and 75 large business partnerships that have assets of roughly $10 billion on average are targeted for the new “compliance efforts.”
From the article.
Anyway, I think billionaires are millionaires. Have to be to have billions. Which is to say, I doubt they’re not targeting billionaires too and that I’m thankful that AI will help the IRS keep the rich accountable.
The difference in disposable capital between a millionaire and a billionaire is substantial. A millionaire might be able to drag out an audit and find clever loopholes.
A billionaire will simply fund Republican candidates that will defund the IRS so that they never even see the audit.
If you have a million, you can spend $1.9 every minute to spend it all in a year. If you have a billion, it’s $1900 every minute. A millionaire is just a rounding error for a billionaire.
But I think it missed the point of what I was saying.
Millionaire includes Billionaires. If you have 999 million, you don’t stop having millions of dollars because you rob people of one more million.
It’s an inclusive term of billionaires, and was probably chosen as the title of the article to save on space rather than to imply billionaires are somehow excluded from these new procedures.
another canidate question what has your past politics done for me locally? even nationally? if the answer is unsure or maybe some tv propaganda answer that was fed to you then why do they deserve votes
You don’t think Pelosi has done anything to advance the Democratic agenda? I don’t live in her district, so I’m not sure about locally, but I do think she’s been highly influential nationally, and I personally think she has done a good job.
That being said, her district is safe Democratic even if she doesn’t run. She should retire, enjoy the rest of her life with her family and leave feeling good about her accomplishments. It’s someone else’s job to carry on the work.
Why? A congressional term is 2 years. A Senate term is 6 years. Saying “it was x years/days/weeks ago” is totally unhelpful to the larger conversation. It’s reductive for no reason. And I think we both know you chose “hAlF a DeCaDe” for gravitas.
Now, if you had said something like “Pelosi hasn’t sponsored any major legislation since x”, sure. Let’s talk. Honestly, fact is she’s a fundraising dynamo. I fucking hate it, but that’s the framework we’re working in. She brings in money and is thus valuable to the DNC. In an ideal world she’d be replaced with a progressive who isn’t an octogenarian. But that’s clearly not where we are yet.
Agree to disagree. Her strategy for the house was fantastic, focusing on popular ideas like health care and avoiding dangerous losing topics like others in the party wanted. She’s great at being an election whip.
That isn’t “whataboutism”, you potato. I am pointing out Pelosi’s blatant hypocrisy and need to suck off that sweet sweet lobbyist grift and insider trading wins.
I literally campaign for the most progressive people possible. Go do that instead of wasting your time doing this. I wouldn’t ever campaign for pelosi in a primary if it makes you feel better.
I have a blind person to take care of and do not have that freedom. Since she has lost her sight and cannot work, she will lose her insurance soon. Thankfully we have to deal with multiple for-profit third parties who couldn’t care less whether she lives or dies in trying to keep her under some sort of umbrella because none of the taxes she paid all her life went towards health care.
Deepest sympathies to you. That is so awful. I battled cancer/lymphoma during the pandemic and was able to get my incredibly expensive healthcare paid for in (nearly) full due to MinnesotaCare and I will do my part to get that for everyone in the US. I appreciate you sharing your thoughts and sharing your experience. If you ever need someone to talk to, please dm me.
maybe US voters who should take more than colors and letters into consideration such as job resume over the years, what are they financially invested in, past examples of experience, et cetera
American Dissident and unable to vote here WHY THE F##K DO Y’ALL PEOPLE KEEP VOTING THESE F##KS BACK IN ? IS IT TO HAVE SOMETHING TO B###H ABOUT LATER ONLINE? talking to y’all will definitly vote biden this fall because his name does not start with T sounds like Pakleds voting
They won’t go after those from fear or being defunded further…
Conservative’s are agreeing to go after millionaires just to anger their base, the poor who think they’d be millionaires if it wasn’t for all this “socialism”.
I wonder, given the whole equal protection thing….
Could we sue the IRS for damages? I mean, this is the fed government’s revenue. Them running out of money…. And running up the debt affects us negatively….
