though, don't you?

AgedGrunt:

Hap2:
One Democrat 501(c)(4) had already had its tax exempt status revoked.

It's disproportionate, but I'm not trying to make this a one-sided issue. That distracts from the rest of the scandal.

Yeah, pretty damn inconvenient when the facts contradict your narrative. Wouldn't want anything to distract from that.

Hap2:
Who exactly is 'profiling' what here?

All you're doing is trying to fit this into the narrative that 'the government is out to invade your privacy'

I've previously mentioned how groups were profiled and the types of things being demanded, as well as other federal agencies allegedly being used to harass in one case. Believe me, I want this to be far more than invasion of privacy, but in case you haven't stuck your head out America's window, it's raining denial out here. Heck, many are defending the IRS.

Skirting around my point doesn't get rid of it. You aren't delving thoroughly enough into the implications; you aren't asking the right questions. All you are interested in is the continued gratification and affirmation of your beliefs about the government, and its blinding you to some really nasty shit in US politics that this 'scandal' is being used as a smokescreen to distract us from. Who has the most to gain by making this a scandal? Following the money is almost always a safe bet. There's an old unwritten rule in politics (the US especially): "don't attack or destroy those elements that brought you to power". This 'scandal' of yours has less to do with the issue of privacy and more to do with the livelihood of politicians and their corporate buddies' interests. Remember it was these same politicians, including the president, who implemented and advocated many of the anti-privacy bills, movements, etc. (e.g. wiretapping, email watching, and most recently: the prosecution of whistleblowers under the Espionage Act), all in the name of 'freedom'. The same politicians who continue to promote austerity as the solution to economic depression, despite their favourite frequently cited study of austerity recently being shown to be riddled with errors (caused by a problem in MS Excel of all things), which ended up showing the opposite once accounted for. Why exactly are you so willing to dive into their arms now and believe their cries of the IRS 'invading their privacy', when in the past, these same politicians couldn't give two shits about your privacy before, so why are they raising a ruckus now?. They aren't credible and are inconsistent: you should be questioning their motives.

Hap2:
The question you should be asking is: why are these politicians, both Democrat and Republican, so desperate to hold onto the 501(c)(4) group's tax exempt status that they are willing to distract us with their demonizing of the IRS? I don't know about you, but I am sick of politicians and a wealthy few trying to cheat the fucking system at our expense.

Leading up to this scandal, Democrats called for increased scrutiny on nonprofits. I understand you want to make it about the pols, but the IRS is not a scapegoat here; the testimony and reports I've heard squarely indict them. No way can we let them off easy thinking bigger fish are in the waters. We can start at ground zero and work our way toward Capitol Hill and the White House, which continues to lose credibility by the day.

All you are doing is lopping off the top of one less significant weed and leaving a system of poisonous roots in the ground. What you have is a plutocracy of corrupt politicians being funded by corrupt corporations circumventing the system and using the mainstream media as a propaganda arm. If you really care about the state of the country, you take things holistically - "the truth, no matter what" - not what is simply politically convenient for you and your preconceived notions.

I like the part where he says "in the past couple weeks you've managed to show when the government wants to do good things your managerial competence falls somewhere between David Brent and a cat chasing a laser pointer, but when the government wants to flex it's more malevolent muscles YOUR FUCKING IRON MAN!"

So if the government cannot be trusted to not take advantage of it's powers with something as fundamental as collecting taxes, how can people trust it to have good intentions when it tries to pass gun control laws or something like NDAA, or how the Pentagon recently gave it's self the power to take control of "civil disturbances".

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked