IRS Collects $3.2 Billion in Tax Shelters

[gstelmack]

Yup, Bush keeps letting his big-business cronies off the hook http://dynamic2.gamespy.com/%7Efof/forums/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif

http://money.cnn.com/2005/03/24/pf/taxes/tax_shelter.reut/index.htm?cnn=yes

[Draft Dodger]

is this Bush guy someone who works for the IRS?

[flere-imsaho]

Martyr complex much? :p

[Flasch186]

Right, thats good, BUT it continues to back up my theories on corporate greed. We just keep finding out more and more that these people MUST be regulated heavily.

Yes, Im glad they caught the bastards but we must keep them from doing it in the first place TOO. I hate this shit. They fleece and fleece and fleece and we always have to play catch up.

These Execs. cannot exist laissez-faire or else they will sink you.

[Flasch186]

I'm bummed. I'm going to have to un-retire now.


LOL

[Solecismic]

I'm bummed. I'm going to have to un-retire now.

[st.cronin]

3.2 Billion is a LOT of money, even for the IRS.

[flere-imsaho]

I'm bummed. I'm going to have to un-retire now.

FOF 6? Sweet!!! :D

[gstelmack]

Right, thats good, BUT it continues to back up my theories on corporate greed. We just keep finding out more and more that these people MUST be regulated heavily.

Yes, Im glad they caught the bastards but we must keep them from doing it in the first place TOO. I hate this shit. They fleece and fleece and fleece and we always have to play catch up.

These Execs. cannot exist laissez-faire or else they will sink you.
Umm, this was an illegal shelter to begin with. How does more regulation keep someone from breaking existing regulations? It's similar to people who argued Colombine was a reason for more gun control laws, when the guns used there had been obtained illegally in the first place. What you want is more ENFORCEMENT to catch the guys breaking the existing rules, not more rules for them to break.

[Draft Dodger]

Umm, this was an illegal shelter to begin with. How does more regulation keep someone from breaking existing regulations? It's similar to people who argued Colombine was a reason for more gun control laws, when the guns used there had been obtained illegally in the first place. What you want is more ENFORCEMENT to catch the guys breaking the existing rules, not more rules for them to break.

so, you spinning the story to support your platform = ok, but Flasch spinning the story to support his = not ok.

ok.

[st.cronin]

All I know is if I were in charge of the IRS there would be a huge party this weekend. Like a 4 kegger, at least.

[Arles]

Bush does help control the amount of resources given to support IRS investigations. And that is something that has increased under his leadership. So, while he certainly doesn't deserve most of the credit, he does get some bonus points for making the IRS a priority in funding once again.

[Flasch186]

Umm, this was an illegal shelter to begin with. How does more regulation keep someone from breaking existing regulations? It's similar to people who argued Colombine was a reason for more gun control laws, when the guns used there had been obtained illegally in the first place. What you want is more ENFORCEMENT to catch the guys breaking the existing rules, not more rules for them to break.

I somehwat quote Bush's immigration czar...

We simply cant enforce the rules so we dont...they need to be changed because were not going to enforce them.

applicable? i dunno, but if they aren't going to enforce the rules that are on the books now than, sure, make some more rules and perhaps they'll "choose" to enforce those.

[flere-imsaho]

so, you spinning the story to support your platform = ok, but Flasch spinning the story to support his = not ok.

Of course! Like so:

John Kerry (speaking on the topic of Terrorism during the campaign): (http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/10/10/bush.kerry.terror/)

As a former law enforcement person, I know we're never going to end prostitution. We're never going to end illegal gambling. But we're going to reduce it, organized crime, to a level where it isn't on the rise. It isn't threatening people's lives every day, and fundamentally, it's something that you continue to fight, but it's not threatening the fabric of your life.

Republican Party Chairman Ed Gillespie, responding to Kerry's remarks: (http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/10/10/bush.kerry.terror/)

Terrorism is not a law enforcement matter, as John Kerry repeatedly says. Terrorist activities are not like gambling. Terrorist activities are not like prostitution. And this demonstrates a disconcerting pre-September 11 mindset that will not make our country safer. And that is what we see relative to winning the war on terror and relative to Iraq.

Emphasis mine.

Department of Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff, speaking after 9/11 in his role as Asst. District Attorney: (http://www.usembassy.it/file2001_09/alia/a1092617.htm)

frankly, we can't differentiate between terrorism and organized crime and drug dealing.

There are other provisions in the Department's anti-money laundering bill that would help us enormously in tracking the assets of terrorists. I mention these few as among the most critical, but a comprehensive revamping of these laws is necessary if we are to make meaningful headway against terrorism and other forms of international organized crime.

[gstelmack]

so, you spinning the story to support your platform = ok, but Flasch spinning the story to support his = not ok.

ok. I'm still trying to figure out what "spin" I applied to this story.

Look, there are two points I'll keep debating:

Flasch keeps arguing that we need more regulation to keep a closer eye on corporate crooks. To back up his point, he keeps posting stories about corporations getting caught breaking laws. I don't see how more regulation will lead to us catching guys breaking existing laws http://dynamic2.gamespy.com/%7Efof/forums/images/smilies/confused.gif I mean, if they're breaking the law, how do more laws help? And the evidence posted clearly shows that not nearly all of the guys are getting away with it. That's why my comment on enforcement. If you want to argue for more regulation, start posting stories about these guys doing something legal that's screwing people over; that's where a new regulation would help.

Others use Flasch's posts to argue that this just shows how Bush and his business cronies are joining up to screw everyone else over. Again, how exactly do stories about the crooks being CAUGHT and PUNISHED show that Bush is helping out his business buddies? Stashing money offshore has long been a gripe against these big business guys, and here you have evidence that the Federal Government in the guise of the IRS is catching and nailing these guys. If Bush is a friend to these guys, do they really need enemies? The closest people have come to backing this point up are links to certain regulations, but these have been countered with other regulations that argue just the opposite. I think those back-and-forth posts are where much of the spin in that debate is coming from.

The third debate that will never be solved is how many undetected lawbreakings are going on. Since these are undetected, we have no clue how many there are. You can argue lots, none, all, a few, whatever, and we'll go round and round in circles because we can't possibly know. I'm trying hard to jump off that merry-go-round.

I somehwat quote Bush's immigration czar...

We simply cant enforce the rules so we dont...they need to be changed because were not going to enforce them.

applicable? i dunno, but if they aren't going to enforce the rules that are on the books now than, sure, make some more rules and perhaps they'll "choose" to enforce those.
What's this in reference to? The article I quoted was clearly about guys being caught breaking existing regulations. I'll agree that there may be other areas where the existing regulations don't work and need to be re-written to close loopholes (the tax code is full of these, for example). But that's replacing the existing regulations, not adding more.

The key here is that there is a more moderate line to take. Not every corporation is evil, not every corporation is out to screw over anyone they can, but they do need to be watched with a reasonable amount of regulation. We're clearly catching some (many?) of these guys, so the approach seems sound, but may need tweaking. I don't think it needs an iron fist to come crashing down.