It’s hard to summarize but basically they’re trying to decide if part of the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act is constitutional or not. It’s the part requiring taxpayers to pick up income for their share of income earned internationally that hasn’t been repatriated yet, essentially unrealized gains. This has broad implications on whether a wealth tax on unrealized capital gains (looking at you, Musk and Bezos et al) would be constitutional under the 16th Amendment which only authorizes an income tax.
I haven’t done a deep dive on that case though so I could be wrong, comments welcome.
I think if you interfere with a military intervention of the currently most important proxy war party of the united states then you are already an enemy of the state. the question is if they will finally do something about him…
Liberal idealism, with all it’s positives and negatives, dominates the way America thinks and American government works. Personal freedom and private enterprise are much more highly valued than state loyalty.
His painting that led to the suspension of the Mesa art exhibit, titled “My Florist is a Dick,” is seen by some as anti-police. It depicts a police officer in riot gear holding a baton with a flower growing out of it. The phrase ‘when his day starts your days end’ appears at the top right of the painting.
Sounds pretty fucking awesome to me, and I don’t even like Shepard Fairey’s work much.
Fuck the police.
EDIT: I looked it up. One of Fairey’s better works, for sure, but I’m still not a fan. Fuck the exhibitors though.
See, I don’t like his style. Apart from (including this, I bet) appropriating other artists’ work- many of them black artists, not a good look for a white man- I just think the idea could be executed better. The cop doesn’t look menacing enough even though he’s dressed that way because the baton is at rest. The flower just looks bad. The idea itself is, shall we say, remarkably similar to a scene in the film Yellow Submarine, where the Blue Meanies try to fire their guns, but flowers grow out of them instead.
Regarding his work overall, the Andre the Giant Has a Posse thing was interesting as a meme, but I’ve just never thought of him much as an artist. Even the Obama portrait- which he also appropriated- didn’t do much for me.
But my personal feelings about Shepard Fairey has nothing to do with whether or not his work should be exhibited.
If you really wanna get down to it, the vast majority of art is derivative.
Would I buy it? No. Is it similar to others? Absolutely. That doesn’t necessarily make it bad.(Also, check out cop’s face. That’s a skull.) (also? This guy is Native American, not white. This is an exhibit of native art.)
You need to re-read the article. The guy I am talking about, Shepard Fairey, is white. And it was his art that was the issue. And by ‘appropriate,’ I mean he directly takes their pictures, slightly modifies them, then sells them. He got sued for doing it for the Obama photo because it’s just a copy of an AP photo he added some colors to and the word ‘Hope’ at the bottom.
I don’t think it’s very good but apparently it was impactful enough as a criticism of the police to get the exhibit delayed (and expose the Mesa city government’s bootlicking)
Ice melting isn’t the part that makes the sea levels rise. Since ice displaces the same amount of volume as the melted version.
The part that makes the water rise is the fact that warm water increases in volume.
I feel this needs to be said more since I have had instances of right wingers thinking that because they know of the first fact (and believe climate scientists don’t), that the rising seawater is a hoax.
Fun fact, the weight of ice on land does push the tectonic plates down. Some of them are still rising from the loss of the weight of the glaciers after the last ice age.
All this is going to do is waste money on lawsuits that could be used to benefit the people.
When in reality this won’t do anything to slow down crime in Albuquerque. The most murders done in Albuquerque is by the police. Targeting legal gun owners won’t stop criminals from carrying firearms. Weaponizing the health system to deny constitutional rights really worked out well in the past.
I’m so glad I moved in 2020 from a city/county that is fine with police burning kids alive in their homes because they think a criminal is inside.
Targeting legal gun owners won’t stop criminals from carrying firearms.
I hate this talking point. You could say that about practically any law. “Targeting legal car owners won’t stop criminals from drunk driving” or even “targeting factories won’t stop some of them from criminally polluting.” That’s not the point. The point is to add charges once they’re caught to maximize their sentence.
It’s already illegal to carry a firearm and commit a crime…you wanting to make it double illegal? No this talking point is exactly that, a spot on assessment that laws like this only attack the law abiding gun owners. That’s exactly what they’re designed for, to create more criminals.
This is great if you assume all gun carriers are going to commit a crime with their gun.
The problem is this order can be used to attack people who are otherwise doing nothing wrong, who might be caring explicitly because they want to protect themselves from the crime wave this order is trying to address.
Things like: Universal health care, stronger worker protections, better welfare support, better maternal/paternal assistance.
People making enough money to support themselves, aren’t in constant danger of layoffs just to boost profits, can access physical and mental healthcare cheaply, aren’t financially ruined because they have a baby and new a few months off work, and aren’t in danger of losing everything over an emergency room visit aren’t out committing violent crimes.
Focusing on “gun” violence ignores the root cause of violent crimes regardless of the weapon of choice.
I didn’t say those were problems to distract from gun violence. I said those things are a solution to violence more broadly. And as a bonus, those social nets help everyone while not violating this country’s fundamental rights.
And I’ve pointed to strong solutions to help being us in line with other nations. Adding more violations to our constitutional rights is not something I support.
Why do you think there are laws prohibiting the possession of certain items or substances at all? I mean, why should a law abiding citizen owning a bomb, a sample of smallpox virus or a few pounds of heroin be a problem? Crimnals will get them anyhow and if they use them, it`s already illegal. Why is driving while intoxicated illegal? Wouldn’t it be sufficient if only causing an accident while drunk driving would be illegal? That would certainly be way easier and cheaper to police. Why do we have building codes? Unless the house collapses or blows up, nothing bad has happemed yet.
But the additional laws take away rights from the law abiding only. The simple solution is to enforce the laws already on the books to the full extent.
These laws only harm the lawful exercising their constitutional rights! Prosecutors will add these on but not to maximize a sentence rather to make it easier to get the bad guy to plead at the cost of not filing on some of the additional charges. Just fully enforce the laws on the books already.
I don’t know about every states gun laws or which laws you might be referring to but I feel it’s a safe bet to say that laws that pertain to crimes committed while using a firearm have not been weakened in very many places.
What may have been weakened are laws that restrict law abiding citizens from using firearms lawfully.
The laws are not “weakened” so much as pleaded down to less time or lesser charges. Prosecutors do this to get an easy “win” and clear cases from their dockets. There are a lot of gun laws that I agree with but more that I disagree that they solve any of the current problems. Again, enforce what is already law and leave the good people alone.
Don’t get me wrong, violence is horrible and should be stopped but as a realist I promise that it never will.
Targeting legal gun owners won’t stop criminals from carrying firearms.
Please compare the percentage of crimes commited with a firearm versus all crimes commited for the US and countries that have functioning laws limiting private gun ownership. In Germany (population about 80.000.000) in 2022 there were about 200,000 “crimes against personal freedoms” (this number is probably too low because I only added the numbers for the two main types of these crimes). In about 4500 cases (of all crimes) a gun was used to threaten somebody and in about 4000 cases (of all crimes) a shot was fired. So in the overwhelming majority of violent crimes (about 96%) no guns were used.
I agree with you, but for different reasons. I also think it’s an overreach to target everyone carrying guns, whether they are legal or not.
It’s the legal equivalent of calling “Time Out”. But it has to be enforceable, and I don’t see how this can possibly be enforceable, even if the local authorities wanted to enforce it. People who want to do dumb things with their firearms aren’t going to be deterred by this temporary measure. So it can only be enforced after someone does something irresponsible, and won’t do anything at all to prevent things and solve the problem the Governor is trying to solve. But you can be sure that the “Demoncrats want to take away your guns!!!” crowd will be citing this for the next 20 years. I bet they can use the Governor’s statements on this directly in campaign ads, just like the Biden campaign did with that MTG speech.
The only saving grace here is that this emergency measure is temporary, but we’ve seen this movie before…
news
Hot
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.